BS: God's Dicey Cup

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:37 PM

That may not be a bad thing Grab. When it becomes easy enough for a sociopathic teenager, or group in a country where the Stars and Stripes come in Extra-Flammable varieties, to cook up a batch of the Ebola virus, or some such lovely thing with tools you can find in any high school, and a genome taken off the web, it's not going to make the world a better place.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM

Saw this and thought it was another bra discussion...

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:43 PM

Well, a VERY well done post, Slag...and near the end, you approach what I consider to BE the one way to handle the human 'need' to relate to the universe and justify the contradictions involved in finding an anchor for his (man's) place in it all.

At some point, it IS possible to just make a "leap of faith" similar to what Kierkegaard explained about Abraham sacrificing Isaac.....one just 'listens' to some inner voice in order to resolve his wonder over how to live & behave.

At the same time, he 'should' be aware that this is ALL he is doing....that the "leap of faith" is only a possibility, not a necessity. There are other ways to ground one's thinking, though usually a lot more work...and not easy to explain to everyone.

For many, being convinced that there was no "ultimate spiritual authority" would just be a license for anarchy and unrestrained evil, since there would be no 'eternal punishment' involved...and I'm not sure I'd totally like a world where some folks saw no restraints on their behavior....(though some manage to be pretty obnoxious even WITH religion).

All I really want is a system where "freedom of religion", responsibly practiced is allowed, while "freedom FROM religion" is respected for those who wish it..NO required prayers in school and at meetings, NO laws written which demand that non-religious people obey rules based on religious reasoning.(yes, obviously, abortion is one of the major ones).

If people could simply just "agree to disagree" it might go a long way toward sanity.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 12:49 PM

"All I really want is a system where "freedom of religion", responsibly practiced is allowed, while "freedom FROM religion" is respected for those who wish it..NO required prayers in school and at meetings, NO laws written which demand that non-religious people obey rules based on religious reasoning.(yes, obviously, abortion is one of the major ones)."

Sounds like just what I want, Bill. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:40 PM

golly, gee..I'll drink to that! I'll even buy you one, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 06:08 PM

Chongo! Drinks around!

Funny you should mention bras LH. El Shaddai, translated "Almighty" into the English is literally (if I remember right) "The Nurishing One" or the "One Who Nurses". That should set a few minds to spinning!

BillD. I have to agree. And that is the American ideal: the freedom of conscience! We can choose to whom we listen and choose whom to tune out. I am no proponent of in-your-face religions. But by the same token if a public entity like a school is presenting a THEORY that challenges a legitimately held religious position then I would say put the BEST evidence or argument forward and let the debate air. That's what this thread is doing. And it's educational, I believe.

Science fascinates me. If I had been a little smaller in stature I would have been a geek for sure. Always being the biggest kid in class makes one an oddity of another kind, but I digress. Bill is also right that the "Leap of Faith" scenario demonstrates that our access to the spiritual realm is very limited, at least initially and that the interaction (not empirically provable) between these dimensions suffers the same limitations I was describing above about the brain.

One of the best illustrations I have seen involves the representation of a two dimensional world ( 3 when you include "time") using a sheet of paper with little beings drawn on it. Their limitation is length and width. They can't look up or down because there is no up or down. In fact "UP" or "DOWN" is unimaginable to them. Now, there ARE three dimensional beings and they are aware of the two dimensional beings, but how to interact with them. No matter what they do the perception will only exist in two dimensions. So a pointed pencil represents the three dimensional being and he enters the two dimensional world, point first and passes through it. The 2D (much easier than writing out "dimensional" all the time) guys see something extrordinairy and get the idea that there may be something beyond their kin after all but they have to take it on faith that it is real. This is their very limited access to another dimension. Scientist and their ilk have tapped into other dimensions via mathematics. They do not fully understand just what it is or where it is leading them but they push forward using the tools available and the power of reason to continue to light their way. Same is true of the spiritual realm. It is tapped by a faith of another sort. And Bill, it isn't necessairily for ones seeking a confortable coexistence with God. It can be a really rocky road and much more challanging than other path choices. And it's not for everyone. The Bible says that many are called but few are chosen. Judaism and Christianity are involved in what some call "Remnant Theology" where it is only the few and the faithful who are "Chosen". It's ironic in that all that is offered to anyone is offered to all (John 3:16 of which I'm sure you are probably familiar). That is the extent and the limitation of Christianity. We see Christ as God's ultimate expression of His Love and the limit to the length He will go to redeem that which was lost in the Fall. All sin is forgiven. All that remains is a choice to be made.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 07:47 PM

