God

[theAlkēmist]

I am writing this in hope to spark theological discussion, these are a few things I’ve learnt in my theological and esoteric studies. I keep seeing some people referring to God as some all-mighty divine entity or being. You are simply underestimating your own divinity. Plato brought up an ideology in his Theory Of Idealism that our consciousness creates reality. This has been demonstrated in quantum physics (quantum means subatomic) with quantum observation (aka quantum intelligence or consciousness). A quantum particle doesn’t have a fixed state in physical reality but is a supraform of an unbound state and only ‘chooses’ a physical state once it has been observed (you can Google how this was discovered in controlled studies). This means that our consciousness is literally forming reality (as order), it exists in some form as an unbound chaotic state. This modern discovery supports what we learn in Alchemy, that God is an archetype for the reality creating collective consciousness within us all (the Oneness Buddhism and Hinduism talk about).

Let’s first look at the Tor. The original Genesis in The Old Testament is in Hebrew. The original creation story in Hebrew says ‘Elohim created the universe’. Although Elohim has been interpreted and translated as God, it actually means Gods or Deities, not one but many. This is very important to be made aware of. Now let’s go to the Bible and Koran. In both religious texts it is says God created existence, and God did this through the Word. Now in the Koran it talks about Jesus. It refers to him as Spirit Of God, Word Of God, Jesus Christ. If God is creator, and the Word was creation, and Jesus is the Word, then isn’t the Koran implying that Jesus is the creator and ultimately God? One interpretation to get around this is that the Word is a manifestation of God or that the Word is creation not creator, but this model has its own paradoxical difficulties. The Koran kind of traps itself here. We will come back to this.

Moving onto the Bible. It resolves this problem by referring to Jesus as the Son Of God. However, it is important to note that he encompasses the Holy Trinity, being one of the three hypostasise. So if we look at God objectively, in the Christian sense, God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, not one but many.

These are very important distinctions. In the Tor we have Elohim (Gods) creating the universe, in the Koran we have the Word (Jesus) creating the universe, and in the Bible we have God (which is the Holy Trinity, the Son being one aspect) creating the universe.

According to quantum physics we are constantly manifesting (or creating) reality as we go. The collective is. This is scientific fact (not hypothesis or speculation, considering we are able to define what a fact is philosophically, but for arguments sake let’s define a fact as a real thing). So we are the creators in the most fundamental sense. We are the Elohim in a physical sense. The Koran cannot say Word is creator without implying Jesus is God, so the only other option available is that Word is creation. So the creation is inherently creating reality, our collective consciousness. In the Bible we can break God into coeternal consubstantial persons and say the Son was part of the creation. But aren’t we all children of God? The Bible is written entirely patriarchal, so wouldn’t it be safe to assume the Son refers to all God’s children, both male and female? And if that’s the case aren’t we as the Son part of the creation process.

I pose that we collectively are the creators, our collective consciousness is an archetype of God. If we are all inherently God, with maximum spiritual potential, then we are this enlightenment already, we are just on a path to unlock it. We all have the power within us to contribute to collectively manifesting reality.

 

[FranLover]

I think we are children of God If you pay close attention to your body, and its orderly magnificence, you observe the fact that a mind created you. A human can draw a realistic human and understand that the drawing was created by his mind (and secondarilly his hand.) So the real human, and all animals and living beings, MUST be created by a mind with inteligence.

Confirming what/who/how/where this mind is what we are trying to do...but I speculate it may never be written down, only experienced, which leaves us all with the responsibility of finding this out for ourselves...

I think this because of what I speculate on and call private law, which dictates that what ocurrs in the brain and in dreams is private, what occurs in the processes before birth and at death are private, the galaxys,planets, and living organisims live private lives, always seperated from the universe by some veil~~Earth's blue glow, the stratosphere, atmosphere, biosphere, the seperation from strictly aquatic organisms from the land and air and flora and fauna above, the endless layers of a particle, the unobservability of the organs (William Harvey) and on and on.

Another fact is that of Eternal Bliss (which has been turned into a concept but is not!) Every deep meditator or psychonaut has encountered the ultimate JOY of the circus in gods realm. Why such joy? Why is this all that is left once everything has been taken away from man? What does this say about nature and about ourselves?...This self-sustaining colorful and infinite JOY and LOVE...how can this EVER be explained?

