The Physics of God as Seen in Reflection - Proof of God as Verified by Physics

Self-love is love of others. You must see yourself as others. Here is an article I wrote that may clear it up. LINK We consider all equal, including ourselves. Is it wrong to receive the reward of good work? Not at all. This is pride, but it is pride in a job well done. This is different than arrogant pride that harms others. This gets back to the idea of the direction that suffering takes. If you suffer work, reward follows. If you take reward, suffering follows. Smoke and you get cancer. Suffer the work of an education and you get reward. This is God's law of reaping and sowing. There is nothing wrong with pride in labor as long as it benefits others. You must consider yourself equal with the others.

I think you are on the right track with the your perspective. Read the Bible. It is the best source for reflection. What I like to do is dwell on a topic at hand and search the bible by keyword. This kind of horizontal reading provides perspective. If you are grounded in Biblical truth, then read Rumi the Sufi. The Discourses of Rumi are amazing in many places. You need to realize that He was Islamic, so the perspective is what it is. Other than this, He was obviously in tune with God. Also, the Dhammapada is an amazing perspective. Both of these assisted me in understanding my biblical perspective in a clearer way.

As for the ego, you cannot kill it. This is the problem for us.

1 John 1:8 "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

We are bound by pride and sin. Christ came to conquer this followed by the millennial reign on earth. We are always going to be influenced by evil and pride until the final judgment of creation. Like I said earlier, the Bible message is love for others and God. The rest is commentary to assist us in this goal. The goal is not ours to win. Christ already did this for us. We are now bound to reach for the same victory. We all fight sin and temptation.

2 Timothy 4

7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. 8 Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

Christ REDEFINED buddhism? As you have redefined it, and as you have redefined science, and as you have redefined secular society and as you have redefined mysticism. You never get the feeling, that you're overdoing the 'adaption' approach, from your self-proclaimed 'superior' knowledge position?

Confucius wanted what was best for His people. Buddha wanted to find enlightenment. Christ was the enlightenment. Christ was the definition of the entire story that reality tells. This is the meaning of the LOGOS. Part of the LOGOS is a story teller of virtue and truth. Reality is His story. All perspectives tell a part.

Life is a progression from point A to point Z. Did God create all seven continents and place people there? All seven continents have a place in God's heart and I assume they all have a story to teach each of us. The Bible is my filter for gaining perspective. If it is Buddhism or Judaism or any other ism, the Bible is the defining factor of it all. Do the Hebrews differ form the Christians? Do they use the same Old Testament books and worship the same God? Only the perspective and definition of theology is what divides. We all have our own way of looking at truth. Love is a many splendid thing. There is value in any life lived.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
For the non-believer there is no swing of this pendulum toward truth. The nonbeliever can only swing from fear to self-pride. This is the same swing. Material to inner pride. When He arrives at the balance point between, it becomes a false self-confidence based on bias against the church and other people in the world. A person can only love themselves if they suffer the disease of pride. It is a wall of protection instead of a door of freedom.

This struck a chord-- partly dissonant.

Context: From another discussion, the topic concerned the various names and speculative causes for what is sometimes called, "Death of the ego." I keep trying to put mine out of its misery, but the dang thing won't die. Spiritual wisdom offered to me is basically nothing more than "Be patient."

But when I read the quote, above, I thought of, "Love your neighbor as yourself." So: How is self-love other than Pride?

Practically, it seems to me, that a person whose ego has died, does not turn into a doormat and allow the robust ego of others to do it violence. To do so would seem to be to dismiss some deeply held altruisms: valor, justice and honor come to mind.

And because there are clearly those influences which (who) seek to do violence to innocents, I run into difficulty with extremes being the same (e.g., good/evil yin-yang). While both are, one must restrain evil to protect an innocent while loosing good upon all.

I also notice in another post something which you wrote equivocating the world to "Pride." Do you believe that the world is an enemy to faith and/or the spiritual life only in that it acts on (or with) Pride, or is there a non-personal evil? I have in mind the classic threefold renunciations of "the world, the flesh, and the devil." I THINK, your use of the "material to inner pride" answers that question. That is to say that material will become all, leaving no room for the spiritual make-up of man.

At any rate, what you describe in that paragraph is an excellent definition of what I perceive my society to have become, including an infiltration into the post-modern Church which come, in various ways; such as the "Prosperity Gospel" so popular and influential: Balance material gain by subduing Pride, but define your worth (even in God's eyes) by your material gain.

