Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Derek

Is God and Energy the same thing

I was asked to open a thread with one of my world views. This is a thread I started on a different forum that attracted much interest and for which I still ponder over. Is God and energy the same thing and if they are then we to must be the product of that energy or intelligence, don't we?

I have been re-reading a book that I had read some time ago, but like most books I have read more the 10 years ago, I forgot most of its content. I have, of late, been interested in the concept of science and religion stemming from the same spring of knowledge and intelligence. Seems that my thoughts have already been investigated in this small, yet interesting little book. Is the descriptions of energy and matter correct. Are we an energy force acting within a larger energy force. Is God and energy synonymous with each other. I am no scientist, however, the following exert seems to be logical to me and gives the reader the impression that a superior being is responsible for all of this.

Exert from The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

Most people define themselves by this finite body, but you're not a finite body. Even under a microscope you're an energy field. What we know about energy is this: You go to a quantum physicist and you say, "What creates the world?" And he or she will say, "Energy." Well, describe energy.

"OK, it can never be created or destroyed, it always was, always has been, everything that ever existed always exists, it's moving into form, through form and out of form." You go to a theologian and ask the question, "What created the Universe?" And he or she will say, "God." OK, describe God.

"Always was and always has been, never can be created or destroyed, all that ever was, always will be, always moving into form, through form and out of form." You see, it's the same description, just different terminology.

So if you think you're this "meat suit" running around, think again. You're a spiritual being! You're an energy field, operating in a larger energy field.

How does all of this make you a spiritual being? For me, the answer to that question is one of the most magnificent parts of the teachings of The Secret. You are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy just changes form. And that means You!

The true essence of You, the pure energy of You, has always been and always will be. You can never not be.

On a deep level, you know that. Can you imagine not being? Despite everything you have seen and experienced in your life, can you imagine not being? You cannot imagine it, because it is impossible. You are eternal energy.

DR. JOHN HAGELIN

Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately toe are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

I do not want to get heavily bogged down in religion on this one. I am more interested in whether God, or what ever you want to call the ideology, is a form of intellectual energy, much the same as the properties involved in Quantum Physics.

I am not saying anything specifically. I am investigating the idea under the premises of both our energy and Gods being of the same source, in its elementary form, but the energy it possesses being unique to each individual, like taking water from a reservoir to water crops or drink, both use elementary identical element, they just have different applications that produces different effects. The alternative being a sort of collective consciousness, like "The Borg" was in Star Trek, where every sub-atomic particle is like DNA, having identical information that tells us all identical information, which would suggest that we are all an integral part of God and just one source of light and knowledge, or, in other words, a shared identical intelligence, which could suggest that energy contains intelligence, in either case. What do you think.
Jim

What 'Secret;?
Not in Christianity, it isn't.
God is always portrayed as a person, with all the atributes of personhood, though also described as 'spirit' - coincidentally the Third Person of His triune nature, but still, in essence, a person.
Energy is a force - even the execrable WTS mistranslation of 'dynamic energy' lessens the scope and personhood of God.
Derek

Jim wrote:
What 'Secret;?
Not in Christianity, it isn't.
God is always portrayed as a person, with all the atributes of personhood, though also described as 'spirit' - coincidentally the Third Person of His triune nature, but still, in essence, a person.
Energy is a force - even the execrable WTS mistranslation of 'dynamic energy' lessens the scope and personhood of God.


That he is portrayed as a person is meaningless. We believe that we are created in his image so naturally we see him like we are, and that is fine, there is no argument from me on that. So, we are all people of flesh and bones, like we see God as, but how we look is almost an illusion, we are in fact energy. Now, if we look like we do but we are essentially energy, as we are created in the image of God then God to could be pure energy that looks like a person.

Personally, I am a Christian who lives a Christ centered life, so, I see no credibility in the existence of the triune, therefore, I cannot comment on that or include it in my deliberations because it simply does not exist to me. It doesn't alter the idea that God could be pure energy either.
cyberman

The difference which the author fails to pick up on when she points out the similarities between what physicists say about energy and what theologians say about God is this: a physicist believes energy to be a part of the universe, just like matter is. A theologian believes God to be something not of the physical universe, which existed independently of it and which caused it to be.

Like matter, energy is part of the universe. The theologian will say that that is something which was created by God. To say that God is a form of energy is a bit like saying God is a form of matter; he is neither, as he exists independently of the creation of these things.
The Boyg

Sounds like some sort of sub-Pantheism, i.e. all the energy in the universe is "God".
Derek

Quote:
[quote="cyberman:127379"]The difference which the author fails to pick up on when she points out the similarities between what physicists say about energy and what theologians say about God is this: a physicist believes energy to be a part of the universe, just like matter is. A theologian believes God to be something not of the physical universe, which existed independently of it and which caused it to be.


Sorry, but a physicist believes that the universe is energy not that it is part of anything but it is everything. Matter is the result of energy combining together, you and I. Essentially, matter is energy. The universe, as a whole, is pure energy. Everything that is in the universe can be reduced to energy. You and I are made of the same energy, as we are to any living organism. The rest of us is just empty space. To give an example, If you were sat on a nucleus on the Dover Cliffs the nearest electron to you would be completely out of sight, in Northern France. That is a lot of space. It make the spirit of man more understandable, that is, we could consider our spirits to be refined matter with miraculous properties. 

I am not aware of theologians believing that God is separate and independent of the universe. It is not my personal belief, at present. It is my belief that God currently exists within the universe, or, more controversially, that he is the universe and each of us are a part of the body of God, part of His energy but independent of his will. None of this changes his persona or his love for us.

Quote:
Like matter, energy is part of the universe. The theologian will say that that is something which was created by God. To say that God is a form of energy is a bit like saying God is a form of matter; he is neither, as he exists independently of the creation of these things.


There is another train of thought that suggest that when the big bang took place then God became a part of space and time continuum. That he became the universe.

There is yet another theory that says that God has not changed at all and that he can be found within the quantum field, some say the ether. It is very likely that quantum physics existed before the universe existed, as God did, The way that quantum physics acts is similar to the way that God exists. Both are miraculous in there actions. Both act outside of all natural laws. Both are the essence of life itself both are derived from energy, maybe. Of course, quantum physics is in its infancy and time will either confirm or denounce the hypothesis.  I think that there is much to learn about God, and how the Holy Ghost functions, within quantum physics and that before we actually find God in it he will return.  I do not have the capacity to reason all of this out without time. It drains me because of its complexity, although none of it can be considered as fact. It is religious theory that produces some very interesting postulation.

I am talking about science and cosmology verifying the existence of a Supreme being who has caused the universe to exist and has done it in such a way that his participation cannot be denied. I am also making the existence and nature of God more realistic through the phenomenon of energy, like dark energy or the Higgs Boson. Intelligent energy that communicates with other energy sources like they were all a part of a collective consciousness.

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will, compensate by changing it's energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it, keeping the universe, not only in constant motion, but also at a constant energy/mass level. That, to me, is as much of a miracle as Jesus healing the blind, yet it is the science of the miraculous quantum field. Now add the twist of anti - matter.  That is that the sum total of energy in the universe is in fact zero. Clump everything together, both matter and anti-matter, and we have absolutely nothing. We don't even exist, in real terms, yet we are all connected, within the universal energy. I have always known you.

So, is it feasible that God and energy coexist, that they are one and the same. Would that explain, or evidence his existence. Would it make his existence and mission more comprehensible and the plan of salvation obviously necessary. Or does God transcend any human conceptions and is a magical entity, that can defy all natural and super natural laws? This is one of my world views. This makes my belief in God so stalwart and solid, because it makes perfect sense and there is knowledge, even hidden knowledge, that tells us that god lives and that he loves us, as we are a part of him, literally. Now, please, test my faith, knock my world view down. Critique it and be the Devils advocate, if you like, and I will give you my knowledge, the knowledge imparted upon me by the Holy Ghost, who testify of that which is true. I will show you how impossible and inconceivable it would be for God not to exist.

If you are interested in Quantum Physics then this is a very good lecture given by Brian Cox a couple of years ago.

According to Brian Cox in his A night with the Stars lecture1, the Pauli exclusion principle means that no electron in the universe can have the same energy state as any other electron in the universe, and that if he does something to change the energy state of one group of electrons (rubbing a diamond to heat it up in his demo) then that must cause other electrons somewhere in the universe to change their energy states as the states of the electrons in the diamond change.


Link
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Sounds like some sort of sub-Pantheism, i.e. all the energy in the universe is "God".



Pantheists do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god, whereas I do, however, they are certainly not dissimilar.
bnabernard

Genesis has God creating apparently in the dark, and then creating light. but ang on, God is the light and revelation has the temple being lit by God and not needing the sun and other 'created' light.

Non canon text has adam being cast into the dark and created light being made necessary to see by, dark being the veil between sin and perfection.

all gets a bit messy, God is light and life, so is dark created.

Well I'm not the man I used to be,.... well yer I was only about a foot in length once, I sure put on weight since then,

oh well I'll go for a dump and put some back, re-cycle that's the way.

Bernard (hug)
Hi all
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
It is very likely that quantum physics existed before the universe existed,


Sorry, but that needs fleshing out a bit.

First of all; how likely is it? what is the probability that this is the case?
Secondly; what data has been used to calculate that probability?
Thirdly; What does it mean? How can physics exist if no universe exists?
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
Would that explain, or evidence his existence


Oh, I see what you're doing. A bit liek Spinoza (not exactly the same, though, so let's not get sidetracked into Spinoza.

You want to produce evidence of Gods existence, so you do this:

(a) think of something there is evidence for (like 'energy' or 'nature')
(b) argue that god and this other thing are in fact the same thing
(c) produce the existence of the other thing as scientific proof of the existence of God.

Nice idea; doesn't work, unfortunately. No-one who doesn't already believe in God is going to say "oh yes, that's proof of God's existence". They're going to say "what do mean, calling energy "God"? We're happy just calling it energy, thanks" And most people who do already believe in God will just say "No, God is a completely different thing to energy - energy is part of the physics, part of "creation", not the creator".
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
It is very likely that quantum physics existed before the universe existed,


Sorry, but that needs fleshing out a bit.

First of all; how likely is it? what is the probability that this is the case?
Secondly; what data has been used to calculate that probability?
Thirdly; What does it mean? How can physics exist if no universe exists?


As I said, the study of Quantum physics and sub-atomic particles is in its infancy, however, science is currently investigating it at a rapid pace, which suggests a very good probability that it transcends the Big Bang..Sub-atomic particles move through dense matter as though it is not there, no friction or resistance. It is quite unbelievable.

There is extensive research taking place that has produced a great deal of data which has been used to postulate and theorize. One such avenue of research is the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) that has advanced quantum research immesearably.

The first premise to establish is that of "Ex Nihilo, Nihil Fit", or, "from nothing comes nothing". There has never been a time, or an existence out of time, where nothing exists. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it has always existed. Quantum mechanics shows that the concept of "nothing" does not exist. There are always quantized particle fields with random fluctuations. The Big Bang is in fact a quantum event, other wise the universe was created Ex Nihilo, which is not a consideration in science. Since there were particle fields that existed pre-big bag, there would have been subatomic particles. For the big bang to have taken place something must have caused it to happen. If something caused it to happen then it is not considered to be Ex nihilo, because something is not nothing. Even if the entire universe was brought together to produce zero energy then quantum sub-atomic particles would still exist.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="cyberman:127387"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Would that explain, or evidence his existence


Oh, I see what you're doing. A bit liek Spinoza (not exactly the same, though, so let's not get sidetracked into Spinoza.


No, not really. I recognise that it is impossible to prove Gods existence. I am putting forth circumstantial evidence that when culminated together make his existence more likely then not.