Slag, I think that if a human being found the strength to emulate Christ, and forgave everyone (including themselves)...then they would (in a spiritual sense) be saved. By forgiving, one is forgiven. In giving, one receives. In withholding, one lives in poverty.

Whaddya think?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:13 PM

" It can be a really rocky road and much more challanging than other path choices.."

well...perhaps. Depending on what kind of rocks and what path. It was a REAL challenge being careful what I said and to whom after I got out of college in Kansas. Some folks there had NO sense of either humor OR of compromise on these issues. Even the Unitarian church I attended for awhile was criticized from some directions for not toeing the line.....and this was not in a rural area.

"... that which was lost in the Fall."..a concept I couldn't deal with even as a little Methodist kid. *I* didn't fall...why did Adam's impertinence affect ME? *wry grin* As I read and thought, it just seemed to me that these stories were less about Theological truth, and more about weaving a web of promises & obligations to allow "the flocks" to be shepherded by the church/state, and ultimately, about wealth & power for many.

Whether the basic message IS 'fact' or not is simply not demonstrable...but it is an anchor and a guide for many....and many use it ONLY that way. I wish it were easier to deal with those who take the admonition to "be fishers of men" too seriously. I have been told all too often "you're a good guy, Bill, but you're going to burn in Hell if you don't confess 'X' and believe 'Y'".....If you know about Pascals Wager, you may see why I often try to explain that there are simply MORE than the 4 possibilities Pascal listed..(i.e., God 'may' have a weird sense of humor!)

...anyway, it is nice to discuss these things quietly now & then....it is important to try to understand viewpoints other than our own!

take care....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:32 PM

"You're a good guy, Bill, but you're going to burn in Hell if you don't get out there and start doing something right now to end discrimination and to improve the lot of chimpanzees and other primates in the larger human society around them."

That's what Chongo just said. (He had a twinkle in his eye when he said it, though. I think he's just messing with your mind.)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:49 PM

But there is a limit to science and knowledge. There is an edge past which we cannot see but we know SOMETHING is there in the physical realm or at least in a realm which affects our physical world, but we can't know it. Might there not be a supernatural being, a creator God Whom our natural minds cannot comprehend and yet our souls suspect, surmise may be there? It's worth consideration.

Very worth considering. But there is no particular weight favoring (A) the external entity with xxx characteristics version of Godhood over the alternative that (B) the composite of all the universe's drives, energies and awareness are a matrix which you can call Godhood or (C) the possibility that you are running into the outer boundaries of you-ness, beyond which is just more of You in a less solidified form. You may in fact be an infinite spiritual being having a brief material experience, rather than a material being looking for an infinite spiritual experience.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM

Tell Chongo that I am doing what I can, but that some of the 'higher' primates I deal with have even less manners than many chimpanzees ...who are at least predictable in some things.

As to ending discrimination.....does the name of King Canute ring any bells?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:00 PM

Seems to be several of us atheistic mystics on this thread, huh?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 10:47 PM

LH, I agree completely re forgiveness. If you can recognize your own limitations then you can understand the limitations of others and overlook, forgive them or avoid them if they are dangerous or toxic.