Personal note: I went up against an evil, sought to restrain it. I thought I could, and if I couldn't I thought I could find help. I was wrong-- on both counts. Many suffered because I failed to stop it. I was overwhelmed and I was alone. That evil works even today with impunity. I speculate that my ego refuses to die, because of my resentment for being left alone in the fight in which I received a mortal blow.

Taking that thought full circle: If the spiritual life is about love, then it must be about relation with others. But if one is alone... Then what?

Somewhere in there, is a conflict which I have to discover and so cannot reconcile.

EDIT: Oh! I am looking for purpose, and the one term from your quote I did not address was "truth." My ego demands purpose to allow me to more fully enter truth (more fully, "God."). I want that because I hate the idea that if my ego dies, and I have truth but no purpose, I would become nothing to the world. I believe in that I now see the conflict.

edit on 11-7-2011 by Frira because: Added Postscript.

I remember back in the 80's, people think twice before mocking God. But now...People open their mouth without thinking and without solid backup to their scornful behaivours. if human are so damn superb, Why people dies?. Superb being don't die dude .

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

...This gets back to the idea of the direction that suffering takes. If you suffer work, reward follows. If you take reward, suffering follows. Smoke and you get cancer. Suffer the work of an education and you get reward. This is God's law of reaping and sowing. There is nothing wrong with pride in labor as long as it benefits others. You must consider yourself equal with the others.

I take your point and accept that (qualified below-- which I suspect you will agree is fine). I'll try and tackle your article later-- my brain wants play time, and I am going to let it have it!

Qualification:
(and having nothing to do with the discussion of pride)

There is much suffering which is not just. There is much unearned reward. There is much earned, but never rewarded. People smoke all their life and do not get cancer, and babies are born only to die of cancer a year later.

I nit-pick, here because without it, I give room for the notion that if someone suffers an injustice, that they suffer anyway is "God's will." The flip-side of that coin, is that if someone is rich by unjust gain, that it, too, is "god's will." This leaves no place for justice, nor for mercy. I am desperately in need of both.

reply to post by Frira


You wrote:

["Perhaps, but the evidence, based on your posts to others on this thread, is that you do not read a post as a whole-- but attack it on a sentence by sentence basis."]

If there is no whole, but only incompatible postulates gathered together by similarities, there's no whole to relate to.

Quote: ["In fact, you are about to write that you find nothing to discuss, but rather only interrupt and oppose-- which is exactly what I said of you!"]

I have already answered to that. Relate to that answer instead of ignoring it and just repeating your accusation.

Quote: ["Well, perhaps you may wish to read up on the Eraser Experiment-- but I don't teach physics; and my interpretation of the experiment is hardly my own."]

I have offered you to look at the details of the double-slit experiment, which you have misinterpretated. If you then have additional comments based on the eraser experiment, we can proceed to that.

Quote: ["Actually, the antecedent was "In theology, we call those mysteries." Do you get that the topic is about theology and science?"]

That you (allegedly) identify theist claims with science (be the 'calling' done in theology or elsewhere) and that the topic is about this, does not in the least bind me to your premises.

The thread-author's 'constructions' of theist-scientific congruence is what I deny, and for which I want validation. Now you use those constructions as a reference-point, from where debate must take place. This is called a circle-argument, something I have pointed out constantly along all the thread-authors several variations of the same thread.

Theists are very fond of circle-argumentation, and use it indiscriminately. It's worthless in a context of real science/logic.

Quote: ["The similarities? So, using analogies such as I have ought not to stump you so."]

You can use all the similarities, analogies, allegories you like; they can sometimes be useful to illustrate certain points. But they have no place in an actual rational reasoning chain.

Hi People,

Can we please stick to discussing/debating the topic and not eachother.


Cheers.

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by alien
Hi People,

Can we please stick to discussing/debating the topic and not eachother.


Cheers.

Apparently not. It seems the discussion is about whether or not the topic is allowed to be discussed if another contributor objects to it being discussed.

If that other contribute declares his intent to interrupt, oppose and argue semantics rather than discuss, how about little moderator help?

Let's talk about 'Proof of God as verified by physics'. Best done by referring to standard scientific physics (unless a better unorthodox 'scientific model' is presented).

