Most of what I write about is a combination of both the natural world and the spiritual world and while I agree with most of modern science to date, I do think there is also a spiritual layer to reality.

Sift through the PAGES and POSTS for more interesting information guaranteed to make you think and question.


#1 Nothing is No Information

#2 Something is Some Information

#3 NoThing is Infinite/Unlimited information

Be careful how you understand NOTHING to be and how the word is used when you read my pages and articles on the web. I hold that the true vacuum energy of our universe and of in fact everything is from NOTHING of Infinite Information, is dynamic, and full --not empty, stagnate, and of zero information.

All the information collected from this process of existence and life is also retained inside of the Nothing. Who knows how many times existence and life have happened. I don't think information is lost or destroyed, and I don't think it returns into a zero-information kind of nothing.

Both understandings of nothing look very similar. They are both undefinable, unquantifiable, immeasurable...but they are opposites. The difference between zero and infinity.

FYI: There is One thing all of life wants, even human life and that is the effects of LOVE.



Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.

Nothing- Nothing and everything are but different forms of the same.
Nothing is everything, but everything is not nothing.

From Spirit to Nature

From Spirit to Nature

Atheists and their Teapot/Unicorn Analogy

When I first heard the argument that God is akin to the likelihood of a teapot floating around the moon or a purple unicorn, I rolled my eyes. Then I thought about the implications, both positive and negative.

I understood where Dawkins was coming from when I saw him on the television. I applauded him for challenging people's thinking and making them understand that questioning is good. I applauded Krauss for that, because we need to think more and question more critically if we are ever to decipher the plainest truths of reality and nature.

I know the analogy is supposed to get you thinking that maybe they both are kinda the same in likelihood and while you can't prove any of them to be false, this doesn't mean they are true.

However, they neglected some very important information which for the younger audience concerns me. This concerns me, because I see many young people who are easily influenced, and they can be pulled one way or the other -whether it be by religions OR charismatic speakers of science. This doesn't mean they are thinking or critically coming to their own conclusions. They are still being led.

That is what is scary.

Maybe there is a God, maybe there is not. This because a side issue for me when confronted with the lack of independent thinking and critical thinking done on both sides of the debate. Not with the Dawkins and Krauss and the others like Hitchens and Sam Harris. Obviously, they have well thought out reasons for coming to their conclusions. (Of course I'd argue their perceptions of God are obtuse), but at least they've studied this subject for themselves and have good reasons for what they think.

Sadly, many of their followers do not, other than the fact that they are following leaders they hold to high esteem as the wisest, most intelligent of their species. It's scary how GodLike these people have become in the minds of many of their followers. There is a religious "AWE" there.

I know this was likely not any of the speakers intentions, but this is in fact what is going on for many of the youth.

However, to address the point of the atheist argument I have to bring up some neglected facts.

The concept of God is a highly complex one, much more complex than a flying teapot or purple unicorn, and by putting God in the same category the atheist tries to diminish the complex, intuitive, historical, cultural, spiritual and emotional impact the concept of God has had.

The complexity of the concept of God is experienced when people look at nature and their own existence, and feel a sense of wonderment, the fact that we can bare witness to this phenomenon not only called life, but called nature as well. The moon might not know of its significance for us, or its amazing splendorous existence which might not have occurred had one factor been different. But we know. The tides rushing over the sand might not feel the romantic sensation of movement, but we feel it over our feet as we walk on the shores. Does nature know how amazing it is? Does nature know that it once did not exist and in time will not again? Does nature miss what it once was?  Does nature know how or why it exists at all? I'm sure most of us would say, probably not. But what we do know for sure is, we do or are compelled to find out.

When we engage ourselves in nature and observe nature, we become connected to this wonder. Many of us intuitively have been brought to a place of admiration for this seemingly limitless power and yet humble existence. Intuitively many philosophers and mystics have defined this wonder. Maybe they could not calculate the distance from the sun to the Earth, but they could ponder some of the deepest questions that still boggle the minds of some of our greatest thinkers today.

Did it all come from nothing? or from something eternal? or both?