The Fall, Bill. Another way of saying the imperfections and limitations that are the nature of the Human Race. Adam=Man. Whether you are a literalist and consider him to be the proto-Man or an archetype, he represents a generational connection to all that is Man, the Good, the Bad and the Beautiful, to borrow and spin a phrase. Of course chimps and bonobos are above the fray because they didn't go sampling any forbidden fruit. Free ride! The Fall, the source of Human limitation or more correctly, the severed communication with the source of our being.

And high marks on your other observation. Folks who are trying to control you are usurping God's perogative. The idea of Christianity is that Christ is now our high priest. We need no mortal human intercessor. The rending of the veil in the Temple represents direct access to the Most High. That means we as individuals live our lives before God and answer to Him alone. Anyone who says different is selling false religion base upon something YOU gotta do or some way you gotta act. That's not what His Word says.

Given the premise of God, I think you would have to agree that He would know you completely, what you are capable of understanding, enduring, your growth potential, everything about you. His final analysis of you is that you are worth saving. Consider the opposite. He, being God, could take you out anytime, anyway He wanted and who would you go to for appeal? So, if there is a God, He doesn't hate you and He isn't sending you to Hell. Infact, you have to choose Hell all on your own. He is doing all He can, within the limitations He set on Himself, to keep you from it. I've heard it put simplicitically but with a large measure of truth: God' got one vote for you, Satan's got one vote against you, you have the deciding vote!

To run just one step farther with my orginal idea for this thread (I really didn't intend it to be a sermon), I like what you said about being an infinite spiritual being having a material experience. I believe there may be a lot of truth to that statement.   How big is an atom? The concept has been promoted as the tiniest indivisible, elemental object in the natural world and for a brief time it lived up to that billing until we began to discover its basic consistuents. But as a possessor of the four forces and similar to its probablilty waves is the force of gravity which apparently trumps all other forces, given sufficient number. Gravity has the range of the entire universe and so is the atom's communication. All matter is interconnected in this way. All photon's are connected in a relative stasis, i.e. the photon exists everywhere at once with all other light (according to some theorists) due to the special effects of relitivity at the speed of light, motion has ceased, mass is infinite, time is stopped. What was the shape of the Cosmic Egg? I don't know, take a look around. Maybe this is it. It is kind of mystical, isn't it?

So why not God? What does He do for fun? This! What is His serious side? This too!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 11:05 PM

Occam's Razor Slag, Occam's Razor. That's why not God. Having even more entities to explain, or more to the point, more classes of entities to explain is harder work than explaining them without a God....














If this makes any sense when I wake up in the morning I may continue, with the added bonus of the keys not trying to move as I type....

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:52 AM

William of Occham was a Churchman and the razor was originally intended to strengthen the case FOR God. Dicey thing, those razors. Have you been reading the thread? One of my main themes is that Science has a great number of equally glaring gaps in its THEORIES on the Origins of the Universe and how things came into being.

"In the Beginning was the Bang and the Bang was with us and the Bang was Us. And nothing was Banged into being without it!" And the chior sings "Alle, Alle, Alle Oppenheimer!" Evolution has some big chinks in its links and Terra Firma floats on an ocean of melted iron. What new revelation will science give us? 90% or more of the Universe consists of something with enormous gravity that can't be seen and no one knows where it is? Light is co-joined in a dimension that does not exist in our universe and yet it behaves as though it were co-joined. Mesons can exist in two places at once and tachyons can travel backward in time? The universe is really a boiling froth of spontaneously generated "virtual particles" of paired matter and anti-matter which is immediately annihilated, in most cases? Black Holes take physical matter OUT of our Universe but the properties of that matter still remain? Go ask Alice.

If you are looking for the simplist explanation you won't find in theoretical physics or evolution. It seems that reality is more bizzare than can be imagined... So you pays yer money and you makes yer choices but don't wave Willie's Razor in my direction because that baby is two-edged and cuts both ways!