How does one who has seen thing expain to someone who has never had these visions what the magnificence of GOD looks like? Though you know how to speak, it always feels like what you said is not IT...even if you are an amazing painter you can not paint the colors of GOD for they shine and glitter and are all colors at once...they are not of this world. So every vision of GOD is private....even if said it is not said.

McKenna once had a lecture called "Human's soul is the most alien thing in the universe." Or I belive it was called that.

. I really like that title!!

Man is forever a mystery to himself. And God is always a mystery to man. Another link between God and Man.

The processes of the brain are private. If I see the images below and see God in them, no one can ever know HOW I see god in them, for the whole of the brain is synesthetic, and thus a mystery to the experiencer, who is penetrating his brain and experiencing these things and can not, and maybe does not even care, explain it to the outer world.

I didnt play off much of what you said and just wrote my own thing, but I liked what you wrote. Good to know the definition of quantum too!

 

[Tony6Strings]

I feel strongly that we were created by God, the source of all things. A few of my strongest psychedelic breakthroughs have seemed to really drive this point home. I love those ones I hold them dear to my heart. I have no use for the religion that was shoved down my throat growing up, don't really care to own or be owned by any organised religion or church. Psychedelics, and the spice especially this last year, have given me the gift of believing in a way that is very liberating. I see intelligent design everywhere in creation, especially in the human being, our minds, our souls, our emotions. I choose to believe that when we die, the most important essence of who we are (spirit) goes back to our creator.

 

[0_o]

Logos doesn't mean word.

 

[DmnStr8]

I feel strongly that we were created by God, the source of all things. A few of my strongest psychedelic breakthroughs have seemed to really drive this point home. I love those ones I hold them dear to my heart. I have no use for the religion that was shoved down my throat growing up, don't really care to own or be owned by any organised religion or church. Psychedelics, and the spice especially this last year, have given me the gift of believing in a way that is very liberating. I see intelligent design everywhere in creation, especially in the human being, our minds, our souls, our emotions. I choose to believe that when we die, the most important essence of who we are (spirit) goes back to our creator.

Tony6Strings I liked what you stated! I can see that is something very important to you and feel it when I read it. I find your perspective beautiful!

“The decisive question for man is: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of his life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interests upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. Thus we demand that the world grant us recognition for qualities which we regard as personal possessions: our talent or our beauty. The more a man lays stress on false possessions, and the less sensitivity he has for what is essential, the less satisfying is his life. He feels limited because he has limited aims, and the result is envy and jealousy. If we understand and feel that here in this life we already have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change.”

 

[Th Entity]

Beautiful Dog and Parrots pics, i like it.

 

[Asher7]

I think it’s all right here, creator with us right now. We’re created, in God, God didn’t run to the hardware store and get supplies we are of God. It gets real trippy to meditate on that. I think a lot of it is us creating our lives because what we choose to see and interact with are the things that build and define our growth over time physical and spiritual. If you already have it made up that God doesn’t exist, you’ll never see it. Attitude. One more rep on the tail end or one less, it adds up over time.

I’m telling you, this is more than just a hunch. The biggest smoking gun of a creator is life, everywhere. Things take a whole new tone when you can get the veil of normalcy out of what you’re looking at, as I’m sure you lot understand well.8)

 

[theAlkēmist]

Beautiful thoughts and pictures Fran. I like your style of thinking from our discussions.

It’s funny I was a staunch aesthet for a period. Then I realised that lack of evidence of something isn’t evidence something doesn’t exist. And in theoretical physics there’s plenty of evidence of a creator, not to be confused with a monotheistic God.

 

[dragonrider]

A problem with quantum physics is that it is so complicated and advanced that it is very hard for someone who isn't professionaly involved to realy say anything meaningfull about it, but i believe that it hasn't realy been settled yet, wether it's simply interaction or realy counscious observation that causes quantum states to "collapse".

 

[xss27]

A problem with quantum physics is that it is so complicated and advanced that it is very hard for someone who isn't professionaly involved to realy say anything meaningfull about it, but i believe that it hasn't realy been settled yet, wether it's simply interaction or realy counscious observation that causes quantum states to "collapse".