Quote:
You want to produce evidence of Gods existence, so you do this:

(a) think of something there is evidence for (like 'energy' or 'nature')
(b) argue that god and this other thing are in fact the same thing
(c) produce the existence of the other thing as scientific proof of the existence of God.


Again, no. that is not my objective. I know that to prove the existence of God is not a realistic endeavour, I am just showing that the probability is pretty good that he does exist. But even if you could prove his existence, without a testimony of his mission and the plan of salvation it would be meaningless to be certain that he exists. It is one thing to know that he exists and another to know why he exists and what our role is in it all. I am showing you evidence of unexplained miracles surrounding the creation of our universe and attributing those miracles to a God, or some other superior being, I am not comparing it to God. God is just one possibility, there could be many more. It is I who attributes these miracles to God, but that takes nothing away from the fact that they are unexplained phenomenon,  miracles.

Quote:
Nice idea; doesn't work, unfortunately. No-one who doesn't already believe in God is going to say "oh yes, that's proof of God's existence".


Yes, I genuinely realize that. I am not trying to convert anyone here, there is no one to convert. In fact, I do not think that there are many left, in the western world, who are even capable of being converted to Christ, which is why I no longer put any real effort to Evangelize.

Without the testimony of the Holy Ghost a true belief in God is just not possible. It is by the Holy Ghost that we are truly converted, not by scientific evidences and theory, no matter how compelling it might be, however, when we consider that 'everything' scientific emanates from Him, then science should enhance and strengthen our testimonies of divinity by demonstrating for us his scientific miracles, like the anthropic principle, or fine tuning, quantum sub-atomic particles, quantum intanglement, dark energy and dark matter, The famous Higgs Boson, the Big Bang theory, and the most miraculous one, in my opinion, rapid expansion, and many, many more

Quote:
They're going to say "what do mean, calling energy "God"? We're happy just calling it energy, thanks" And most people who do already believe in God will just say "No, God is a completely different thing to energy - energy is part of the physics, part of "creation", not the creator"


You are quite correct, that is the general type of response that would be, is, fourthcoming, however, that is to be expected. Tradition has painted a much different picture to the one that I am displaying. But that is the way that new discoveries are made, by thinking out of the box. All that I am doing is sharing, or presenting, information here and asking for it to be evaluated, scrutinised and analysed for its feasibility and likelihood. That information gives me, personally, one of those "Yes, of course" moments so I would like others to feel the same and realise, yes, of course, it all fits. Religion seems to be so scared of tackling science because they become so hostile and uppity when you do, however, It is not mans science, it never was, it is Gods science that He has drip fed to the more scientifically astute of us. Religion is based on an entity, a superior being, a God, who is the creator and organiser of the universe and all the natural laws are by His design. He is the master scientist. He is the creator of the physical universe, not a magician but an accomplished scientist. Religion needs to see that and step up to the mark.
Derek

[quote="Ralph2:127390"]
Quote:
[quote="cyberman:127387"]
Ralph2 wrote:
Would that explain, or evidence his existence


Oh, I see what you're doing. A bit liek Spinoza (not exactly the same, though, so let's not get sidetracked into Spinoza.


No, not really. I recognise that it is impossible to prove Gods existence. I am putting forth circumstantial evidence that when culminated together make his existence more likely then not.

Quote:
You want to produce evidence of Gods existence, so you do this:

(a) think of something there is evidence for (like 'energy' or 'nature')
(b) argue that god and this other thing are in fact the same thing
(c) produce the existence of the other thing as scientific proof of the existence of God.


Again, no. that is not my objective. I know that to prove the existence of God is not a realistic endeavour, I am just showing that the probability is pretty good that he does exist. But even if you could prove his existence, without a testimony of his mission and the plan of salvation it would be meaningless to be certain that he exists. It is one thing to know that he exists and another to know why he exists and what our role is in it all. I am showing you evidence of unexplained miracles surrounding the creation of our universe and attributing those miracles to a God, or some other superior being, I am not comparing it to God. God is just one possibility, there could be many more. It is I who attributes these miracles to God, but that takes nothing away from the fact that they are unexplained phenomenon,  miracles.

Quote:
Nice idea; doesn't work, unfortunately. No-one who doesn't already believe in God is going to say "oh yes, that's proof of God's existence".


Yes, I genuinely realize that. I am not trying to convert anyone here, there is no one to convert. In fact, I do not think that there are many left, in the western world, who are even capable of being converted to Christ, which is why I no longer put any real effort to Evangelize.

Without the testimony of the Holy Ghost a true belief in God is just not possible. It is by the Holy Ghost that we are truly converted, not by scientific evidences and theory, no matter how compelling it might be, however, when we consider that 'everything' scientific emanates from Him, then science should enhance and strengthen our testimonies of divinity by demonstrating for us his scientific miracles, like the anthropic principle, or fine tuning, quantum sub-atomic particles, quantum intanglement, dark energy and dark matter, The famous Higgs Boson, the Big Bang theory,abiogenesis and biogenesis, biological evolution and the most miraculous one, in my opinion, rapid expansion, and many, many more

Quote:
They're going to say "what do mean, calling energy "God"? We're happy just calling it energy, thanks" And most people who do already believe in God will just say "No, God is a completely different thing to energy - energy is part of the physics, part of "creation", not the creator"


You are quite correct, that is the general type of response that would be, is, fourthcoming, however, that is to be expected. Tradition has painted a much different picture to the one that I am displaying. But that is the way that new discoveries are made, by thinking out of the box. All that I am doing is sharing, or presenting, information here and asking for it to be evaluated, scrutinised and analysed for its feasibility and likelihood. That information gives me, personally, one of those "Yes, of course" moments so I would like others to feel the same and realise, yes, of course, it all fits. Religion seems to be so scared of tackling science because they become so hostile and uppity when you do, however, It is not mans science, it never was, it is Gods science that He has drip fed to the more scientifically and academically astute of us for centuries. Religion is based on an entity, a superior being, a God, who is the creator and organiser of the universe and all the natural laws are by His design. He is the master scientist. He is the creator of the physical universe, not a magician but an accomplished scientist. Religion needs to see that and step up to the mark to take ownership of what is rightfully theirs.

My conclusion is that God created the universe, that he caused it to exists or if He magically brought it into existence, matters not, as in both cases he is the instigator of this supernatural quantum event. It is my opinion that he created the universe specifically to sustain life so that his spirit children could take upon themselves mortality in the flesh. So that all of mankind could be tried and tested in the flesh. To be apart of the perfect plan of salvation. We are all benefactors of this great work and wonder to bring to pass the mortality and eternal life of Man. This is our purpose and this planet was created, populated and finely tuned in order to accomplish the mind and will of a God. His evidence for existence is all around us. In evolution, abiogenesis, photosynthesis, cognitive reasoning and conscious awareness, intelligence that far exceeds that of our closest counterparts, the big bang theory, rapid expansion, dark energy and matter, the Higgs boson that gives everything mass, the anthropic principle that creates an environment able to sustain human life, galaxies, super novas, black holes, quantum physics, child birth, genes and DNA. Evidence so exquisite yet discarded as hearsay and balderdash by those who do not recognize their origins or destinations. We are surrounded by miracles but we just don't see them anymore.
Derek

As I thought. Debate is not really the motive of those left here.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
As I thought. Debate is not really the motive of those left here.


Don't sulk. It's been a quiet week and nobody has been posting much at all. You got two pages out of your thread which is quite good going, actually.
bnabernard

It would seem that as they have accepted thae sub atomic particles can comunicate over infinite distance in an instance that they will have to discover what form the comunication takes, and in what it travels and what the source is? thinks?

bernard (hug)
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
There has never been a time, or an existence out of time, where nothing exists. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it has always existed. Quantum mechanics shows that the concept of "nothing" does not exist.


This is the atheistic position, of course - that the universe is infinite in time and doesn't have a starting point. My belief is that the universe of time, matter and energy does have a starting point in time, and that there is a first cause.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will, compensate by changing it's energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is in fact the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?
The Boyg

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will, compensate by changing it's energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is in fact the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle
bnabernard

I think you'll find it started with Bohn.

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Everything we call real is made of things we cannot call real, Bohn.

 innit

bernard (hug)
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
There has never been a time, or an existence out of time, where nothing exists. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, it has always existed. Quantum mechanics shows that the concept of "nothing" does not exist.


This is the atheistic position, of course - that the universe is infinite in time and doesn't have a starting point. My belief is that the universe of time, matter and energy does have a starting point in time and that there is a first cause.


I have the same belief as you. I believe that the universe came into existence at t=0 when the singularity was caused to turn into the big bang when the universe expanded within a millisecond.  As Kalam Cosmological Argument says

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2. The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3. The universe has a cause.

It is my belief that God was the cause of the universe. God has always existed, therefore, he never began to exist. Quantum sub-atomic particles have always existed, therefore, they too did not begin to exist which makes them eternal as well. Before t=0 there was the singularity, which is science's way of saying that it does not have a clue what came before, however, they are convinced that quantum sub-atomic particle, that are independent of all natural laws, existed prior to the big bang, indeed, they put forward a very good argument for it that goes clear over my head, right now. So, the only three things that could have theoretically existed before the big bang was God, the intelligence that were mentioned in scripture, and intelligent quantum sub-atomic particles. Or maybe just two elements existed, where God and intelligence together equal quantum sub-atomic particle. Maybe we are all synonymous. Maybe quantum sub-atomic particles is the substance that our spirits are made of. It would make perfect sense if it were
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will compensate by changing its energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is, in fact, the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


It is Pauli exclusion principle. It is a principle and, therefore, it is not a scientific fact, however, the principle is widely excepted in science. The same effect happens in quantum entanglement, if you change one particle then another will react to it, but only if you don't look at it.

In quantum physics, entangled particles remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. The phenomenon so riled Albert Einstein he called it "spooky action at a distance."

The rules of quantum physics state that an unobserved photon exists in all possible states simultaneously but, when observed or measured, exhibits only one state.

Spin is depicted here as an axis of rotation, but actual particles do not rotate.

Entanglement occurs when a pair of particles, such as photons, interact physically. A laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal can cause individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons.

The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more.

When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance.

A proposed experiment would send one photon of the entangled pair to the orbiting International Space Station, a distance of around 310 miles (500 kilometers). This would be the largest distance that has been experimentally tested.

http://www.livescience.com/28550-...tanglement-works-infographic.html
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will, compensate by changing it's energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is in fact the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and mℓ are the same, so ms must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will, compensate by changing it's energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is in fact the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and mℓ are the same, so ms must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.


Exactly! As the text in bold points out it only relates to electrons in the same atom.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise then I would be interested to read it.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will compensate by changing its energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is, in fact, the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere, but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and mℓ are the same, so ms must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.


Exactly! As the text in bold points out it only relates to electrons in the same atom.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise then I would be interested to read it.


Ah, now it seems like we have crossed wires here. To clarify. I am saying, or, I should say that Prof. Brian Cox has said, that every single atom has a unique configuration of electron and uniques levels that encircle the nucleus. If electron 'A' drops a level, consequently causing atom 'B', somewhere in the universe, to now share the same electron configuration to atom 'A'. Atom 'B'  will then adjust itself to the same electron state as the atom 'A' previous state.That atom could be a thousand miles away, yet it will change in an instant to rectify the universal imbalance. The effect is that the entire universe is vibrating at an incalculable rate. That is how I interpreted his demonstration, how do you see it?

A similar effect exists in quantum entanglement where the photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more.

When observed, Photon 'A' takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon 'B', though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon 'A' (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon 'A' and Photon 'B' takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance.

A proposed experiment would send one photon of the entangled pair to the orbiting International Space Station, a distance of around 310 miles (500 kilometers). This would be the largest distance that has been experimentally tested.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will compensate by changing its energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is, in fact, the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere, but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and mℓ are the same, so ms must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.