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Alec
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:07 AM

William of Occam WAS a Churchman until his demonstrated capacity for independent thought resulted in his being excommunicated.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:11 AM

Yes! Exactly, God bless him. Blaise Pascal too! Be true to God, not necessairily the Church.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Alec
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:18 AM

I assume you have heard of the dyslexic insomniac agnostic who used to lie awake wondering if their really is a Dog?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:36 AM

Goddam a Mad Dog?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:38 AM

previous post by Core de Roc (another pseudonym of mine).

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Alec
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:41 AM

"Madam I'm Adam" (Reputedly the first sentence ever spoken)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Grab
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:56 AM

Slag, a rough summary of your premise would be "there's a lot of complexity, so why couldn't it be God?"

It could be. You've no proof, I've no proof. But let's look at the results of each way.

Suppose we assume it's not God. Then we can investigate the various phenomena and try to work out how they work. They may be incredibly complex, but if some smart people can figure it out, it'll improve our abilities to control that situation (where "control" equals reduced disease, improved power generation, interstellar observation/travel, whatever).

But suppose we assume it *is* God. At that point, any question of "how does this work?" at any depth will always have an answer of "it's God's will". Trying to analyse God's will and His response to what we do is by definition blasphemy - we're mere mortals so we don't have access to all the information. If the local church is sufficiently powerful, they will *always* use this argument to prevent investigation. Examples: Catholic priesthood in the Dark Ages, fundamentalist Christians now opposing stem cell research and other reproductive medicine, Saudi Arabia now refusing to allow ambulances to treat patients, etc, etc.

I have no problems with there being a God out there - personally I hope there is. But I don't see why anyone needs to say "our science has got as far as it's ever going to go, so everything deeper down is God's will, and that's it". Yes, it's complex. Maybe you and I can't figure it out - that doesn't mean it's not possible to figure it out.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 05:15 AM

I personally think that there is a God, he is making things up as we go along. Every time we do an experiment, the thinks "Oh shit, I had better think of an answer". That's why the deeper we go into the fabric of the universe the weirder things become - God is running out of ideas that are consistent with the last lot of answers he gave us. I can just see him: "Yeah, strings, strings would work.... and might keep them busy for a while."

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:30 AM

Strings?! Why not the whole orchestra?

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 10:45 AM

Why not? Because a *GOD* would never invent oboes, that's why!

"An ill wind that nobody blows good."

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:09 AM

Slag, I am thoroughly enjoying your discourse on this whole subject. I think you are right on the mark. Good for you. There is nothing more valuable in life than the things you're discussing in this thread, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

Well, looky here, Slag. The existence of unanswered questions -- and even unASKed ones -- cannot, by its nature, militate for one or another answer for all those questions at once. In fact, anyone used to untangling complex systems would be a little skeptical about such a proposition UNLESS it could be demonstrated that the interactions defined by the simpler answer, when multiplied by orders of magnitude, actually would or could breed the complex system under consideration.

"There's an awful lot we don't know, so it could be X" in other words is an insufficiently formed proposition. It has no meaningful connections to the phenomena.

If you are proposing that the most meaningful explanation we could come up with is a postulated entity with magical-seeming powers of instantaneous definition of existence, then you have elcted a weak postulate, as defined by its consequences in application. This is the core flaw in all theocrstic answers to sociological, scientific or educational problems. It may seem elegant in theory, but it really sucks in application. It predicts no new objective phenomena which when sought are found to exist, in the way (for example) that relativity predicted red-shift.

Sure, it COULD be God or it COULD be a Flying Spaghetti Monster in another dimension with infinite noodle-tentacles messing about with infinite points in apparent space-time or it COULD be Aether Gremlins in telepathic conspiracy. None of those answers opens the door to further explanations, or applications, and they are therefore un-useful answers. The only beneficial side-effect they provide is grounds for endless rationalization, occasional optimism about the unknown, and a source of great power for those who become theologists and churchmen. Plus a certain self-satisfaction and artificial (and unjustified) righteousness in those who promulgate the solution. I'd rather work out the next law of action and reaction.