In other words, it's a modern priesthood for those special authorized few. It's ironic that so many denounce the religions of old then immediately substitute them with a new order of explaining things. No matter how convincing it is, it is still acting as a middleman; God requires no middleman, it is eminently available. The issue is that rather than see what is we default to imagination and confuse fantasies with reality. Individually and collectively we have these 'ah-ha!' moments where some clarity shines through only for us then to immediately try to grasp it and our imagination goes spinning off on another tangent.

 

[FranLover]

A problem with quantum physics is that it is so complicated and advanced that it is very hard for someone who isn't professionaly involved to realy say anything meaningfull about it, but i believe that it hasn't realy been settled yet, wether it's simply interaction or realy counscious observation that causes quantum states to "collapse".

In other words, it's a modern priesthood for those special authorized few. It's ironic that so many denounce the religions of old then immediately substitute them with a new order of explaining things. No matter how convincing it is, it is still acting as a middleman; God requires no middleman, it is eminently available. The issue is that rather than see what is we default to imagination and confuse fantasies with reality. Individually and collectively we have these 'ah-ha!' moments where some clarity shines through only for us then to immediately try to grasp it and our imagination goes spinning off on another tangent.

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

 

[xss27]

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

Why would I want to study a field that is not complete, partial and subject to change at any moment, and which depends on studying other fields (mathematics) to a very high degree in order to comprehend the first field?

How is that any different to having to suffer through years of subjugating your will to superiors in order to be ordained as a priest? Saying it is "accessible to all" is what you expect to find in the prospective university courses pamphlet - it's marketing spin. It glosses over the fact you need to be intellectually and academically brilliant.

 

[FranLover]

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

Why would I want to study a field that is not complete, partial and subject to change at any moment, and which depends on studying other fields (mathematics) to a very high degree in order to comprehend the first field?

How is that any different to having to suffer through years of subjugating your will to superiors in order to be ordained as a priest? Saying it is "accessible to all" is what you expect to find in the prospective university courses pamphlet - it's marketing spin. It glosses over the fact you need to be intellectually and academically brilliant.

hehe, I do not agree Xss27. What you say is really smart though, and i dont mean this to compliment. The answer to your question is; Because you love/like it, which makes all the difference.

In my oppinion its very different because in one case you are corrupted by other humans and the institutions, as where in studying any science or art it is just you in some room.

 

[theAlkēmist]

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

Why would I want to study a field that is not complete, partial and subject to change at any moment, and which depends on studying other fields (mathematics) to a very high degree in order to comprehend the first field?

How is that any different to having to suffer through years of subjugating your will to superiors in order to be ordained as a priest? Saying it is "accessible to all" is what you expect to find in the prospective university courses pamphlet - it's marketing spin. It glosses over the fact you need to be intellectually and academically brilliant.

Every field is constantly changing, evolving, updating, its egotistical to say we know everything. I can even philosophically debate waters boiling point or that 2+2=4. Things are in an ever stating flux. My personal view is the opposite of yours, why wouldn’t you want to contribute? Isn’t that fundamentally what the Nexus is about, studying a field with experimentation?

And quantum physics isn’t difficult to understand once you study it. The problem is we have relatively for the macrocosm and quantum physics for the microcosm, the biggest issue is we don’t have a unifying theory. The big stuff is made up off the small stuff, so logically shouldn’t they have the same laws? Then again I’ve seen the notion of logic be thrown out the door by philosophists.

I’ll explain quantum observation for the people who don’t quite grasp it:

The Law Of Conservation Of Information
This ties into why we have no unifying theory, why does matter behave differently on a macroscopic and microscopic scale? We have relativity for the ‘big stuff’ and quantum mechanics for the ‘small stuff’, two separate laws of physics. But, the ‘big stuff’ is made of the ‘small stuff’, so by logic shouldn’t there be one law? Many physicists are trying to find a unifying theory, but let me introduce you to the law of conservation of information. So, the ‘big stuff’ is made of a large number of particles, which means the ‘big stuff’ has a large amount of mass and energy content. Using the laws of thermodynamics, its properties will not change based on the interaction with its surroundings. Hence, macroscopic systems are deterministic and definite. Whereas, a single quantum particle has a low mass-energy content, and thus, will change its properties on interacting with its surroundings, and the only way to measure its properties is through an observer. One does not know how the properties will change until the quantum particle is observed, this property change through observation is called quantum uncertainty. Now, if a particle has not interacted with its surroundings in a state dependent manner, there is no way for an observer to tell in which state the particle is, there is no information about its state in the universe, thus it cannot have a particular state. Lol! Basically, when it is observed it has to take a ‘decision’ for the observer to tell the particles state. This ‘decision’ is completely random? As this ‘decision’ is information that is instantaneously registered in the universe, it is impossible to erase. Hence, the particle will now have a definitive state, but it is important to note that this definitive state is a superposition of all its hypothetical infinite possibilities, and all these possibilities existed when the particle was not made to take a state dependent decision, which is compulsory for observation. This phenomena is referred to as quantum intelligence or quantum consciousness.

 

[dragonrider]

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

Why would I want to study a field that is not complete, partial and subject to change at any moment, and which depends on studying other fields (mathematics) to a very high degree in order to comprehend the first field?

How is that any different to having to suffer through years of subjugating your will to superiors in order to be ordained as a priest? Saying it is "accessible to all" is what you expect to find in the prospective university courses pamphlet - it's marketing spin. It glosses over the fact you need to be intellectually and academically brilliant.

Every field is constantly changing, evolving, updating, its egotistical to say we know everything. I can even philosophically debate waters boiling point or that 2+2=4. Things are in an ever stating flux. My personal view is the opposite of yours, why wouldn’t you want to contribute? Isn’t that fundamentally what the Nexus is about, studying a field with experimentation?

And quantum physics isn’t difficult to understand once you study it. The problem is we have relatively for the macrocosm and quantum physics for the microcosm, the biggest issue is we don’t have a unifying theory. The big stuff is made up off the small stuff, so logically shouldn’t they have the same laws? Then again I’ve seen the notion of logic be thrown out the door by philosophists.

I’ll explain quantum observation for the people who don’t quite grasp it:

The Law Of Conservation Of Information
This ties into why we have no unifying theory, why does matter behave differently on a macroscopic and microscopic scale? We have relativity for the ‘big stuff’ and quantum mechanics for the ‘small stuff’, two separate laws of physics. But, the ‘big stuff’ is made of the ‘small stuff’, so by logic shouldn’t there be one law? Many physicists are trying to find a unifying theory, but let me introduce you to the law of conservation of information. So, the ‘big stuff’ is made of a large number of particles, which means the ‘big stuff’ has a large amount of mass and energy content. Using the laws of thermodynamics, its properties will not change based on the interaction with its surroundings. Hence, macroscopic systems are deterministic and definite. Whereas, a single quantum particle has a low mass-energy content, and thus, will change its properties on interacting with its surroundings, and the only way to measure its properties is through an observer. One does not know how the properties will change until the quantum particle is observed, this property change through observation is called quantum uncertainty. Now, if a particle has not interacted with its surroundings in a state dependent manner, there is no way for an observer to tell in which state the particle is, there is no information about its state in the universe, thus it cannot have a particular state. Lol! Basically, when it is observed it has to take a ‘decision’ for the observer to tell the particles state. This ‘decision’ is completely random? As this ‘decision’ is information that is instantaneously registered in the universe, it is impossible to erase. Hence, the particle will now have a definitive state, but it is important to note that this definitive state is a superposition of all its hypothetical infinite possibilities, and all these possibilities existed when the particle was not made to take a state dependent decision, which is compulsory for observation. This phenomena is referred to as quantum intelligence or quantum consciousness.

But what is still being debated, i believe, is whether counscious observation is required for this, or just interaction in general.

Just saying.
As the implications of the first would be kinda big.

 

[theAlkēmist]

No, its accsesible to all. But no one wants to study! Its sort of the opposite:lol:

Why would I want to study a field that is not complete, partial and subject to change at any moment, and which depends on studying other fields (mathematics) to a very high degree in order to comprehend the first field?