Exactly! As the text in bold points out it only relates to electrons in the same atom.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise then I would be interested to read it.


Ah, now it seems like we have crossed wires here. To clarify. I am saying, or, I should say that Prof. Brian Cox has said, that every single atom has a unique configuration of electron and uniques levels that encircle the nucleus. If electron 'A' drops a level, consequently causing atom 'B', somewhere in the universe, to now share the same electron configuration to atom 'A'. Atom 'B'  will then adjust itself to the same electron state as the atom 'A' previous state.That atom could be a thousand miles away, yet it will change in an instant to rectify the universal imbalance. The effect is that the entire universe is vibrating at an incalculable rate. That is how I interpreted his demonstration, how do you see it?


Well, if Professor Brian Cox said it then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find a quote of him saying it for me to peruse, given how widely publicised his comments tend to be.
bnabernard

Ah, such an entanglement.

bernard (hug)
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:

According to Pauli exclusion principle, if you change the energy level of an electron the whole universe adjusts itself to put itself back into equilibrium,  instantly. As no two electrons can occupy the same energy level in an atom,  another atom, a billion light years away will compensate by changing its energy level to that of the one that has just changed, instantly, without time, or distance, being relevant to it,


This resembles the science fiction of James Blish. Is there any experimental data to indicate that this is, in fact, the case? Or is it just someone ("Pauli"?) thinking "wouldn't it be cool if that was the case?"?


I have heard this claim made for the Pauli exclusion principle elsewhere, but no mention of it is made in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle


The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that states that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms). For two electrons residing in the same orbital, n, ℓ, and mℓ are the same, so ms must be different and the electrons have opposite spins. This principle was formulated by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1925.


Exactly! As the text in bold points out it only relates to electrons in the same atom.

If you have a credible source that says otherwise then I would be interested to read it.


Ah, now it seems like we have crossed wires here. To clarify. I am saying, or, I should say that Prof. Brian Cox has said, that every single atom has a unique configuration of electron and uniques levels that encircle the nucleus. If electron 'A' drops a level, consequently causing atom 'B', somewhere in the universe, to now share the same electron configuration to atom 'A'. Atom 'B'  will then adjust itself to the same electron state as the atom 'A' previous state.That atom could be a thousand miles away, yet it will change in an instant to rectify the universal imbalance. The effect is that the entire universe is vibrating at an incalculable rate. That is how I interpreted his demonstration, how do you see it?


Well, if Professor Brian Cox said it then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to find a quote of him saying it for me to peruse, given how widely publicised his comments tend to be.


"If" Professor Brian Cox said it? If he didn't then I would be a liar. Are you accusing me of lying? If you are making that assertion would you mind giving a motive and reason for your accusation. As you can see below, I am not lying, why would I lie about something so trivial? I am debating the theory of whether God and energy are the same thing and not IF what I am saying is true or not. If I am lying then what is the point in debating.

You are right, it is not difficult for me to find it as I know that he said it and I know when and where he said it, however, anyone who can use a search engine can find it if they are a little paranoid that someone might shot themselves in the foot by lying about their own understanding on sub-atomic particle.

In my previous post, I politely asked you "That is how I interpreted his demonstration, how do you see it?" You didn't answer my question, which would have given me an idea of what you opinion on the matter is. Is there a reason why you did not respond. If you are not going to answer my questions then we are not going to be able to debate the OP.

I already have given you the source of my claim, in this very thread, in the form of a video, called "a night with the stars" You obviously have not watched it, though I posted it to give the reader a better understanding of Pauli exclusion principle and, if correct, just how miraculous it is. He explains it by using the celebrity audience to simulate the different electron levels. If you had of watched it, as I thought that anyone interested in the thread would do, we would not be contending over trivialities again.

According to Brian Cox in his A night with the Stars lecture1, the Pauli exclusion principle means that no electron in the universe can have the same energy state as any other electron in the universe, and that if he does something to change the energy state of one group of electrons (rubbing a diamond to heat it up in his demo) then that must cause other electrons somewhere in the universe to change their energy states as the states of the electrons in the diamond change.

Brian Cox Explains

Quote:
"So here’s the amazing thing: the exclusion principle still applies, so none of the electrons in the universe can sit in precisely the same energy level. But that must mean something very odd. See, let me take this diamond, and let me just heat it up a bit between my hands. Just gently warming it up, and put a bit of energy into it, so I’m shifting the electrons around. Some of the electrons are jumping into different energy levels. But this shift of the electron configuration inside the diamond has consequences, because the sum total of all the electrons in the universe must respect Pauli. Therefore, every electron around every atom in the universe must be shifted as I heat the diamond up to make sure that none of them end up in the same energy level. When I heat this diamond up all the electrons across the universe instantly but imperceptibly change their energy levels."

Prof. Brian Cox



Link
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:

"If" Professor Brian Cox said it? If he didn't then I would be a liar. Are you accusing me of lying? If you are making that assertion would you mind giving a motive and reason for your accusation.


Don't get your panties in a bunch Ralph.

I asked you to substantiate something that you had said. This is not an unreasonable thing to do.

Clearly you don't think it was unreasonable either since you have now provided substantiation.
The Boyg

Several well reasoned and argued objections to the way that Professor Cox described this from knowledgeable observers here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/...aneously-affect-distant-electrons

Basically it was a bit of an oversimplification that would tend to misinform the viewer if they weren't very familiar with the subject themselves.


The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Several well reasoned and argued objections to the way that Professor Cox described this from knowledgeable observers here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/...aneously-affect-distant-electrons

Basically it was a bit of an oversimplification that would tend to misinform the viewer if they weren't very familiar with the subject themselves.


The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.


I believe this to be the tip of the iceberg, as many scientists do. It actually does point to interconnectivity, just not universally, that is a discovery in waiting. One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that. It is nothing short of a miracle, just as Jesus healing the blind was, at that time. We have not touched on the quantum field either as of yet, which is completely interconnected. Every sub-atomic particle is effected by it giving the possibility that we are all connected.

Science has already measurable results of the power of prayer, meditation, visualization and love. By paying attention to our thoughts and feelings toward one another, we can actually help change the state of the world. Science is showing that this is more than just “positive thinking.” In fact, there are studies that have come from reputable research, academic and scientific institutions that all seem to be arriving at the fact that all of life is interconnected. Maybe what may have been thought to be symbolism or myth was in fact a universal truth that we are just now resurrecting? Since science is now collaborating that we are connected through a continuous energy field or matrix, let’s consider what we immerse our thoughts in… are we looking at positive images of what we want to create in the world? By their fruits the will be known. Is this planet a home for caring loving people or a home for those with issues. I once heard it said that of all the planets, that have been created by God, the occupants of this planet were the only ones who were sufficiently wicked enough to crucify His son. I wonder.

http://www.gdnfo.org/index.php?op...yout=blog&id=37&Itemid=60

At the end of the day, you are connected to me whether you like it or not.
bnabernard

God invented gravity by putting it in his gravy.

bernard (hug)[/i]
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Several well reasoned and argued objections to the way that Professor Cox described this from knowledgeable observers here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/...aneously-affect-distant-electrons

Basically it was a bit of an oversimplification that would tend to misinform the viewer if they weren't very familiar with the subject themselves.


The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.


I believe this to be the tip of the iceberg, as many scientists do. It actually does point to interconnectivity, just not universally, that is a discovery in waiting. One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that. It is nothing short of a miracle, just as Jesus healing the blind was, at that time.


It is not a miracle. It is an unexplained scientific observation. It is repeatable though so clearly follows some underlying physical law, unlike purported miracles.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
 One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that.  


There is no evidence for that.

Ralph2 wrote:
  Is this planet a home for caring loving people or a home for those with issues.


clearly both
Derek

Quote:
[quote="cyberman:127459"]
Ralph2 wrote:
 One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that.  


There is no evidence for that.


Yes, there is.

Researchers demonstrate quantum entanglement

http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/resea...ntanglement-prove-einstein-wrong/

First conclusive proof 'spooky' quantum entanglement is real

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-1...ooky-entanglement-is-real/6876262

Quantum Entanglement Experiment Proves 'Non-Locality' For First Time, Will Permit Multi-Party Quantum Communication

http://planetsave.com/2014/03/28/...ulti-party-quantum-communication/

Quote:
Ralph2 wrote:
  Is this planet a home for caring loving people or a home for those with issues.


clearly both


I agree, however, I believe it is a little out of balanced. That is fine, though, as that is the condition that is required before the return of Jesus Christ. It is prophecy fulfilled.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Several well reasoned and argued objections to the way that Professor Cox described this from knowledgeable observers here:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/...aneously-affect-distant-electrons

Basically it was a bit of an oversimplification that would tend to misinform the viewer if they weren't very familiar with the subject themselves.


The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.


I believe this to be the tip of the iceberg, as many scientists do. It actually does point to interconnectivity, just not universally, that is a discovery in waiting. One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that. It is nothing short of a miracle, just as Jesus healing the blind was, at that time.


It is not a miracle. It is an unexplained scientific observation. It is repeatable though so clearly follows some underlying physical law, unlike purported miracles.


A Miracle is. "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." Quantum Entanglement meets with all of the requirements of what a miracle is. Healing blindness was also considered a miracle when Jesus did it, but today blindness is cured all the time. Man has become more intelligent and knowledgeable, however, because it was unexplained it was considered to be a miracle. Today, we no longer attribute miracles to God, but we arrogantly put it down to the intelligence of men, but where did that knowledge come from, man? Not in my opinion, it has been drip fed to mankind, by God, over recent centuries. When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return. We are getting very close with our understanding of God with religion and science converging, whether scientists want it or not. God has saved the right spirits, having the necessary attributes, to come forward in the last days. He is a strategist, He knows exactly what he is doing.
cyberman

Ralph2 wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.


Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.


Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


I am not sure exactly what Scientology is, however, I don't belong to any religious organisation.

Yes, why not? What is the purpose of life if not to obtain knowledge and wisdom whilst being tried and tested in the flesh. What reason do you think we are here for? Please give your objection to it being a progression to eventually obtain Godhood. It seems inevitable to me. There has to be a reason for me. Do you think that there is a reason. It would be interesting to know it if you do.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.


I believe this to be the tip of the iceberg, as many scientists do. It actually does point to interconnectivity, just not universally, that is a discovery in waiting. One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that. It is nothing short of a miracle, just as Jesus healing the blind was, at that time.


It is not a miracle. It is an unexplained scientific observation. It is repeatable though so clearly follows some underlying physical law, unlike purported miracles.


A Miracle is. "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." Quantum Entanglement meets with all of the requirements of what a miracle is.


According to a poor definition of "miracle".

If something is repeatable by anyone by following the same actions and getting the same result then it's not a miracle. It's something natural for which an explanation has yet to be codified.

By your definition the steam engine was a "miracle" because it was invented prior to the laws of thermodynamics being formulated.
Derek

[quote="The Boyg:127464"]
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

The point about quantum entanglement holds true though, but that doesn't effect every quantum particle simultaneously, just those that have been entangled, and doesn't therefore point to universal interconnectedness.


I believe this to be the tip of the iceberg, as many scientists do. It actually does point to interconnectivity, just not universally, that is a discovery in waiting. One entangled quantum sub-atomic particle can affect its counterpart a million miles away in an instant. There is no explanation for that. It is nothing short of a miracle, just as Jesus healing the blind was, at that time.


It is not a miracle. It is an unexplained scientific observation. It is repeatable though so clearly follows some underlying physical law, unlike purported miracles.


A Miracle is. "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature." Quantum Entanglement meets with all of the requirements of what a miracle is.


Quote:
According to a poor definition of "miracle".


Well, that is quite an unnecessary insult, and, of course, your opinion. Both, sadly, expected.