Complexity is not grounds for going simple-minded or for hallucinating in the interests of science.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bagpuss
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:44 AM

Apparently Douglas Adams beat me to it...

"There is a theory which states that if we ever work out the nature of the Universe, it will instantly be replaced by something much more complicated.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened"

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 11:47 AM

Hey, Amos! Hands off the Flying Spaghetti Monster! There are some things that are sacred, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:41 PM

Very well put, Amos...wordy, but incisive!...now explain to him the difference between matter & spirit. *evil grin*







(oh, THAT's different! I forgot...)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: gnu
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

"Complexity is not grounds for going simple-minded or for hallucinating in the interests of science."

Ah... = I don't think so, Tim?

I am Leary of same.

So? Just ignore me. Like I said....

But, I'll go for the joke... every time.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:12 PM

Gnu:

That was DIFFerent!!! lol

Hawk:

I'll leave your Spaghetti Monster alone if you stop using my Aether Gremlins in your philosophical sweatshop. Aether Gremlins are poeple too, you know.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:02 PM

Amos? It's a deal. (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:02 PM

Ah, the finer points of discourse. I have SEEN flying spaghetti. There's even a dried piece stuck on my kitchen ceiling (well there WAS until SHE saw it) and Monsters a-plenty, BUT....! Shudder!

re Grab: see the original post. I stated upfront that God is a faith propostion and can only be a faith propsition. The Judaic-Christian tradition/experience/concept is 100% faith. "Without faith, you cannot please Him." "By faith are ye saved, through grace and that not of yourself. It is a gift from God lest any man should boast." "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." "He is faithful and just to keep us from all unrighteousness." etc.

Thus far, in scientific endeavor there seems to be an infinite regression where cause and effect are concerned. The search for the unmoved mover.

There was an article in SA a few years ago that asked the question whether the universe and reality were digital? Complexity from utter simplicity. My argument wasn't that complexity doesn't necessarily stem from the simple. William's razor is a 3D insturment that works quite well in the 3D world on questions of human reason and HOW it all works. It is NOT an insturment (necessarily) for spiritual knowledge. In fact we have all made pretty good cases that the spritual realm and the physical realm are all but mutually exclusive. This is why the attribute of transcendence is applied to God.

The ontological argument goes something like, "Because I can conceive of Unicorns (or Flying Spaghettis Monsters) they must exist." And of course, that is fallacious reasoning, according to rules of logic (i.e., "reasoning", i.e., question begging in and of itself).

Sorry, I have an interruption, More later but I'll post this so I don't lose it.

Tom

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:06 PM

Demur. You can conceive of a unicorn in the universe or system of mental objects, and it will exist quite happily there as long as you continue to so conceive.

When you get to the point where you can, simpply by postulation, bring one into being in the universe of physical things such that an average observer can see it also, then we're really talking about horsepower!! But under the right conditions, it is possible for particularly close, intimate or very sensitive people to see your mental creations. Just not usual and certainly not predictably.

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

I agree with Amos. The Unicorn exists as a mental concept the moment you think of it. That doesn't mean it has to exist physically. Existence is not necessarily confined only to the range of physical matter. I have a good "feeling" at the moment about life...and that is not a physical phenomenon...but it is real...within the world of my own consciousness. I submit that consciousness is absolutely real...as consciousness. That's why it's important what you carry in your consciousness at any given time. It tends to affect your interaction with the physical quite profoundly.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:22 PM

From a co-conspirator:

"Rewriting the Reality Code
The Quantum Power of Living From The Answer
Copyright © Gregg Braden
Reprinted with permission from Mystic Pop Magazine, Nov/Dec Issue 2006

„What strange beings we are!‰ noted the 13th Century mystic Rumi, „That sitting in Hell at the bottom of the dark, we are afraid of our own immortality!‰ Perhaps it is actually the power to choose our immortality, as well as everything from our personal healing to the peace of our world, that truly frightens us!