Sure. Light is where it starts. This is energy at high frequency. The early universe was in a high state of order and low entropy. Then, we need to talk about the elegance and synchronization of mathematics that are used to create the geometry of form. Then we need to talk about the laws that govern the physics of the universe so that life can exist. Then we need to talk about the inter-connectivity of all these processes that brings this ballet of irreducible complexity to a balancing point of regularity. Before we can talk about the bio-mechanical machines, we need to talk about consciousness in matter. How does matter become living? Before we can approach this, however, the laws that govern the universe must be plumbed. Nothing else matters with our conversation until we get to the essence of the laws of physics.

As stated by Dirac's relativistic quantum mechanical wave equation, we must realize that our universe is parallel to another universe in opposite. Our matter is anti-matter to this mirrored universe. The event horizon between these two represents the projection point of both.

As stated in Genesis 1:1, God created TIME, SPACE, MATTER and ENERGY. The LOGOS put this into form as a story (John 1). Logos is the master story teller. Read the Wiki on Logos. This Word that was used to put the universe into motion permiates the universe as the laws that govern and bind it together.

As suggest by Dirac's equation, we are on one side of the tree of life (our universe) as God creates the other using our choices to define the other side. God says in the Bible that if any man were to look upon Him, they would be instantly consumed. This is what happens between matter and anti-matter. Dirac's equation suggests that changes that are made here are also made in the other universe. We are on the manifest and passing side of creation while God creates the true reality in perfection with no entropy.

Matthew 18:18

"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

In heaven, there are many dwelling places that were not made by us. God prepares a new heavens and a new earth for us as this one is consumed by the other in the end. The next heaven and earth is where this side of creation comes after learning the law of love. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. We must be more than flesh to survive.

John 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.

From this point, I go past the laws that govern the universe and Heaven so I am ahead of myself.

Your turn. Let's hear your version of the laws that govern the universe. Where do they originate? How do we explain the irreducible complexity of it all in support of living matter? How do we explain living matter? How do we explain complex information in matter?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Frira

Originally posted by alien
Hi People,

Can we please stick to discussing/debating the topic and not eachother.


Cheers.

Apparently not. It seems the discussion is about whether or not the topic is allowed to be discussed if another contributor objects to it being discussed.

If that other contribute declares his intent to interrupt, oppose and argue semantics rather than discuss, how about little moderator help?

Let's talk about 'Proof of God as verified by physics'. Best done by referring to standard scientific physics (unless a better unorthodox 'scientific model' is presented).

Since I have explained the laws of God that govern the universe and provided a purpose for those laws, I will review the first three verses in Genesis and then go on to give a perspective on the rest of creation.

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

The spirit hovered over the waters. The darkness was divided from the light. Just as we would expect as the universe cooled and the high state of order and low entropy begins to take shape for life.

God created us in His image and in the the image of God both.

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

We are an artificial reality and artificial lifeforms to God. We are inside His created image on the other side of His reality. We are also made in His likeness. That is, we have particle, wave and consciousness.

These three are described by the trinity of creation.

Father - Light, both particle and wave.

Son - Logos / Programming language of creation. Wave to form.

Holy Spirit (Consciousness)

We begin life with the spirit given by God in an unrefined state. As we grow and understand, we have the opportunity to move closer toward His Holy Spirit. This is God's development of sentience, as we are artificial to Him and a fresh creation. We are one person with the trinity within us. We are particle and we are wave. This is matter. We are living matter since we also have the spirit that animates our matter and gives us consciousness. God is the same to us. He is one person but three persons in the trinity, as represented in us and the material world.

To develop sentience, the LOGOS creates a story that we live in. This gives us the opportunity to learn by doing. We live the story, as characters in the story. This is how God can tell us the future. It is already written by the LOGOS. The Logos is found in John 1.

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it."

The Word writes the story. The Bible is the Word to men in written form. It is also the blueprints for creation along with the law that governs it. It is written in allegory so we can understand as we learn. The story matches the allegory since the characters of the story are us. We are not so much walking on this earth as we are walked. We do nothing apart form observe from our consciousness. We are on autopilot. Our hair grows, the sun shines and our body develops and dies. Nothing is our choice apart for moving our vehicle (Body).