These questions have been contemplated by Indian philosophers, Kabbalists, mystics, Hindus, Buddhists, and others around the world to various intuitive conclusions. They were not scientists, but they were connected to nature in ways most of us are not today -and that includes many scientists.

"In both Buddhist and Kabbalistic cosmologies, a great deal of time is spent explaining how the world seems to exist as it does. For the Kabbalists, this explanation involves the emanation of the ten sefirot: the evolution of God from Nothing. But the Kabbalah, again like Buddhism, emphasizes that this evolution is one of appearance only. It did not happen at some point in time, and now it’s over and the world exists. Time itself is part of the “world” which exists only as illusion. In the Now, in the present moment, where is time?"-

Kabbalah and Indian thought also go into descriptions of God and creation and how this all came from nothing. The Kabbalist will say God is infinite and everywhere. In order to create something, he had to withdraw himself. This withdrawal is what caused the void. Rabbi Ramban describes this void like the size of a grain. Then it expanded into what we know. What is amazing is these ideas are more than 500 years old! Without modern science!

Both Kabbalah and Buddhism and Hinduism are interesting in that they teach the physical is what is the true illusion and in fact Buddha called it the delusion. So while scientists discover the natural world and I love discovery of it as well, we may very well be discovering an illusion. Because true reality is beyond us, not the physical, not the temporal...but the eternal and infinite and how much of it do we really comprehend or experience?

What is this energy that is true reality really?

This power was described by various faiths as infinite, illimitable, all powerful, all encompassing, eternal and as No Thing. Beyond human comprehension.

All these definitions we find in various religions all predating modern science. It is important to realize because religion is not rationalizing in light of science and more importantly religious concepts of God and creation show that people from the past were not just ignorant peasants as atheists like to call them. They were certainly connected to nature in a way more than modern man ever is and contemplated deeper meanings and observed the natural cycles in far more intuitive ways because of their connections to nature and to each other, instead of sitting at their televisions and iPods and radios.

We see that nature indeed hides itself from us. The uncertainty principle shows us that nature is unseen. This is not a weakness of humanity, but a characteristic of nature and indeed a vital one to understand, because if a part of nature is alway unseen (only ever knowing the momentum or the location) than why would we think we could see the fullness of God? If nature is a reflection of the ultimate source which many call God, then this source would be partly hidden from us as well.

In fact, this also is not a new concept. Kabbalah talks about God's concealment as well. Evolution is also not a new concept. Kabbalah teaches all is mysteriously One and in fact in modern science with cosmological and biological evolution and understanding the building blocks of all things we can see this is a fact. But Kabbalist taught this much earlier than we had this factual knowledge. So, what led them to these conclusions? because they were only ignorant peasants after all.

Some Greek, Roman, and even Sufist and early Jewish German's thoughts also show agreement to concepts of evolution. One could even argue that Buddhism and Hinduism with their teachings of reincarnation is a kind of evolution as well.

Flying teapots and purple unicorns are never alluded to as infinite, illimitable, all powerful, all encompassing, eternal and are not referenced in philosophical papers or, mystical thought, or scriptures. Plainly, most people don't take them seriously. Why then do people take the notion of God or spirits or ghosts seriously?

Historically, scriptures from around the world are devoted to the subject of God and so are many philosophical inquiries and mystical pursuits. Teapots and Unicorns do not date back to 30,000 years ago and arguably 300,000 years in the past. But religions do.

Teapots and Unicorns don't influence cultural and human behavior. Cultures as far back as 30,000-300,000 years ago have been influenced by the ideas of the afterlife, souls, spirits, gods, and the complex nature of nature.

Millions around the world from 30,000 years ago to today have not left behind evidence of their encounters and beliefs and personal experiences with teapots and purple unicorns. We do find evidence of cultures leaving behind traces of their beliefs, encounters, and personal experiences of ghosts, souls, spirits and gods or angels.

Flying teapots and unicorns don't have legions of people who claim to have seen them or have had a personal experience with them.

Spiritually and emotionally "God" and the soul or ghosts have had a huge impact on millions and even billions of people not only from today but in the past as well.