How is that any different to having to suffer through years of subjugating your will to superiors in order to be ordained as a priest? Saying it is "accessible to all" is what you expect to find in the prospective university courses pamphlet - it's marketing spin. It glosses over the fact you need to be intellectually and academically brilliant.

Every field is constantly changing, evolving, updating, its egotistical to say we know everything. I can even philosophically debate waters boiling point or that 2+2=4. Things are in an ever stating flux. My personal view is the opposite of yours, why wouldn’t you want to contribute? Isn’t that fundamentally what the Nexus is about, studying a field with experimentation?

And quantum physics isn’t difficult to understand once you study it. The problem is we have relatively for the macrocosm and quantum physics for the microcosm, the biggest issue is we don’t have a unifying theory. The big stuff is made up off the small stuff, so logically shouldn’t they have the same laws? Then again I’ve seen the notion of logic be thrown out the door by philosophists.

I’ll explain quantum observation for the people who don’t quite grasp it:

The Law Of Conservation Of Information
This ties into why we have no unifying theory, why does matter behave differently on a macroscopic and microscopic scale? We have relativity for the ‘big stuff’ and quantum mechanics for the ‘small stuff’, two separate laws of physics. But, the ‘big stuff’ is made of the ‘small stuff’, so by logic shouldn’t there be one law? Many physicists are trying to find a unifying theory, but let me introduce you to the law of conservation of information. So, the ‘big stuff’ is made of a large number of particles, which means the ‘big stuff’ has a large amount of mass and energy content. Using the laws of thermodynamics, its properties will not change based on the interaction with its surroundings. Hence, macroscopic systems are deterministic and definite. Whereas, a single quantum particle has a low mass-energy content, and thus, will change its properties on interacting with its surroundings, and the only way to measure its properties is through an observer. One does not know how the properties will change until the quantum particle is observed, this property change through observation is called quantum uncertainty. Now, if a particle has not interacted with its surroundings in a state dependent manner, there is no way for an observer to tell in which state the particle is, there is no information about its state in the universe, thus it cannot have a particular state. Lol! Basically, when it is observed it has to take a ‘decision’ for the observer to tell the particles state. This ‘decision’ is completely random? As this ‘decision’ is information that is instantaneously registered in the universe, it is impossible to erase. Hence, the particle will now have a definitive state, but it is important to note that this definitive state is a superposition of all its hypothetical infinite possibilities, and all these possibilities existed when the particle was not made to take a state dependent decision, which is compulsory for observation. This phenomena is referred to as quantum intelligence or quantum consciousness.

But what is still being debated, i believe, is whether counscious observation is required for this, or just interaction in general.

Just saying.
As the implications of the first would be kinda big.

Well you are right if we follow the principles of the Law of Conservation of Information, but researchers suggest it is observation not interaction. They discovered this phenomena by shooting particles through teeny slits. Then measured and only observed after experimentation. The particles always acted randomly when not observed. When observed then measured they would act the same. So it’s suggested that subjective observation is required, hence the term quantum intelligence.

 

[xss27]

My personal view is the opposite of yours, why wouldn’t you want to contribute? Isn’t that fundamentally what the Nexus is about, studying a field with experimentation?

I am contributing but by rebutting the starting position that quantum physics is relevant to the discussion of God.

And quantum physics isn’t difficult to understand once you study it. The problem is we have relatively for the macrocosm and quantum physics for the microcosm, the biggest issue is we don’t have a unifying theory. The big stuff is made up off the small stuff, so logically shouldn’t they have the same laws? Then again I’ve seen the notion of logic be thrown out the door by philosophists.

From my standpoint both quantum physics (current paradigm) and relativity are nonsense theories in relation to how things are, and which is why subsequently there will be no unifying theory coming from that direction. I know I'm not going to make any friends with that perspective, especially disparaging the untouchable relativity, but it's what I genuinely think. I think modern science took a wrong deliberate turn about 100 years ago when some very powerful people got wind of how things actually are. I could write a lot on that, but to sum it in one word - Tesla.