The body is the bio-mechanical suit that we wear to sense the story that the LOGOS tells as we develop. The point of the story is to learn and discover how God did it. We come to see the process through science and discovery. It is not until we develop our own virtual realities with consciousness that we will fully understand that we are the mirror of this same process. For sentience to fully develop, it must value others and God in love. Love is the key to unlocking the flaming sword that protects the next step, the tree of life. The tree of live is protected as long as we show hatred to others.

Your turn. What is your explanation apart from a designer and consciousness?

This may have already been covered, but as we are created in god's image, does he have both a penis and a vagina? If so, why? Does he have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hair, fingers, toes, legs, feet, hands, arms, buttocks, belly button, etc? As it was just him in the beginning, existing wherever it was that he existed/exists, why would he have need of these features as we do? What was he seeing with his eyes as nothing existed yet? What was he hearing with his ears as nothing existed yet? What was he tasting with his tongue as nothing existed yet? What was he touching with his hands as nothing existed yet?

Since apes were created before man, did he create them in his image as well as they are almost identical to man in their features?

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Your turn. What is your explanation apart from a designer and consciousness?

Speaking for myself, I don't have an explanation as I'm not versed well in those subjects. Do I then need to assert that a god must have done it since I can not explain it?

reply to post by Hydroman

. . .we are created in god's image, . . .

The image of the Elohim.
They may have had some attributes such as body parts.
I believe The Supreme Being is different, and is not like that.
Who knows that person? Only the Son, who becoming a man, has a body.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

The image of the Elohim.
They may have had some attributes such as body parts.
I believe The Supreme Being is different, and is not like that.
Who knows that person? Only the Son, who becoming a man, has a body.

You are a believer that Elohim means plural gods? In my studies, I found that "Elohim" can also be used to represent one god who is majestic. If I'm not mistaken, in Medieval England, Kings would use the word "we" to speak of them self. The same idea applies to the word "Elohim" in Hebrew from what I understand.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by jmdewey60

The image of the Elohim.
They may have had some attributes such as body parts.
I believe The Supreme Being is different, and is not like that.
Who knows that person? Only the Son, who becoming a man, has a body.

You are a believer that Elohim means plural gods? In my studies, I found that "Elohim" can also be used to represent one god who is majestic. If I'm not mistaken, in Medieval England, Kings would use the word "we" to speak of them self. The same idea applies to the word "Elohim" in Hebrew from what I understand.

It's a god of a certain order of gods, ones we may also call, angels.
Regardless of if in that one case, it was one or two.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It's a god of a certain order of gods, ones we may also call, angels.

When god inspired the author to write Genesis, why didn't he use the word "angels" instead of "elohim"? He used "angels" in other scriptures, why didn't he use "elohim" all through out the bible? This god isn't very consistent.

reply to post by Hydroman
I recommend you read the Hebrew and I believe after time, the answer will come to you.

You don't get it. We are 'in' God's image as well as the image of God. You need to read this new thread's OP. LINK

You are in the image of the Trinity.

Father is Light, both particle and wave. This is matter. Your body is living matter.

Son (Logos - Logos is the programming language of reality. This is the Word that spoke reality into existence. This is the information that moves matter (Father) into form.)

Holy Ghost (Consciousness - This animates matter into living matter.)

God is one person expressed on our end as the three persons of the trinity in us. We are one person expressed in the three persons of God. The Trinity is the mirror that reflects each to the other. We are 'in' the image of the mirror. We are also the image of God, His reflection.

Originally posted by Hydroman
This may have already been covered, but as we are created in god's image, does he have both a penis and a vagina? If so, why? Does he have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, hair, fingers, toes, legs, feet, hands, arms, buttocks, belly button, etc? As it was just him in the beginning, existing wherever it was that he existed/exists, why would he have need of these features as we do? What was he seeing with his eyes as nothing existed yet? What was he hearing with his ears as nothing existed yet? What was he tasting with his tongue as nothing existed yet? What was he touching with his hands as nothing existed yet?

Since apes were created before man, did he create them in his image as well as they are almost identical to man in their features?

God has many names expressing his various natures throughout the Bible. Google is your source. LINK

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by jmdewey60
It's a god of a certain order of gods, ones we may also call, angels.

When god inspired the author to write Genesis, why didn't he use the word "angels" instead of "elohim"? He used "angels" in other scriptures, why didn't he use "elohim" all through out the bible? This god isn't very consistent.

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
You don't get it.

Agreed.