Quote:
If something is repeatable by anyone by following the same actions and getting the same result then, it's not a miracle. It's something natural for which an explanation has yet to be codified.


That is the position that a scientist, and probably an atheist, would take. As a Christian, I have a much different perspective of the world than you do. In my fervent belief, all phenomena, whether natural or supernatural, emanates from God. The scientific method came about by the influence of the Holy Ghost, instructed by God. Every scientific discovery is the result of God's inspiration to the minds and intelligence of mankind. God is the master scientist and creator of everything.

Quote:
By your definition the steam engine was a "miracle" because it was invented prior to the laws of thermodynamics being formulated.


Not really, is it? The knowledge on how to make a steam engine was there before the laws of thermodynamics had been formulated, indicating, to me, that those laws were not a requirement in order to construct a steam train. A more precise analogy is more like Jesus Christ healing the sick when a knowledge of a cause, diagnosis or cure were not available, or even contemplated at that time.    

Why do I get this feeling that you are not altogether converted to being a Christian? I know you will not answer that, however, you seem to be playing the devil's advocate by attributing everything to mankind rather then God, who created the universe and all that is in it. Why do you give the Glory to man rather than God? It seems a little bizarre to me.
The Boyg

Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
According to a poor definition of "miracle".


Well, that is quite an unnecessary insult, and, of course, your opinion. Both, sadly, expected.


How the fuck can that be reasonably construed to be an insult?
Derek

I will ignore the last vulgar remark, as the moderators have done as well. Maybe Powwow has a greater point than I had already thought. If The Boyg genuinely does not know that to call a persons definition, that he thinks is perfectly adequate, a poor definition, then nothing I can say to him will make any difference to his "poor" treatment and attitude to others. Is it a wonder that he is not a welcomed guest at anyone's table.

To Continue, ignoring the Unnecessary Hostility

How does all of this make you a spiritual being? For me, the answer to that question is one of the most magnificent parts of the teachings of God. You are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy just changes form. And that means You! The true essence of You, the pure energy of You, has always been and always will be. You can never not be.

On a deep level, you know that. Can you imagine not being? Despite everything you have seen and experienced in your life, can you imagine not being? You cannot imagine it, because it is impossible. You are eternal energy.

Some of the greatest teachers and avatars described the Universe in the same way as Dr. Hagelin, by saying that all that exists is the One Universal Mind, and there is nowhere that the One Mind is not. It exists in everything. The One Mind is all intelligence, all wisdom, and all perfection, and it is everything and everywhere at the same time. If everything is the One Universal Mind, and the whole of it exists everywhere, then it is all in You!

Let me help you understand what that means for you. It means that every possibility already exists. All knowledge, all discoveries, and all inventions of the future, are in the Universal Mind as possibilities, waiting for the human mind to draw them forth. Every creation and invention in history has also been drawn from the Universal Mind, whether the person consciously knew that or not.

How do you draw from it? You do it through your awareness of it, and by using your wonderful imagination. Look around you for needs waiting to be filled. Imagine if we had a great invention to do this, or imagine if we had a great invention to do that. Look for the needs, and then imagine and think their fulfilment into being. You don't have to work out the discovery or the invention. The Supreme Mind holds that possibility. All you have to do is hold your mind on the end result and imagine filling the need, and you will call it into being. As you ask and feel and believe, you will receive. There is an unlimited supply of ideas waiting for you to tap into and bring forth. You hold everything in your consciousness.

So whichever way you look at it, the result is still the same. We are One. We are all connected, and we are all part of the One Energy Field, or the One Supreme Mind, or the One Consciousness, or the One Creative Source. Call it whatever you want, but we are all One.

Almost one hundred years ago, without the benefit of all the scientific discoveries of the last hundred years, Charles Haanel knew how the Universe operated.

"The Universal Mind is not only intelligence, but it is substance, and this substance is the attractive force which brings electrons together by the law of attraction so they form atoms; the atoms in turn are brought together by the same law and form molecules; molecules take objective forms and so we find that the law is the creative force behind every manifestation, not only of atoms, but of worlds, of the Universe, of everything of which the imagination can form any conception."



The Secret
cyberman

The Boyg wrote:
Ralph2 wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
According to a poor definition of "miracle".


Well, that is quite an unnecessary insult, and, of course, your opinion. Both, sadly, expected.


How the fuck can that be reasonably construed to be an insult?


Ralph2 wrote:
I will ignore the last vulgar remark, as the moderators have done as well. Maybe Powwow has a greater point than I had already thought. If The Boyg genuinely does not know that to call a persons definition, that he thinks is perfectly adequate, a poor definition, then nothing I can say to him will make any difference to his "poor" treatment and attitude to others. Is it a wonder that he is not a welcomed guest at anyone's table.

To Continue, ignoring the Unnecessary Hostility


This demonstrates to me that Ralph is simply spoiling for a fight. Boyg is entirely correct to question how his criticism of a definition can be considered an insult. Furthermore, for someone who was bleating about the fact that no-one will engage in debate with you, it is quite shortsighted of you to pick a fight in this contrived manner when someone does exactly that. A debate going to involve people disagreeing with things like your definition of terms. That's normal.
Ketty



The personal accusations about good folk here being 'sociopaths' have been removed to the Bear Pit.  Back on topic please.  
cyberman

Ralph, your massive tantrum about The Boyg challenging your premises has derailed your own thread. The point is that equating scientific discoveries with miracles is flawed. The reason being, as The Boyg quite reasonably pointed out, a miracle is something which cannot be duplicated experimentally.

Perhaps the confusion is because you are mixing up an actual miracle with something which a primitive people might mistakenly believe to be a miracle because of the level of their scientific understanding. An eclipse, for example, might be such an event.

Are you saying that, for example, the feeding of the five thousand was not actually a miracle, but a scientifically explicable event which was wrongly taken to be miraculous at the time?
Ketty

Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.


cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.
Derek

Ketty wrote:
Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.

M
cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.



Liar
cyberman

Derek wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.

M
cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.



Liar


Are you interested in discussing your ideas about miracles or not?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Derek wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.

M
cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.



Liar


Are you interested in discussing your ideas about miracles or not?


Yes, tell me what it is about my ideas on miracles that you do not understand and I will try to give you a detailed response on what I believe, but please, no hostilities, I am sick to death of hostilities and insults.

To give you food for thought, it is well known, within the science world, that Quantum sub-atomic particles are in fact intelligent.
cyberman

Derek wrote:


Yes, tell me what it is about my ideas on miracles that you do not understand  



I understand your position perfectly well, and have asked you a couple of questions about it.

Derek wrote:


it is well known, within the science world, that Quantum sub-atomic particles are in fact intelligent.


No, it isn't
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Derek wrote:


Yes, tell me what it is about my ideas on miracles that you do not understand  



I understand your position perfectly well, and have asked you a couple of questions about it.

Derek wrote:


it is well known, within the science world, that Quantum sub-atomic particles are in fact intelligent.


No, it isn't


What makes you say, so ardently, that it isn't. Have you considered it or researched it in any way. Why are you so sure that a quantum sub-atomic particle does not have intelligence.

Just a few words to consider that have been spoken about God and Intelligence

The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth

For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light

“The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed"

God’s light includes the physical light we see, which makes us feel so warm and comfortable. God’s light is also the power to understand and comprehend all things. In other words, all kinds of light are related to intelligence and truth.

Intelligence builds on intelligence. It accumulates and attracts intelligence and is constantly and progressively growing. One reason for our existence is to acquire intelligence and progress in our knowledge of God.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Derek wrote:

it is well known, within the science world, that Quantum sub-atomic particles are in fact intelligent.


No, it isn't


What makes you say, so ardently, that it isn't.


Because it's the truth, I would have thought.

Of course, if you have any evidence from credible sources that indicate that fundamental particles are imbued with intelligence then please feel at liberty to present it.
cyberman

Derek wrote:


What makes you say, so ardently, that it isn't. Have you considered it or researched it in any way. Why are you so sure that a quantum sub-atomic particle does not have intelligence..


It wasn't ardent, it was more matter-of-fact. "No it isn't" refers to your claim that "it is well known". I very much doubt that particles have the ability to reason, innovate and learn (which is what I think intelligence means), but I am quite certain that such a phenomenon cannot be described as a well known fact.

Do you have any answers to my remarks about miracles?
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Derek wrote:


What makes you say, so ardently, that it isn't. Have you considered it or researched it in any way. Why are you so sure that a quantum sub-atomic particle does not have intelligence.


It wasn't ardent, it was more matter-of-fact. "No it isn't" refers to your claim that "it is well known". I very much doubt that particles have the ability to reason, innovate and learn (which is what I think intelligence means), but I am quite certain that such a phenomenon cannot be described as a well known fact.

In my opinion, it is well-known as there is much research on it and the internet has many articles on it.

Do you have any answers to my remarks about miracles?


Unlike Boyg, I never try to avoid responding to questions. I am aware that posters ask questions for a reason so I always try and respond. Ig you post your remarks on miracles then I will do my best to answer them.

Quantum sub-atomic particles are not singularly capable of making a cup of tea or reasoning our existence, however, they do act intelligently, like instinct or the same type of intelligence that makes our heart beat and lungs breathe. There is research going on all over the place on it from the heart being a second brain to our Natural Biomagnetic Fields influencing those around us and Cosmic Consciousness or the Morphic Magnetic Field are but a few.

Take your pick of just 10 articles of many pages on the subject of quantum sub-atomic particle having intelligence.

About 400,000 results (0.66 seconds) Search Results

Do subatomic particles have free will? | Science News
https://www.sciencenews.org/artic...ubatomic-particles-have-free-will
15 Aug 2008 - Math Trek: If we have free will, so do subatomic particles, mathematicians claim to prove.

The Subatomic View Point.. - Our Planet
www.ourplanet.org/science.html
Far from being the hard and solid particles they were believed to be since ... more and more are increasingly aware that the universe is intelligent.. supremely so!

[WP] Subatomic particles are actually intelligent creatures ...
https://www.reddit.com/.../wp_sub...rticles_are_actually_intellige...
5 Aug 2015 - [WP] Subatomic particles are actually intelligent creatures, and all of particle physics / chemistry is a result of their social interactions.Writing ...
Why do sub-atomic particles behave differently when observed by ...
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid...
3 Jan 2007 - Human thought affects sub-atomic particles and thus, human thought actually ... But if you imagine God to be a pervasive intelligent quantum
...
Quantum Physics and Evolving Consciousness - Light Omega
www.lightomega.org/Quantum-Physics-and-Evolving-Consciousness.html
The fluidity of this landscape of sub-atomic particles is like the foam frothing on a ... construction - the name for a vast Intelligence which contains all things within  ...

What is the point of 'worshipping' sub-atomic particles? Part ...
www.intelligentenergies.com/what-is-the-point-of-worshipping-sub-atom...
14 Oct 2012 - This blog topic refers to an earlier observation that Intelligent Energies cross the universe – as easily as gravity and radio waves. Throughout ...

Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1564149196
James N. Gardner - 2007 - ‎Science
... ago, scrubbed clean of stars and galaxies well before life and intelligence could ... you will know that M-theory posits that subatomic particles such as quarks,  ...

Universe's Intelligent Design Via Evolution (UIDE)©: The ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0805976841
Thomas Edward Fairbairn - 2008 - ‎Cosmology
They produce narrow beams of energetic particles and magnetic fields, and eject ... a neutron star is an extremely dense ball of subatomic particles, which theory  ...

An Intelligent Person's Guide to Christian Ethics
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0826476732
Alban McCoy - 2006 - ‎Religion
This principle, named after its discoverer, Werner Heisenberg (1901-76)4 states that we cannot know both the location and the momentum of subatomic particles  ...
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
Unlike Boyg, I never try to avoid responding to questions. I am aware that posters ask questions for a reason so I always try and respond.