When a theory is built with no relation to reality, to paraphrase Tesla, it will inevitably crumble like a castle of sand. Both relativity, and quantum physics in its current paradigm/direction, are destined for the dustbin of history. There's a reason why neither theory can scale up or down into each others domain successfully, and it's largely to do with the fact they're both built around a heavy use of mathematical speculation first instead of using mathematics as a tool to explain what is actually observed after experimentation. The same fault can be laid at the door of modern astrophysics which likewise has built itself a whole paradigm built on sand (and off the back of relativity theory). It will all come crashing down sooner or later and have to undergo drastic revision.

We've been looking in the wrong direction. Electricity, electromagnetism, plasma physics. The forces involved there scale across all domains, from subatomic right up to the galactic which we can see with our telescopes - all those pretty galactic space images.. plasma; twisting, spun, stretched across light years of space by electricity. What holds back peoples imagination is the word gravity and the rigid adherence to the scientific dogma of relativistic thinking.

God has more in common with electricity than quantum physics.

"The day when we shall know exactly what “electricity” is, will chronicle an event probably greater, more important than any other recorded in the history of the human race. The time will come when the comfort, the very existence, perhaps, or man will depend upon that wonderful agent" - Nikola Tesla

 

[0_o]

Quantum physics is not well understood by lay people.

The idea of observation affecting outcomes is not as often represented.
Imagine an ocean and you want to measure a wave.
Where does it begin?
Where does it end?
You have criteria you need to establish when you measure it, that affects the outcome of the measurement.
Particles on some scales are not things, they are criteria sets for measurement, this doesn't extrapolate into metaphysical claims. No self respecting quantum physicists will do that, they aren't Vice tabloid reporters.

And I won't get started on Quantum chromodynamics...

 

[theAlkēmist]

xss27 I actually completely agree with you, I think relatively and quantum physics are both fundamentally flawed, and they will become redundant in time, most definitely agree. However, we cannot ignore the discoveries of experimentation and observation of nature just because we know our current understanding is flawed. Quantum particles do behave like this and the fact can’t be ignored, but ‘the why’ we do not grasp and that entire understanding will inherently evolve.

You also stated God has nothing to do with quantum physics. I pose this question to you, if God is everything, then aren’t the laws and equations we use to describe nature the same laws to fundamentally describe God (in a deistic not theistic sense)? And if that is the case, in hindsight, isn’t theoretical physics our very elementary understanding of God?

As my favourite theoretical physicist put it:

“Spirituality is the physics we have not yet discovered.”
- Nassim Haramein, Theoretical Physicist

This is an explanation for the possibility of why our current physics is flawed, and thus quantum physics. So according to quantum physics the shortest distance measurable between quantum particles is called Planck’s Constant, which is technically an energy exchange between particles not a distance, but it’s counted as a distance. All our quantum physics is based on this constant, but with this model quantum particles are a measurable lattice, very much like pixels.

Nothingness
This is a concept that is near impossible to get our head around, the question is why? What is nothing? Well ironically, nothing does not exist. There is no such thing as nothingness. But what about outer space, the space between air molecules, even the space between quantum particles? Let us start off with the space in our atmosphere, we perceive it as nothing, but our senses are very limited. If you tune a radio to the right station it picks up radio waves that are already there in this ‘nothingness’. The space between matter is a chaotic plethora of energy, consisting of radio waves, x-rays, ultraviolet waves, sound waves, light waves, all sorts of frequencies. You can take this even further and say, perceivable matter, the fundamentals of our reality and universe, is actually 0.000001% of what exists. What we physically perceive is almost nothing, think of the space between air molecules (actually, all matter), the space between atoms, and even the interatomic space between quantum particles, nothing ever touches, this space makes up 99.999999% of our existence, and this space is a chaotic plethora of energy, it is not empty. If we are 0.0000001% perceivable matter and 99.999999% space, therefore, we are this energy, and this energy unifies us all. On a macroscopic galactic level, the space in the universe is also not empty, from the obvious light waves, to the stars emitting radiation waves, and then there is dark matter and anti-matter.

So if nothing ever touches how is Planck’s Constant a thing? Our focus is on the 0.000001% and we wonder why we cannot find a unifying theory. Maybe we should focus on the 99.99999% of ‘nothingness’.

 

[0_o]

Nothingness in physics isn't a non-entity.
It doesn't not exist.
It's not the same as the concept of nothing.

Nassim Haramein is not considered legit by anyone in physics.