A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that it is us ˜our consciousness˜ that holds the key to life and even reality itself! In 1967 the pioneering physicist Konrad Zuse married the ideas of consciousness with modern technology and proposed that our universe works like a massive consciousness computer. And just as every computer translates „Input-commands‰ into „Output-results,‰ our cosmic consciousness computer appears to do precisely the same thing! When we translate our deepest beliefs into the reality of our world, we are literally re-writing the code that makes the universe appear as it does.

Living In A Participatory Universe

A series of breathtaking discoveries has given us a powerful new way to think of our role in the universe. Rather than the conventional view that suggests we are passive observers, living a brief moment of time in a creation that already exists, the discoveries suggest that it is actually consciousness itself that is responsible for the existence of the universe! Perhaps the most revolutionary discovery supporting this idea, is the scientific fact that when we look at the stuff our world is made of ˜ tiny quantum particles such as an electron, for example ˜ the very act of us watching that electron changes the way it behaves in our presence. What‚s more, the longer we look, the more it changes! In 1998, scientists at Israel‚s Weizmann Institute of Science documented this phenomenon showing that „the greater the amount of Œwatching,‚ the greater the observer‚s influence on what actually takes place.‰ (Nature, Feb. 26, 1998) Citing such experiments, Princeton University physicist John Wheeler suggests that we not only play a role in the creation of our everyday world, but we play the prime role in what he calls a „participatory universe.‰ Wheeler states that we can no longer think of ourselves merely as onlookers who have no effect on the world around us, because it is impossible to simply watch. If we are alive and conscious, then we are affecting our world. „The old word Œobserver,‚‰ he says, „simply has to be crossed off the books?and we must put in the new word Œparticipator!‰ The key to Wheeler‚s proposition is the word „participatory.‰ In a participatory universe, you and I are part of the equation. We are both creating the events of our lives, as well as the experiencers of what we create. Both are happening at the same time! In other words, we are like artists expressing our deepest passions, fears, dreams, and desires through the living essence of a mysterious quantum canvas. The difference between us and conventional artists, however, is that we are the canvas, as well as the images upon the canvas. We are the tools as well as the artists using the tools. And just as artists refine an image until it is just right in their minds, we may think of ourselves as perpetual artists, building a creation that is ever changing and never ending. Through our artist‚s palette of beliefs, judgments, emotions, and prayers, we find ourselves in relationships, jobs, and situations of support and betrayal that play out with different people in different places. What a beautiful, bizarre, and powerful concept.

Living from the Answer

From the perspective of us participating in an ever-changing universe, the solution to any condition is a change in attitude and belief. And this is the great secret of propelling our heart‚s desires from the possibility of imagination, to the reality of our everyday lives. The key is our ability to feel as if our dreams have already come to life, our prayers already answered, and live from that feeling. There is a subtle, and yet powerful difference between working toward a result, and feeling from that result. When we work toward something, we embark upon an open-ended and never-ending journey. While we may identify milestones, and set goals to get us closer to our accomplishment, in our mind we are always „on our way‰ to the goal, rather than in the experience of accomplishing our goal. This is precisely why Neville‚s invitation to „enter the image‰ of our heart‚s desire and „think from it‰ is so powerful in our lives. In the ancient studies of martial arts, we see a beautiful metaphor in the physical world for precisely the way this principle works in consciousness. When martial artists choose to break a concrete block as a demonstration of focus, for example, the very last thing in their minds is the place where their hand will touch that block. The key is to place our focus upon the completed act: the healing already accomplished, or the brick already broken. As a student of the martial arts, I was taught to do this by focusing on a point in space that is beyond the bottom of the block. The only way that my hand could be at that point was if it had already passed through the brick. In this way, I was thinking from the completion, rather than how hard it would be to get to the completion. I was feeling the joy of what it feels like to accomplish the act, rather than all of the things that must happen before I could be successful. This simple example offers a powerful analogy for precisely the way that consciousness seems to work. And this is the great secret that has been protected and preserved for us in wisdom of our past. From the monasteries of Egypt and Tibet to the forgotten texts of our most cherished traditions we are reminded that we are part of, rather than separate from, the world around us. As part of everything we see, we have the power to participate ˜ not control or manipulate ˜ but to consciously chart the course of our lives and our world. Please don‚t be deceived by the simplicity of contemporary philosopher Goddard Neville‚s words when he suggests that all we need to do is to „assume the feeling of our wish fulfilled.‰ In a participatory universe of our own making, why would we expect that peace, healing, and a long and healthy life should be any more difficult?"