So let's have a look at the substance of the "evidence" that you have presented in support of your claim that "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent":

Derek wrote:
Do subatomic particles have free will? | Science News
https://www.sciencenews.org/artic...ubatomic-particles-have-free-will


Quote:
two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably.

The finding won’t give many physicists a moment’s worry, because traditional interpretations of quantum mechanics embrace unpredictability already. The best anyone can hope to do, quantum theory says, is predict the probability that a particle will behave in a certain way.


So no particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 1.


Derek wrote:
The Subatomic View Point.. - Our Planet
www.ourplanet.org/science.html
Far from being the hard and solid particles they were believed to be since ... more and more are increasingly aware that the universe is intelligent.. supremely so!


Quote:
Naturally, of the up and coming mathematical theoretical physicists of today more and more are increasingly aware that the universe is intelligent.. supremely so!


So it doesn't actually say anything along the lines of "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent". Even if it did the site doesn't appear to be linked to any credible scientist, academic institution, scientific organisation or recognised work of reference. It provides no verifiable sources for the assertion that "the up and coming mathematical theoretical physicists of today more and more are increasingly aware that the universe is intelligent".

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 2.


Derek wrote:
[WP] Subatomic particles are actually intelligent creatures ...
https://www.reddit.com/.../wp_sub...rticles_are_actually_intellige...


Quote:
page not found

the page you requested does not exist


No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 3.


Derek wrote:
Why do sub-atomic particles behave differently when observed by ...
https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid...


Doesn't link to the answer to the question.

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 4.


Derek wrote:
Quantum Physics and Evolving Consciousness - Light Omega
www.lightomega.org/Quantum-Physics-and-Evolving-Consciousness.html
The fluidity of this landscape of sub-atomic particles is like the foam frothing on a ... construction - the name for a vast Intelligence which contains all things within  ...


Quote:
Some physicists define the vacuum state as a state of nothingness. However, it has also been defined as a state of being which appears on the physical level to contain nothing, but which plays an active role in determining which particles emerge from it and become 'explicate' or real. The 'implicate order' can be seen as both a physical and metaphysical construction - the name for a vast Intelligence which contains all things within itself and which 'en-folds' or 'un-folds' these things so that they emerge into the reality we experience as real.


Not a scientific website. Some sort of philosophical woo.

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 5.


Derek wrote:
What is the point of 'worshipping' sub-atomic particles? Part ...
www.intelligentenergies.com/what-is-the-point-of-worshipping-sub-atom...
14 Oct 2012 - This blog topic refers to an earlier observation that Intelligent Energies cross the universe – as easily as gravity and radio waves. Throughout ...


Not a scientific website. More philosophical / new age woo.

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 6.


Derek wrote:
Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=1564149196
James N. Gardner - 2007 - ‎Science
... ago, scrubbed clean of stars and galaxies well before life and intelligence could ... you will know that M-theory posits that subatomic particles such as quarks,  ...


More woo (I think a pattern is emerging here).

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 7.


Derek wrote:
Universe's Intelligent Design Via Evolution (UIDE)©: The ...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0805976841
Thomas Edward Fairbairn - 2008 - ‎Cosmology
They produce narrow beams of energetic particles and magnetic fields, and eject ... a neutron star is an extremely dense ball of subatomic particles, which theory  ...


The quote from this book doesn't even mention anything along the lines of "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent.

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 8.


Derek wrote:
An Intelligent Person's Guide to Christian Ethics
https://books.google.co.uk/books?isbn=0826476732
Alban McCoy - 2006 - ‎Religion
This principle, named after its discoverer, Werner Heisenberg (1901-76)4 states that we cannot know both the location and the momentum of subatomic particles  ...


Not a science book. The quote from this book doesn't even mention anything along the lines of "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent.

No particles with intelligence there. Score 0 for 9.


EPIC FAIL.

Instead of simply copy pasting the results of a Google search you should try checking the results to see if they are actually relevant to the claim that you have made.

Now, if you have any evidence from credible sources that indicate that fundamental particles are imbued with intelligence then please feel at liberty to present it.
Derek

Let's not, as I never made a claim about anything, in fact nobody knows. Look at the wording and you will see that we are talking about ideas and not facts. Your opinions is unwelcomed here as you are a trouble maker and this is a debate, not an argument. You just want to prove me wrong, well you can't, because there is no right on the subject yet. See you on one of the other thread where you are busy exacting your revenge.

Your appraisals of these sites is erroneous as you are only interested in your personal vendetta so your opinion will be biased by your hatred of me, and not in constructive debate, plus, an electrical engineer is not qualified to make such appraisals. I did not even look at them. I just googled it to show cyberman that there is interest in the possibility of quantum sub-atomic particles acting intelligently, however, if cyberman wants me to go through the various research on the subject of my ideas then I will have a go. It is not about point scoring in an argument, it is about the debate of opinions and beliefs. You are making yourself look silly because you are not used to debating as much as you are used to hostile argumenting and bullying.
The Boyg

OK then, your opinion that "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent" is based on the sort of woo that is commonplace in those websites and books but not in real science Derek.

If it was just your opinion you shouldn't have claimed that this was well known in the scientific world.
Derek

Quote:
Now, if you have any evidence from credible sources that indicate that fundamental particles are imbued with intelligence then please feel at liberty to present it.


You think that I would enter into any kind of meaningful debate with you, let alone give you any evidence to destroy with your lack of knowledge, you have to be joking.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
OK then, your opinion that "Quantum sub-atomic particles are .. intelligent" is based on the sort of woo that is commonplace in those websites and books but not in real science Derek.

If it was just your opinion you shouldn't have claimed that this was well known in the scientific world.


In my opinion it is, and I will claim whatever I want to claim based on my knowledge and experience of the subject matter that clearly shows the quantum sub-atomic particles act intelligently
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
Quote:
Now, if you have any evidence from credible sources that indicate that fundamental particles are imbued with intelligence then please feel at liberty to present it.


You think that I would enter into any kind of meaningful debate with you, let alone give you any evidence to destroy with your lack of knowledge, you have to be joking.


If it was genuine evidence than I wouldn't be able to "destroy" it.

If, however, it's pseudoscientific woo then it's not really evidence to begin with.  
Derek

[quote="The Boyg:127574"]
Derek wrote:
Quote:
Now, if you have any evidence from credible sources that indicate that fundamental particles are imbued with intelligence then please feel at liberty to present it.


You think that I would enter into any kind of meaningful debate with you, let alone give you any evidence to destroy with your lack of knowledge, you have to be joking.


Quote:
If it was genuine evidence than I wouldn't be able to "destroy" it.

You didn't, you think you did. Even if it were wrong you are not clever enough to destroy argument on quantum physics

Quote:
If, however, it's pseudoscientific woo then it's not really evidence to begin with.  


It never was intended to be, which proves my point that you are ignorant to the subject and this debate and are just trying to derail it, as you have done many, many times before. As I am not a scientist than you are right it is pseudoscience, but I am not as macho and prideful as you, needing to be on top of the game and winning the points. I am realistic and a Christian.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
You didn't, you think you did. Even if it were wrong you are not clever enough to destroy argument on quantum physics


OK, so when are you going to present any evidence from credible scientific sources (as opposed to woo woo pseudoscientific sources) that supports your claim that "it is well known, within the science world, that Quantum sub-atomic particles are in fact intelligent"?
bnabernard

Their inteligence assumes that they comunicate, however they fail to equate that they are comunicated with, that the inteligence is elswhere.

bernaed (hug)
Derek

bnabernard wrote:
Their intelligence assumes that they comunicate, however they fail to equate that they are comunicated with, that the intelligence is elswhere.

bernaed (hug)


bnabernard I missed this one, but let me try and give you my opinion on it. Firstly, Intelligence does not necessarily mean communication. Communication requires both intelligence and knowledge. Intelligence on its own could be just performing an act in a sequence, instinct or a routine. There is no real knowledge in keeping your heart beating it is down to instinct. Communication requires the compounding of sub-atomic particle and the acquisition of knowledge. The more they cluster, the more intelligent they become. Let me give you an example of how they act intelligently. Having said that, could there be an external intelligence acting upon quantum sap. Yes, there is no reason why not, it is just another avenue of free thought that may need another thread to investigate and postulate.

During the early 1980s, a scientist called Bohm, developed his theory of the "Implicate Order" in order to explain the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles--behavior that quantum physicists have not been able to explain. Basically, two subatomic particles that have once interacted can instantaneously "respond to each other's motions thousands of years later when they are light-years apart." This sort of particle interconnectedness requires superluminal signaling, which is faster than the speed of light. This odd phenomenon is called the EPR effect, named after the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen thought experiment.

Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

Yes, it does convey a sense of intelligence for the sheer mass of mathematical laws that govern the world of the atom is breathtaking and, I suspect, even people like Mr. Dawkins, would agree with this point.

So, we see that the laws that govern atoms and sub-atomic particles give an indication that there exists intelligence in their world. To repeat: by ‘intelligence’ I mean simply the existence of these mathematical rules – I am not trying to say that there exists other ‘powers’ out there that are themselves the ‘intelligent’ ones.

On the quantum level, as we know, sub-atomic particles (sap) can behave in contradictory ways and the rules here can be labeled as ‘bizarre’.

All of us know that a moving atom can be anywhere and that the act of observing it will reduce its function that allows us to pinpoint its exact whereabouts. Until an observation is made, it would be pointless to ask, where the atom is at this moment in time. We cannot know.

If photons do not possess a degree of intelligence then why do they act differently when they are observed. How do they know they are being observed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dee...-cosmic-consciousn_b_4632277.html
http://www.science20.com/how_mind...ons_using_novel_notations/blog/do
http://www.bizint.com/stoa_del_sol/plenum/plenum_3.html
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:


Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.



Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria..I have also written scientific manuscripts on the subject of what the definition of Consciousness, the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’ is, and ultimately writing on what the Constituents of the Mind are. These studies are deeply connected with the Quantum Physics Consciousness Sciences – and it is a subject that, perhaps not surprisingly, does not have such a large audience!

http://www.science20.com/profile/ayad_gharbawi

He said: Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

He said to Ayad Gharbawi's quote above, "Nope." Which one is the Dick? You got it.

I told you that you are making yourself look silly. That you are commenting on things that are way out of your depth, but you are not listening, hence, you are making yourself look silly my disagreeing with those who are experts in the field as though you know batter than they do. Clearly you don't, so do yourself a favour and give it up.
Sebastian Toe

Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:


Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.



Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.

http://www.science20.com/profile/ayad_gharbawi

He said: Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

He said to Ayad Gharbawi's quote above, "Nope." Which one is the Dick? You got it.


Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:


Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.



Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.

http://www.science20.com/profile/ayad_gharbawi

He said: Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

He said to Ayad Gharbawi's quote above, "Nope." Which one is the Dick? You got it.



Another post ready for a wee move?

Ketty wrote:


The personal accusations about good folk here being 'sociopaths' have been removed to the Bear Pit.  Back on topic please.  
trentvoyager

Quote:
Another post ready for a wee move?



Aye - I sometimes think one poster is trying to cut this board down to one area - "The Bear Pit". Still it keeps them off the streets.
Derek

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
Another post ready for a wee move?



Aye - I sometimes think one poster is trying to cut this board down to one area - "The Bear Pit". Still it keeps them off the streets.


