|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 602 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
Bs'd
"Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that Y-H-W-H, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other." "You were shown these things so that you might know that Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing." Only God exists. Besides Him there is nothing. And when I say nothing I mean NOTHING. Of course there are always obstructionists who will claim that there is a whole universe filled with all kind of things big and small, and that therefore there do exist things beside God. To them I say: There is NOTHING except for God. And what about the whole physical world? The real solid tangible material world? Well, that's just an illusion. We are living in a matrix. We only THINK there is a physical world. In reality that is only an illusion, a figment of our imagination. A fata morgana. Let's take a closer look at that supposed "real world". Take matter, for instance iron. That is made up of atoms, which are made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons, with circling around it electrons. When we enlarge the nucleus to say a diameter of 4 inches, like an orange, then the electrons are circling around it in a distance of 4 miles. And that means that something like iron, with a very solid feel to it, is 99.9999999999999% nothing. And that makes a big difference. In one shot we are rid of 99.9999999999999% of the material world. However, we are still stuck with the remaining 0.0000000000001%. But it turns out, that that remnant exists only as matter, something physical, as long as it is observed. The moment it is not observed, it changes into a wave, and no longer exists as a particle. And that not only raises questions about the essence of matter, but also questions like: "How does dead matter know it is observed?" People much smarter and much better educated than me, concluded from this that the universe is a mental entity, and not a physical entity. Here is a youtube which in simple language explains the basics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4 Here is the same story, but now brought to you in a more complicated way, by a professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXvAla2y9wc In the first video it is explained that observation decides the state of the electron; particle or wave, and that when you install a detector, that the electron will start to behave like a particle, and not anymore like a wave. In 2005 an article appeared in one of the most respected, if not THE most respected, peer reviewed scientific journal, "Nature", which speaks about the mental universe. That can be read here, if you give them your credit card number: http://www.nature.com/...ournal/v436/n7047/full/436029a.html Here excerpts of the article can be found: http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/04/mental-universe.html Here a few excerpts: "Physicists shy from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental Universe is to invoke ‘decoherence’ — the notion that ‘the physical environment’ is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in ‘Renninger-type’ experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The Universe is entirely mental." "There is another benefit of seeing the world as quantum mechanical: someone who has learned to accept that nothing exists but observations is far ahead of peers who stumble through physics hoping to find out ‘what things are’. If we can ‘pull a Galileo,’ and get people believing the truth, they will find physics a breeze. The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy." So the universe is not physical, but mental. Here is what others said about that one: “Today there is a wide measure of agreement… that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine” “The stuff of the universe is mind-stuff” More recently, described as “an intelligent universe” whose apparent concreteness is generated by cosmic data from an unknowable, organized source. The holographic theory says that: “…our brains mathematically construct hard reality by interpreting frequencies from a dimension transcending time and space. The brain is a hologram, interpreting a holographic universe.” In his play Copenhagen, which brings quantum mechanics to a wider audience, Michael Frayn gives these word to Niels Bohr: “we discover that... the Universe exists... only through the understanding lodged inside the human head.” . . . I especially like this one: Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, who was the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies wrote in his book, God and the Astronomers, that “For the scientistwho has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream: The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” The strange part is that these facts are known for almost a hundred years, and almost nobody knows about it. How did this state of afairs come about? On that page with the excerpt of the article about the "Mental Universe" is a comment by a reader that says: " I thought based on that non-mainstream view of QM that he might be a marginal figure, but hardly. His statements lend a great deal of credibility to the idea of consciousness as central to QM and therefore reality." The author of the article, professor Richard Conn Henry, a physicist at John Hopkins University, answers to that: So the mental universe is a fact, a non-controversial generally accepted fact. But what is controversial, is speaking about it. It is swept under the carpet. It is the skeleton in the closet of the scientists. And that's why this fact is virtually unknown by the guy in the street. We can compare this to another slip up of science, namely the fact that for 150 the layman was lied to about the assumption that the fossil record would support the evolution theory, something that is absolutely wrong. The fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely stasis; non-change. About this, a famous paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory, says: "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not." Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44 And even so now the fact that the universe and everything in it is not material but mental, is being swept under the carpet and hushed up. From this we can learn that scientist not necessarilly have the good of science in mind, or the good of the masses, but mainly their own good. Sometimes they are just like humans. And who can blame them, when rocking the boat means that you lose your job, your carriere is gonna be broken, en you'll never again find a job in your field. Things like that don't happen anymore in our modern society you say? Just look here what happened to a great scientist, Velikovsky, when he published facts that were not to the liking of the scientific establishment: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/exodus Or watch on youtube the documantary "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". But one way or another; the physical universe doesn't exitst. Please be adviced that nevertheless it is not a good idea to start banging your head agains the wall, thinking: "That wall doesn't exist anyway", because we are subjected to the laws that God has set for our matrix, and head-against-the-wall-banging will result in a nasty headache. Anyway; Welcome to the Matrix. "The only reality is mind and observations." Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Administrator Posts: 1945 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: |
I would promote this, but I don't exist. Besides Y-H-W-H there is nothing else. (Mod Humor)
Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eliyahu Member (Idle past 602 days) Posts: 288 From: Judah Joined: |
Bs'd If you can't see the difference, then I think you need stronger glasses. "The only reality is mind and observations." Richard Conn Henry, Cambridge professor department of physics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Administrator Posts: 1945 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Y-H-W-H is God; besides him there is nothing. thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thugpreacha Member Posts: 13382 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
You must be a prophet! I DO need stronger glasses.