---

Singing the right tune, but forgetting the right words,

A

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 06:47 PM

Bravo! Right on the mark, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 07:23 PM

Gregg Braden, by the way, writes brilliant stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

"As a student of the martial arts, I was taught to do this by focusing on a point in space that is beyond the bottom of the block. "

It is well to keep in mind be aware of what the point of this is. This is a technique for focus, to help avoid letting up on the blow at the point of contact. The hand, the arm, and the brick ALL still obey the laws of physics!
I actually knew a guy once who did Karate and broke things like that. He did a few boards one night, then someone said there was a piece of marble he could try...."sure!", he agreed....well, he set that marble up and hit it hard, twice....and hurt his hand. The lady who owned the marble then appeared and allowed as how he was lucky he did NOT break it!

   Having a method of focus, or a metaphor for explaining a feeling or technique is certainly useful, but it is all to easy to attribute the result to the 'mind' and forget that there absolute, though hard to measure, limits on what can be done. The ability to control mind focus and utilize bio-feedback can allow many amazing things...but we are learning more everyday about to to measure & understand the physics & chemistry imvolved.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Grab
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM

Slag, you're right in what you say about the Judeo-Christian God - it requires faith, because God isn't giving any clues. Hence Douglas Adams' babelfish argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_fish and scroll down a bit. Adams has obviously simplified the reasoning for comic effect, but the theology is absolutely accurate - if God proves his own existence then no faith is required and religion dies.

So again, God (or Gods; let's consider that this could be a collaborative venture) could have created the universe and the rules it runs by. But if we're to have faith in a God (or Gods), they have to have a 100% hands-off approach to the universe.

Which incidentally makes the Judao-Christian-Muslim church's belief in saints, miracles and divine intervention completely blasphemous. Oops. :-)

Oh, as for quantum...

the very act of us watching that electron changes the way it behaves in our presence

Nope. To take an everyday example, suppose we wanted to work out how much of our orange juice was water. The obvious way is to weigh it, heat it to boil off the water, weigh the dry residue and compare the two values. But what you're left with isn't orange juice any more, so the act of measuring has changed it. Right? But now suppose we leave a glass of orange juice in the sun (somewhere hot like Death Valley, say) and forget about it completely. The result's going to be the same, so it's the *action* that changes the substance being measured and not the measurement itself. In other words, it's what the equipment does to the electron that matters - whether there's anyone or anything watching what happens to it is immaterial.

So that's just another bit of pseudo-science bollocks. Nice bit of pot-stirring though, Amos. ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:54 AM

How does something which already is everything give clues as to its existence? Specially clues which will satisfy a skeptic who is looking around outside of himself for the evidence????

LOL! What an amusing scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 02:36 AM

I've been having troubles with the 'puter. It keeps winking out. I'll post this and try to makes some comments in the near future. I'm not trying to ignore you guys. It's the gremlins of physics that are after me.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:54 AM

Well it looks like I got my machine straightened out. I lost a lot of work on a post to this thread the other night including a long quote by Stephen W. Hawking which was apropos. Most frustrating. I'll see how much I can recall manana. My bed is calling to me and I must obey, must obey,musst...^^snoreeeeeskzzzxs.

Subject: RE: BS: God's Dicey Cup
From: guitar
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:31 PM