Hey, why not comment on the possibility of quantum sub-atomic particles and atoms acting intelligently, which would ultimately explain what consciousness is, that is, if the debate can continue unhindered by this silly talk, that has the effect of stunting the discussion,  instead of dissing member about their justified comparison between someone who speaks with authority  and someone who clearly doesn't. Which is in keeping with the topic being discussed,  unlike you two, who are just unnecessarily interfering in the debate causing the potential for hostility to escalate, thus derailing the debate. It is called unwelcomed trouble making, by stirring up the hearts of men, one towards each other. Or Trolling. Being confrontational and inciting contention is not good for intellectual debate. Especially when one of you is a moderator who is charged with the responsibility to encourage honest debate. The comparison i made was not even made about either of you busy bodies, so your unsolicited response was completely unprovoked, unnecessary and unwanted. Maybe you both have difficulties in entering into an intellectual debate and prefer to interfere in other people's disagreements to give an uneven balance instead. Sorry, but it does appear that way, indeed, to the astute mind, it is obvious that you are both at fault for posting these words. It is not the actions expected of decent people who enjoy debating as opposed to arguing and insulting. People in the real world don't act like this, do they? Now, as Ketty has said, back on topic, Does quantum sub-atomic particles act intelligently,  as described in quantum entanglement and quantum tunnelling where quantum sap jump across to other clusters causing a coherent bonding then disappearing again.
Derek

Sebastian Toe wrote:
Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:


Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.



Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.

http://www.science20.com/profile/ayad_gharbawi

He said: Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

He said to Ayad Gharbawi's quote above, "Nope." Which one is the Dick? You got it.


Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:


Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?


Nope.



Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.

http://www.science20.com/profile/ayad_gharbawi

He said: Let us recall that atoms – like so many other facets of this universe – obey rules, laws, and axioms that are themselves elegantly expressed and concisely explained in mathematical notations and symbols.

Doesn’t that fact, in itself, express a degree of intelligence?

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

He said to Ayad Gharbawi's quote above, "Nope." Which one is the Dick? You got it.



Another post ready for a wee move?

Ketty wrote:


The personal accusations about good folk here being 'sociopaths' have been removed to the Bear Pit.  Back on topic please.  


Do you know, I have had a good look at this post, and have read it a couple of times as well, however, I just cannot find any connection in your post and the OP. It seems as though you are trying to intentionally annoy me by getting my post moved into the Bear Pit, which I am not really averse to, but the only impropriety that I can find here seems to have been done within your post.

1. it is completely off topic bearing no connection with the OP

2. Because it is Off Topic it has the potential of derail the thread by taking it off on an unrelated tangent.

3. It leaves me with the distinct impression that you are premeditatedly victimising me without cause or provocation.

4. that effectively contravenes another rule by attacking the person and not the ball, but, in this case, I do not even have the ball yet you are still attacking me. Why?  

To be perfectly honest, Trentvoyager, in his capacity and duty as a forum moderator, should remove your post because it has the potential to incite hostilities, it could take the thread off topic, and it could derail the thread thus spoiling the enjoyment of those who might want to debate the OP, it is, therefore, behaving inconsiderately as well. That would be the right thing for him to do in order to ensure a smooth, constructive and rewarding debate with minimal interruptions. Unless, of course, that is what  trentvoyager seeks to obtain. But tell someone how they should do things properly and they usually shot themselves in the foot and do the exact opposite. Indeed, he should also remove his own post as well because it encouraging you, and others, to follow suit thus casting aspersions on the fairness of moderation. All very blatant incontrovertible comportment that are simply and plainly poor conduct and a poor exemplar from a moderator, and ungentlemanly like attitude for a member of the forum. Hey, but not by my measuring stick, oh no, this is down to common decency and proper behaviour. It is what we expect each other to act like. It is the norm

Now if you want to debate whether God and Energy are the same things, then I will be more than happy to accommodate,  however, I see no reason for your continued participation here if you are not going to contribute to the debate that wil result from your gratuitous and negative act of attempting to cause adversity and annoyance to me for no justifiable reason or porpose, so, I will not be responding to future unnecessary acts of vindictiveness and harassment from you without just cause or provocation.
cyberman

Derek wrote:

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

....... Which one is the Dick? You got it.


Derek wrote:

Do you know, I have had a good look at this post, and.... the only impropriety that I can find here seems to have been done within your post.
Derek

cyberman wrote:
Derek wrote:

The Boyg: Degree in electrical engineering, Masters in cyberbullying and causing offence and hostility to decent and respectable people who demonstrate a greater degree of  intelligence than he possesses, a consummate liar and risible know-it-all, and finally, holds an Honouree Doctorate as a Pernicious Sociopath  

....... Which one is the Dick? You got it.


Derek wrote:

Do you know, I have had a good look at this post, and.... the only impropriety that I can find here seems to have been done within your post.


Thank you Cyberman for helping me to show that my post was completely on topic, it is much appreciated.  I know, they should have been able to see that the comparison, that you cited above, was made in relationship to the quote I posted from Ayad Gharbawi on the Web site "science 20" and the Boyg's contradiction of that quote, relating to quantum sub-atomic particles and how they act intelligently,  which is, as I am sure you know, a continuation to our debate, unlike the posts made by ST and TV, which bore no resemblance to the OP.  I would be careful though, if I were you, by defending my point they may say that your interjecting is also completely off topic so you could be seen as a hypocrite in extending the off topic remarks that Ketty has asked to cease. You do not want to break, or be accused of breaking, the forum rules, as they have blatantly done by being busy bodies. At least you tried to debate the point, didn't you?.

So, should I take it that you no longer wish to debate this topic?
trentvoyager

Quote:
Unless, of course, that is what  trentvoyager seeks to obtain



Not seeking to obtain anything old chum.

As to inciting hostilities how exactly?

This is a small MB the most hostility I have seen is someone calling someone else a Dick and a jerkoff.

Unpleasant sure - but not likely to start a riot
Derek

[quote="trentvoyager:127612"]
Quote:
Unless, of course, that is what  trentvoyager seeks to obtain



Quote:
Not seeking to obtain anything old chum.


Then why did you find it necessary to pass judgement on me?

Quote:
As to inciting hostilities how exactly?


I didn't say inciting hostility, that is your version of what I said. I said. "the potential to incite hostilities"

Quote:
This is a small MB the most hostility I have seen is someone calling someone else a Dick and a jerkoff.


Not on this thread, I haven't, and if I have on another thread then it would have been justified. I do not know how you condemn my harmless name calling when you allow the Boyg to vent his vulgar mouth outside of the Bear Pit where posters do not expect it.

Quote:
Unpleasant sure - but not likely to start a riot


It only takes two people disagreeing with each other to cause a war. Surely it is wisdom not to be unpleasant in the first place. I am most deffinitely in the right here. You had a choice to insult and continue the fracas or to perpetuate the situation, as you did.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:

Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria..


None of which has the slightest relevance to particle physics or quantum mechanics.

As fallacious arguments from authority go, this has to be one of the worst ever.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:

Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.


None of which has the slightest relevance to particle physics or quantum mechanics.

As fallacious arguments from authority go, this has to be one of the worst ever.


Oh dear, you seem to have only read a part of what I wrote before deciding to put your foot in your mouth. You failed to post my ending, as follows, was that intentional, quoting out of context or just inadvertently leaving it out.

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/ftopic4751-0-asc-60.php

Quote:
I have also written scientific manuscripts on the subject of what the definition of Consciousness, the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’ is, and ultimately writing on what the Constituents of the Mind are. These studies are deeply connected with the Quantum Physics Consciousness Sciences – and it is a subject that, perhaps not surprisingly, does not have such a large audience!.


I would suggest that it has a lot to do with particle physics and quantum mechanics and is, therefore, not a fallacious argument from authority. Have you ever written scientific manuscripts, or been asked to based on your knowledge of quantum physics? No, then enough said. Do you feel a fool, only you should do. You are not as good at debating as you are berating
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:

Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.


None of which has the slightest relevance to particle physics or quantum mechanics.

As fallacious arguments from authority go, this has to be one of the worst ever.


Oh dear, you seem to have only read a part of what I wrote before deciding to put your foot in your mouth. You failed to post my ending, as follows, was that intentional, quoting out of context or just inadvertently leaving it out.

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/ftopic4751-0-asc-60.php

Quote:
I have also written scientific manuscripts on the subject of what the definition of Consciousness, the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’ is, and ultimately writing on what the Constituents of the Mind are. These studies are deeply connected with the Quantum Physics Consciousness Sciences – and it is a subject that, perhaps not surprisingly, does not have such a large audience!.



Anyone could claim that their bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings are "scientific manuscripts".

Which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these works?
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:

Ayad Gharbawi - 1964-69: Born in Iraq, Baghdad. • 1969-75: Lived in Beirut, Lebanon. • 1975-82: Lived in London, UK. • 1981: Passed my GCSE, which in Syria is called the Bacaluareate. • 1982-86: BA degree from Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. BA Degree in History. • 1987-89: MA degree from Boston University, Boston, Mass. USA. MA Degree in International Relations. • 1990-1991: Graduate MA credits from New York University in Middle Eastern Studies. • 1991-2004: Lived in London. • 2004-Present: Living in Damascus, Syria.


None of which has the slightest relevance to particle physics or quantum mechanics.

As fallacious arguments from authority go, this has to be one of the worst ever.


Oh dear, you seem to have only read a part of what I wrote before deciding to put your foot in your mouth. You failed to post my ending, as follows, was that intentional, quoting out of context or just inadvertently leaving it out.

http://nglreturns.myfreeforum.org/ftopic4751-0-asc-60.php

Quote:
I have also written scientific manuscripts on the subject of what the definition of Consciousness, the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’ is, and ultimately writing on what the Constituents of the Mind are. These studies are deeply connected with the Quantum Physics Consciousness Sciences – and it is a subject that, perhaps not surprisingly, does not have such a large audience!.



Anyone could claim that their bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings are "scientific manuscripts".

Which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these works?


That you call his opinions "bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings" really says it all and exposes your arrogant mindset, however, his knowledge on the subject makes you, and I, for that matter, look less than a novice, therefore, one would give a greater credence to what he says on the subject then they would on what you have to say, which was "nope". The question is, have you ever written scientific manuscripts, or been asked to based on your knowledge of quantum physics? No, then enough said. To dismiss him in favour of your "nope" is pure stupidity as he clearly has a greater authority than you do to say what he has said, that is, that it is very likely that quantum sub-atomic particle act intelligently.

As you are no doubt aware, this debate cannot proceed, with you, without you conceding to the very real possibility of that premise, and that is why you never debate and end up in so many arguments because you always maintain that you are right, at any cost, and I mean at any cost to anyone else, because you are too stubborn to let go of that bone and hypothesise. Something that scientists do all the time. You cannot be spoken to because you already know-it-all, so to postulate would be an unnecessary and unrequired option for you. Pride,ah.

The Boyg

Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

Anyone could claim that their bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings are "scientific manuscripts".

Which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these works?


That you call his opinions "bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings" really says it all and exposes your arrogant mindset, however, his knowledge on the subject makes you, and I, for that matter, look less than a novice, therefore, one would give a greater credence to what he says on the subject then they would on what you have to say, which was "nope". The question is, have you ever written scientific manuscripts, or been asked to based on your knowledge of quantum physics? No, then enough said. To dismiss him in favour of your "nope" is pure stupidity as he clearly has a greater authority than you do to say what he has said, that is, that it is very likely that quantum sub-atomic particle act intelligently.

As you are no doubt aware, this debate cannot proceed, with you, without you conceding to the very real possibility of that premise, and that is why you never debate and end up in so many arguments because you always maintain that you are right, at any cost, and I mean at any cost to anyone else, because you are too stubborn to let go of that bone and hypothesise. Something that scientists do all the time. You cannot be spoken to because you already know-it-all, so to postulate would be an unnecessary and unrequired option for you. Pride,ah.


You could have simply said "I don't know" instead of posting two paragraphs of irrelevant waffle.


You don't know which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these "scientific manuscripts" and yet you expect those of us reading this nonsense to accept them as authoritative.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="The Boyg:127619"]
Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:

Anyone could claim that their bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings are "scientific manuscripts".

Which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these works?