If millions of people started claiming to have had experiences with flying teapots and purple unicorns maybe I'd think "um" maybe there is something to this, maybe I should look more into this.

They are hardly the same thing and don't deserve to be in the same category.

No comments:

Post a Comment

What is God?

For myself, I view God as a Spirit. An infinite, illimitable, eternal Spirit. What is a Spirit? For myself, I view a Spirit as the most fundamental form, most simple form of energy.

I think to call the Spirit/God as intelligent or conscious, restricts and limits our own understanding of it. This is because we view life and nature through our own intelligence and consciousness. Ours evolved naturally from simple to complex and is restricted by body/space/time.

A God would not have these limits, would not have evolved and would not be complex. Therefore its "intelligence" and "conscious" would be nothing like we understand.

God is not a consciousness inside a brain or an intelligence inside a brain or even a mind inside a brain. Though a mind might be the closest we can think of it. God would exist outside of space and time and inside of it; therefore, its "consciousness" would encompass past-present-future and even before time. Its intelligence could be much like a mathematical genius quantum computer. Perhaps an Awakened Energy-Spirit- would be a better definition.

There are two kinds of energy in my view. Spiritual and Physical. When we understand virtual particles and fundamental particles better, I think we come closer to understanding what Spiritual Energy can do as well.

Spiritual Energy >>Withdrawal>>Space Forms>>Physical Energy Emerges>>Fields> Virtual Particles> Forces>Fundamental Particles>Everything Physical Forms.

Science examines the natural/the physical, not the spiritual.

I agree with everything from science, except when biologists (not mathematicians) use words like purposeless, without guide, directionless, without goals.

I agree with mathematicians assessment of randomness.

The reason is because in biology, we are talking about things without a consciousness -processes and mechanisms are non living things and can't have a purpose in the sense that they are using the word. They don't have a consciousness. They are not aware.

We are examining processes and mechanisms, but what is this substance (energy) that these processes and mechanisms are using. From where does this substance (energy) come?

Those are essentially the questions at the crust of the real inquiry into what is reality.

Simply because the process or mechanism is not conscious itself, does not mean they were not structured deliberately or without intent or thought, or that a spiritual energy does not exist.

This simply means that physical things and processes and mechanisms without a consciousness don't have a conscious purpose/goal.

Well, Duh.

So, I agree biological evolution doesn't have a conscious purpose/goal in and of itself -because we are examining only the physical Things, the physical processes and physical mechanisms.

This says nothing about the spiritual significance.

However, they do have a natural purpose/goal.

All energy persists toward entropy =Death.
All life persists to survival =Life

Further, all energy follows a pattern from simple>complex, chaos>order, from heterogenous>homogenous, from random>non random, from death>life>death.

These patterns are reflected in our natural laws.

So, all of energy does follow a guide or a direction. It is the direction or reflection of the natural laws.

is Nothing all there is?

Science seems to be going in the direction that true nothingness does not exist. This is because whenever you find nothing, you find virtual particles.

I would have to agree not just with the science, but with that concept in my view of life and reality.

Nothing does not exist, because whenever you find nothing--you actually find everything just in its most simple and fundamental form. Nothing is NoThing, not the non-existence of everything.

The most simple and fundamental form of reality is NoThing and this is why this happens in my opinion.

The real question for me is, how much of life experience and memories is retained in this simple fundamental form that makes up our universe and our everything?

How is it retained?

We can see cells seem to have a sense of memory and experience, but do virtual particles too?

Do all our memories and life experiences retain themselves in some fundamental form of energy?

Could what we call the soul or spirit be an echo of nature itself?

It does seem that virtual particles have to behave certain ways. It pops as a gluon only to become a photon or such...because it seemingly has to conform to the existence it pops into. Some virtual particles might pop into our existence as anti-quarks, but most have to conform and so we see the photon it is supposed to be.

Why do virtual particles conform? What rules are they following? It seems they are somehow aware of what is around them if they are conforming. (Not to imply this awareness has to be conscious.)