![]() I have been reading some of what you write here at EvC and though I don't necessarily agree with your beliefs, have come to respect your intelligence. You seem to back up much of your belief with scripture---which is commendable, and although at first I feared you to be a Jehovahs Witness..now see that you are of the Jewish faith. Can I ask you within your faith are you conservative(Orthodox) or are you Reformed or are you Reconstructionist? Or....have you placed yourself in a category yet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3863 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
You may be right, but I don't believe you. You don't provide any reason to think that this is true.
Repeating yourself with capitalization doesn't add any value to your words.
Yes, very much so. How does this point to God?
True (...enough, anyway). But, apart from your own confusion... all this means is that our original concept of the physical world was incorrect. But just because fields exist doesn't mean God exists. It means fields exist.
You have a false dichotomy here.
Or, viewed in it's entirety for free here: The mental Universe by Richard Conn Henry
That's not what decoherence is. Decoherence is this: the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges from a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary All that means is, basically: "when things get big enough that we no longer require the specific equations of quantum mechanics to describe the physical motions... the equations of Newtonian mechanics work just fine." Or, again: "when things are large enough that they act in the way we're used to experience things acting in our everyday lives." The term has nothing to do with the human mind. I promise. Someone's trying to make a fool of you, and you're letting them.
I know about it.
No, I don't think you understand. But it's not laughed away because it's not desired. Find some evidence, and people will listen. Just like they listened to Galileo... because he showed them the evidence.
Again, no. We have a wall that feels solid. Maybe one day we'll find some evidence pointing towards God. Either way... currently, there is no evidence pointing towards a "mental universe" in the context that God is required for it's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Thugpreacha Member Posts: 13382 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Imagine now that you were a Creator like God and, hypothetically, you created(either directly or indirectly) humanity. It is true that at the present time they do not need you. It may well be, however, that they may find a point in the future where they do need you.
Sounds a bit like atoms to me. They are invisible. Just a thought....carry on
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 3863 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Sure. Quite possible. What about probable, though? We can think of all sorts of ideas that do not contradict what we see. That makes them possible. What makes them probable? Currently, the best technique we have for determining if any particular idea is probable or not is to find evidence that points towards that idea. So far, there's no evidence for a Creator God. So far... there's lots and lots of evidence that God does not exist. It's the same evidence. The more we discover, the more we learn: If we want to follow the evidence... then the evidence currently says that God does not exist. Is it possible to discover God in the future? Of course it is. But how likely? As likely as it is to discover turtle-egg universes, it seems.
Sure does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If the table stops existing after everyone leaves the room, the how do you explain that, when we come back in 10 years, the table is covered in dust?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 448 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Pixies, of course! Seriously, it is amazing the nonsense folks will believe based on religion. Heinlein had it right: quote: Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith Member Posts: 33903 From: Nevada, USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.2
|
There are other places in the Hebrew scripture where that same word translated "nothing" is used in the same way, and the usual understanding I'm aware of is not "nothing" in the sense you seem to be using it but in the sense of "no other gods" and I think the context bears out that reading. "I am the LORD thy God and thou shalt have no other gods before Me" [Ex 20:3] is the idea. That theme occurs through out the Old Testament.
"There is none else" implies "There are no other gods." ABE: And this makes particular sense in the context of the Bible where God has chosen Himself a people among many peoples who all have their own gods. His miracles were all done to prove that He isn't just another "god" but THE God, the Creator God. There is testimony given by foreigners in the scripture too, to the effect that they recognized that the God of Israel is THE God and not a god lilke all the other nations had. Also, God wouldn't promote such a message as you are claiming, which can only confuse people. He speaks to ordinary minds, but the idea of "nothing" is beyond our ordinary minds. /ABE Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
indeed, the metaphysical concept of ain as complete nothingness is a concept that wasn't really around until the middle ages. it's just a word that means something like "none".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 320 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
not sure what translation you're using. my copy says, quote: note the words that come after אֵין. in that context, it's not appropriate to translate אֵין as "nothing" particularly because you're leaving out two words: עוֹד "other", and מִלְּבַדּוֹ "apart from/beside him". most notably עוֹד because you could conceivably read אין מלבדו as "nothing apart from him". but עוֹד tells us that it's talking about אלהים, because, "יְהוָה הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים". make sense? Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No. How about a bone for the rest of us to gnaw on? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 448 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This should be in a forum devoted to literary criticism. I did a lot of that when I was an English major. As with this thread, it is all opinion based on opinion based on somebody's writing. Relationship to reality? None. But at least Hamlet was better written and more interesting. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019