That you call his opinions "bullshit pseudoscientific ramblings" really says it all and exposes your arrogant mindset, however, his knowledge on the subject makes you, and I, for that matter, look less than a novice, therefore, one would give a greater credence to what he says on the subject then they would on what you have to say, which was "nope". The question is, have you ever written scientific manuscripts, or been asked to based on your knowledge of quantum physics? No, then enough said. To dismiss him in favour of your "nope" is pure stupidity as he clearly has a greater authority than you do to say what he has said, that is, that it is very likely that quantum sub-atomic particle act intelligently.

As you are no doubt aware, this debate cannot proceed, with you, without you conceding to the very real possibility of that premise, and that is why you never debate and end up in so many arguments because you always maintain that you are right, at any cost, and I mean at any cost to anyone else, because you are too stubborn to let go of that bone and hypothesise. Something that scientists do all the time. You cannot be spoken to because you already know-it-all, so to postulate would be an unnecessary and unrequired option for you. Pride, ah.


You could have simply said "I don't know" instead of posting two paragraphs of irrelevant waffle.

I could have done, however, I was responding to you so I need to spend a little more time in my explanation, or, as you so politely and eloquently put it, "Waffle".

Quote:
You don't know which respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals published these "scientific manuscripts" and yet you expect those of us reading this nonsense to accept them as authoritative.


It is not that I do not know, I don't, however, I could easily find it out by googling it, no, I just do not see that it matters, it is another one of your trivialities. The man is by far better qualified then you are, so I will simply take what he says over what you say. His opinions are based on his experience in quantum physics whereas yours is knowledge based on the word "nope" with no explanation. I doubt whether there are any peer reviewed papers on it either as it is such a new and unknown quantity at the moment, there might be, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if there aren't. The debate was opinion and probability based. I say "was" as you have pretty much succeeded in derailing it know by asking for proof on opinions. Well done.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:

It is not that I do not know, I don't, however, I could easily find it out by googling it, no, I just do not see that it matters,


Of course it matters. Anyone can call their idiotic scribblings a "scientific manuscript". If they had been published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal then it would establish their credibility.


Quote:
The man is by far better qualified then you are


But not in any relevant subject. As such your reference to his qualifications are a fallacious argument from authority


Quote:
His opinions are based on his experience in quantum physics


What "experience in quantum physics"? The biography that you cited didn't list any.
Ketty

Derek wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.

M
cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.



Liar


How is that a lie, Derek?  

It may be Scientology, I've not researched it so I don't know.  Certainly though, Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of the LDS Koloby god and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which man also will become a god.  

Therefore, it is you who is (as usual) the liar.  Nothing new there, then.  I wonder why you are so sensitive about the anti-christian and anti-biblical teaching which comes from the Mormons?

The Bible says nothing at all about Christ Jesus's* return to be associated with man reaching a level of intelligence approaching the intelligence of Creator GOD*.  Pseudo-intellectual verbose claptrap in an attempt to appear learned may try and detract from the Might and Power of Abba Father*, but any attempt to confine Him* to comparisons with human 'intelligence', or to even consider that to be a possibility comes from the arrogance of the one who is the enemy of the LORD* and His people.  

* I AM: the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.


                                                               Mormon's
Derek

Quote:
[quote="The Boyg:127621"]
Derek wrote:

It is not that I do not know, I don't, however, I could easily find it out by googling it, no, I just do not see that it matters,


Of course it matters. Anyone can call their idiotic scribblings a "scientific manuscript". If they had been published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal then it would establish their credibility.


If we were dealing with facts instead of pure speculation then I would agree, however, we are not because there is nothing absolute about quantum physics, so stop being so silly, no one will point figures because you have gotten it wrong and are continuing to dig your hole. We are not determining the reason why quantum sub-atomic particles exist, no one here is anywhere near qualified enough so the necessity to be that factual is a little overkill on a debating forum.

But that is not your objective here, is it? You seem excessively irrational in trying to discredit me and my beliefs and opinions. So much so that you tend to hang on to a point far too long in the hope that you will achieve your goal, like a dog with a bone, only you never have been able to. I always take the bone from you. Not even close, which must really peeve you off. You never will because my motives are honorable and my opinions are steeped in truth. No matter how you try and set me up, by communicating through the PM's on here, you will never make a liar out of me in order to discredit me. Why, because I am a devout Christian, not just by mouth, but by deeds. I do not intentionally lie. I strive to live a Christ centred life so you will never be able because I am on the Lords side and he doesn't lie either.

You probably couldn't give a stuff about quantum physics, as is easily detected in your poor attempt to debate it. It is not whether sub-atomic particles act intelligently or not, that is obvious, no, it is how you can manipulate quantum physics, a subject that you know nothing about, to make me look as stupid as you are, or any other subject.

You are specifically hostile with Ayad Gharbawi, not because he is not qualified to state what he has stated, but because if you can discredit him  then you will discredit my choice to quote him, that is what you do and are known for, only there is no way that you can, because he doesn't have to be qualified in what he says, he just has to be more qualified than you or I, and he is, therefore, all you will achieve is to make yourself seem a little over obsessed with your need to discredit me. Any person who takes an interest in quantum physics will see that  quantum sub-atomic particle act intelligently. It is a given that does not require debating. For example, how do they know that they are being observed?

You are as obsessed with me, as you were with Professor Phil when you hounded him so badly that you lost respect from many of the posters on R&E, along with your membership. You couldn't let it go with him and you are the same with me. You don't like being bettered in intelligence, especially from someone like me.  

Quote:
Quote:
The man is far better qualified than you are


But not in any relevant subject. As such your reference to his qualifications are a fallacious argument from authority


He doesn't have to be, he just needs to be more intelligent and knowledgeable on quantum physics than you are, he is, but that is not hard. That makes him a greater authority than you or I. Again, that doesn't really matter, it is just another bone that you are trying to use to discredit me with. Your modus operandum seems to be to discredit your opponent thus saving you the need to offer intelligent debate, if it doesn't work you go quite. Under different circumstances, you would no doubt use this person to back your own argument up.

Quote:
Quote:
His opinions are based on his experience in quantum physics


What "experience in quantum physics"? The biography that you cited didn't list any.


Yes it did, Right here

Quote:
I have also written scientific manuscripts on the subject of what the definition of Consciousness, the ‘I’, and the ‘Self’ is, and ultimately writing on what the Constituents of the Mind are. These studies are deeply connected with the Quantum Physics Consciousness Sciences – and it is a subject that, perhaps not surprisingly, does not have such a large audience!


His in-depth research that was necessary for him to write manuscripts on Quantum sub-atomic particles. The biography listed more than you cared to mentions, including the publication of those manuscripts.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Ketty:127623"]
Derek wrote:
Ketty wrote:
Derek wrote:
When we reach a level of intelligence, approaching that of the intelligence of God, Himself, then he will return.

M
cyberman wrote:
Really? You believe that humans can achieve a level of intelligence which approaches God's?

Is this Scientology?


Could be, and it's also part of LDS belief - that men will become gods.



Liar


How is that a lie, Derek?


Let me tell you why it is a lie Ketty Dear. I was a Mormon for 25 years. In that time, I never heard it mentions during any Church meeting and I never heard anyone talking about it either. It is a sensitive issue that is not promoted or spoken about in any official church business, although I don't see why not as it is a very interesting postulation. There are many members who believe it could be a possibility, but it is not official church doctrine, therefore, for you to say that it is what Mormons believe, it is a lie.

Having said that, it is a very interesting and popular topic of debate and to speculate and theorise about it is interesting, however, such free thought is probably a major taboo with your lot, thus taking away free thought. I personally  believe that we exist for a reason, there is nothing wrong or extraordinary about considering that reason to be a progression to Godhood. It seems very logical and plausible theory to me and gives us a very real reason to exist.. Nobody is asking you to believe it, unlike your insistence that we should all believe in your false doctrine of the trinity, it is a personal belief that is more than worthy of consideration. But you will not see it like that as you have been indoctrinated by the false teachings of men. Which is worse, believing that God is three individuals in one or that man may become as God is?

Quote:
It may be Scientology, I've not researched it so I don't know.  Certainly though, Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of the LDS Koloby god and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which man also will become a god.  

Therefore, it is you who is (as usual) the liar.  Nothing new there, then.  I wonder why you are so sensitive about the anti-christian and anti-biblical teaching which comes from the Mormons?


How can it be me who is lying? If anything it would be Mormonism, however, I am not a Mormon so how are you able to accuse me of lying? Maybe you should look at your own religion before you condemn and judge other religions. A religion that justifies the condemnation of other religions and their beliefs, like they are arrogantly the sole possessors of the truth, is not a religion but a dictatorship. But, again, this will be met with the usual contention and hostility of someone who subscribes to an elitist religious organisation, as you do.

Quote:
The Bible says nothing at all about Christ Jesus's* return to be associated with man reaching a level of intelligence approaching the intelligence of Creator GOD*.  Pseudo-intellectual verbose claptrap in an attempt to appear learned may try and detract from the Might and Power of Abba Father*, but any attempt to confine Him* to comparisons with human 'intelligence', or to even consider that to be a possibility comes from the arrogance of the one who is the enemy of the LORD* and His people.


The bible says nothing at all about God Incarnate or the trinity, yet you believe that, without them condemning you for it. To consider that you could progress to be like Him is an individuals right, as long as he/she does not force that opinion on others, like born again Christians try to do with the trinity. It is none of your business what they want to consider.or speculate. Next thing we know you will be saying that it is wrong for two men to be married and not an individual right and choice.


* I AM: the Truine Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

You can't even get the spelling correct on your false doctrine, the teachings of men. Blasphemy
                                                   
Christians believe in the Godhead. God, the father, and His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who testifies of His Truth. Three  Separate and Distinct Individuals. Anything else is false doctrine, the teachings of men.

If I am an enemy to the Lord, what does that make you, the spawn of Satan, only you blatantly and openly sin for the world to see, whereas, I strive to keep the commandments. If you think you know Him then you have been deceived by the angel of light and it is to him that you give your allegiance.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
You are specifically hostile with Ayad Gharbawi


I'm not hostile to him.

I am merely pointing out that, since he has no relevant qualifications in this area of expertise, quoting his garbage in support of your garbage and expecting those who read your posts to consider it to be authoritative is fallacious.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="The Boyg:127628"]
Derek wrote:
You are specifically hostile with Ayad Gharbawi


I'm not hostile to him.


Well, at least we now know that you do not have any conception on what it means to be hostile


Quote:
I am merely pointing out that, since he has no relevant qualifications in this area of expertise, quoting his garbage in support of your garbage and expecting those who read your posts to consider it to be authoritative is fallacious.


No, you are not merely pointing anything out, as is evidenced by my responses. You are looking at ways in which to get at me, to persecute me for some unknown vendetta. He may not have a piece of paper with his qualifications on it, to my knowledge, however, for him to be asked to write scientific manuscripts is sufficient to demonstrate that he is more than qualified in the field of quantum physics. But even that is not absolute as there are no absolutes in quantum physics, yet. No one can speak authoritively on it as it is so unpredictable, therefore, what you are asking for is not yet available from anyone. It is his experience that is a witness to quantum sub-atomic particles acting intelligently. If you knew anything about how they act then you would not be directing this triviality.

I did not ask for my post, or as you put it, with unnecessary hostility,.garbage, to be taken with authority as there is none. It is a debate where there is no set facts to debate as there are none. It is all speculation and conjecture. I was theorising whether God and Energy are the same thing, both having intellegence.
The Boyg

Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I am merely pointing out that, since he has no relevant qualifications in this area of expertise, quoting his garbage in support of your garbage and expecting those who read your posts to consider it to be authoritative is fallacious.


No, you are not merely pointing anything out


Yes I am.

The fact that you like to embellish your responses with unnecessary waffle in order to disguise their lack of relevant content doesn't have any bearing on that.
Derek

The Boyg wrote:
Derek wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
I am merely pointing out that, since he has no relevant qualifications in this area of expertise, quoting his garbage in support of your garbage and expecting those who read your posts to consider it to be authoritative is fallacious.


No, you are not merely pointing anything out


Yes I am.

The fact that you like to embellish your responses with unnecessary waffle in order to disguise their lack of relevant content doesn't have any bearing on that.


I do not like to embellish, it is necessary with some people to insure they comprehend what is being said, like yourself.
Ketty

Derek wrote:
Let me tell you why it is a lie Ketty Dear. I was a Mormon for 25 years. In that time, I never heard it mentions during any Church meeting and I never heard anyone talking about it either.


Derek wrote:
It is a sensitive issue that is not promoted or spoken about in any official church business,


You've confirmed then that it's not a lie that Joseph Smith one of the originators of Mormon anti-Christian teaching promoted the idea that men will be gods if they are good little boys and believe all that he promoted - merely that it's 'sensitive'.  Thought so.  Not surprised though that it's another one of the LDS "secrets" about their Koloby god - just like their secret handshakes and secret names, etc.  Nothing new there, then.  

Derek wrote:
although I don't see why not as it is a very interesting postulation. There are many members who believe it could be a possibility, but it is not official church doctrine, therefore, for you to say that it is what Mormons believe, it is a lie.

Having said that, it is a very interesting and popular topic of debate and to speculate and theorise about it is interesting, however, such free thought is probably a major taboo with your lot, thus taking away free thought. I personally  believe that we exist for a reason, there is nothing wrong or extraordinary about considering that reason to be a progression to Godhood. It seems very logical and plausible theory to me and gives us a very real reason to exist.. Nobody is asking you to believe it, unlike your insistence that we should all believe in your false doctrine of the trinity, it is a personal belief that is more than worthy of consideration. But you will not see it like that as you have been indoctrinated by the false teachings of men. Which is worse, believing that God is three individuals in one or that man may become as God is?

How can it be me who is lying? If anything it would be Mormonism, however, I am not a Mormon so how are you able to accuse me of lying? Maybe you should look at your own religion before you condemn and judge other religions. A religion that justifies the condemnation of other religions and their beliefs, like they are arrogantly the sole possessors of the truth, is not a religion but a dictatorship. But, again, this will be met with the usual contention and hostility of someone who subscribes to an elitist religious organisation, as you do.

The bible says nothing at all about God Incarnate or the trinity, yet you believe that, without them condemning you for it. To consider that you could progress to be like Him is an individuals right, as long as he/she does not force that opinion on others, like born again Christians try to do with the trinity. It is none of your business what they want to consider.or speculate. Next thing we know you will be saying that it is wrong for two men to be married and not an individual right and choice.

You can't even get the spelling correct on your false doctrine, the teachings of men. Blasphemy
                                                   
Christians believe in the Godhead. God, the father, and His son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, who testifies of His Truth. Three  Separate and Distinct Individuals. Anything else is false doctrine, the teachings of men.

If I am an enemy to the Lord, what does that make you, the spawn of Satan, only you blatantly and openly sin for the world to see, whereas, I strive to keep the commandments. If you think you know Him then you have been deceived by the angel of light and it is to him that you give your allegiance.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Ketty:127635"]
Derek wrote:
Let me tell you why it is a lie Ketty Dear. I was a Mormon for 25 years. In that time, I never heard it mentions during any Church meeting and I never heard anyone talking about it either.


Derek wrote:
It is a sensitive issue that is not promoted or spoken about in any official church business,


You've confirmed then that it's not a lie that Joseph Smith one of the originators of Mormon anti-Christian teaching promoted the idea that men will be gods


If it were true then I would confirm it, however, like most of what you write on here, it is a half truth, intended to misrepresent Mormons as being enemies to God, which, of course, they are not. According to the LDS Church, it was always to be that way for them, a persecuted people they were told they would be, as, indeed, they are. Persecuted and discriminated against by people like you who have been indoctrinated with the lies and deceit of men and their false teachings, trying to thwart the plan of salvation. If what they are doing is so wrong then why do they get so much attention, by confrontationist's like yourself, and not just ignored as preachers of untenable claptrap, from the likes of busybodies like you who cannot help but to interfere in their business by slagging their beliefs off without first putting their affairs into order. Christians do not, should not, slag each other off, when they are busy loving one another, as you incessantly do, that is Satan's domain and pleasure. Surely there must be an element of truth in their beliefs otherwise Satan would not try so hard to destroy them? All your malice just verifies that they do have an element of truth, if it were a lie then it would have died decades ago.  

Yes, it is true that Joseph Smith believed that man could eventually become Gods, no an incomprehensible theory, however, it is a lie that he ever promoted it. It is a lie that it is part of the official LDS belief. It is true that the saints of the last days were said to be a persecuted people by those who could not recognise the truth, because of that, most of what is said about them is, in fact, a lie. Satan needs them out of the way so that he can achieve his goal without hindrance. Your words here helps him to do that.

In a sense, your critiques of different denominations is a testimony builder as it demonstrates that everything is going wrong at the right time. Prophecy is being fulfilled. Thank you. See you at the judgement bar.

Quote:
if they are good little boys and believe all that he promoted -


Again, the half-truth that makes you devious and confrontational to everyone's religion but yours. It is so obvious that man will never become Gods whilst they are in the flesh. God is immortal, so it is going to be something that would take place after this world has ended. Indeed, Joseph Smith said that it would take a considerable amount of time, of progression in the Celestial Kingdom, to be like him. Dad's always want their children to be like them, why wouldn't heavenly father feel the same? So it is true that he believed that man would become Gods, however, it is a lie to suggest that it would happen as a result of their works in the flesh. Problem here is that you are listening to bigots and getting lies instead of finding out for yourself, thus the ambiguity and deception in your teachings

Quote:
merely that it's 'sensitive'.
 

Yes, merely, because few give it any thought, indeed, your lot speak about it far more than members of the church do.

Quote:
Thought so.


Ketty, you are so unbelievably infantile. "Thought so," really? You arrogantly assume you are right without even considering my response, because that is exactly what you are saying to the reader of your post. You assume that you know it all so you naturally think you are right without having to listen to an alternative opinion. Not the best attitude to have if you are debating. Indeed, a debate is futile if you are a know-it-all like you claim to be.

Quote:
Not surprised though that it's another one of the LDS "secrets" about their Koloby god - just like their secret handshakes and secret names, etc.  Nothing new there, then.


"Koloby God" What is that?

Mormons have secrets, do they? I was a Mormon for 25 years and I never heard of them keeping secrets, let alone,"Yet another one". Probably because they were secret, so how come you know about them if they are secret, or are you lying about it and they are not really secret at all. If they were then surely you wouldn't know about them, they are secret, as you say.

Again the half truth that you like to portray. Yes, it is true that the Mormons have signs and tokens that are used in their sacred temple ordinances, however, the lie is that they are secret, how could they be, everybody knows about them. They are Sacred to them, yes, so they don't openly discuss it, but secret, no! If it were secret then we wouldn't be talking about it because it is a secret. Come on Ketty Dear, this is basic logic. Maybe you should check  out your source and their motives because it looks like you are being taken for gullible again.

Now, I know how normal it is for you to persistently make the same erroneous claims and assertion even though you have been told the truth. I know that you do it specifically to wind posters up because you get some sort of a kick out of it, just one of your peculiar idiosyncrasy that makes it obvious that you are not a Christian. You will, no doubt, us the same odd and peculiar behaviour here as well, however, I have to tell you that I am not biting. You either take my word for it or you use your usual tactic of throwing as much crap as you can hoping that some will stick, whilst enjoying winding me up in the process, either way, this is the truth and your version is clearly not.
cymrudynnion

Re: Is God and Energy the same thing

Derek wrote:
I was asked to open a thread with one of my world views. This is a thread I started on a different forum that attracted much interest and for which I still ponder over. Is God and energy the same thing and if they are then we to must be the product of that energy or intelligence, don't we?

I have been re-reading a book that I had read some time ago, but like most books I have read more the 10 years ago, I forgot most of its content. I have, of late, been interested in the concept of science and religion stemming from the same spring of knowledge and intelligence. Seems that my thoughts have already been investigated in this small, yet interesting little book. Is the descriptions of energy and matter correct. Are we an energy force acting within a larger energy force. Is God and energy synonymous with each other. I am no scientist, however, the following exert seems to be logical to me and gives the reader the impression that a superior being is responsible for all of this.

Exert from The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

Most people define themselves by this finite body, but you're not a finite body. Even under a microscope you're an energy field. What we know about energy is this: You go to a quantum physicist and you say, "What creates the world?" And he or she will say, "Energy." Well, describe energy.

"OK, it can never be created or destroyed, it always was, always has been, everything that ever existed always exists, it's moving into form, through form and out of form." You go to a theologian and ask the question, "What created the Universe?" And he or she will say, "God." OK, describe God.

"Always was and always has been, never can be created or destroyed, all that ever was, always will be, always moving into form, through form and out of form." You see, it's the same description, just different terminology.

So if you think you're this "meat suit" running around, think again. You're a spiritual being! You're an energy field, operating in a larger energy field.

How does all of this make you a spiritual being? For me, the answer to that question is one of the most magnificent parts of the teachings of The Secret. You are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy just changes form. And that means You!

The true essence of You, the pure energy of You, has always been and always will be. You can never not be.

On a deep level, you know that. Can you imagine not being? Despite everything you have seen and experienced in your life, can you imagine not being? You cannot imagine it, because it is impossible. You are eternal energy.

DR. JOHN HAGELIN

Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately toe are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

I do not want to get heavily bogged down in religion on this one. I am more interested in whether God, or what ever you want to call the ideology, is a form of intellectual energy, much the same as the properties involved in Quantum Physics.

I am not saying anything specifically. I am investigating the idea under the premises of both our energy and Gods being of the same source, in its elementary form, but the energy it possesses being unique to each individual, like taking water from a reservoir to water crops or drink, both use elementary identical element, they just have different applications that produces different effects. The alternative being a sort of collective consciousness, like "The Borg" was in Star Trek, where every sub-atomic particle is like DNA, having identical information that tells us all identical information, which would suggest that we are all an integral part of God and just one source of light and knowledge, or, in other words, a shared identical intelligence, which could suggest that energy contains intelligence, in either case. What do you think.
Derek sorry to answer your O/P so late. In my opinion no God is not energy. I can see your anology as Energy cannot be destroyed but changes betwqeen one form and another. However does God change, and change to what? I believe and accept God The Father, God The Son and God the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, if you prefer) but that is not a change in my view. Energy changes within the Laws of Physics, but whose Laws of Physics, Man's Law or what he attempts to comprehend as Fact an dthen discovered his Fact is incorrect. God on the other hand commands ALL, man cannot comprehend ALL God commands, man tries to and Theories become man made fact as man cannot dispute his fact, but, man cannot understand all of God's Laws. Man needs God to lead and teach him. Some open their eyes and hearts vand accept God, His teachings and Guidance, sadly some don't and remain in ignorance.
Derek

Re: Is God and Energy the same thing

[quote="cymrudynnion:127647"]
Derek wrote:
I was asked to open a thread with one of my world views. This is a thread I started on a different forum that attracted much interest and for which I still ponder over. Is God and energy the same thing and if they are then we to must be the product of that energy or intelligence, don't we?

I have been re-reading a book that I had read some time ago, but like most books I have read more the 10 years ago, I forgot most of its content. I have, of late, been interested in the concept of science and religion stemming from the same spring of knowledge and intelligence. Seems that my thoughts have already been investigated in this small, yet interesting little book. Is the descriptions of energy and matter correct. Are we an energy force acting within a larger energy force. Is God and energy synonymous with each other. I am no scientist, however, the following exert seems to be logical to me and gives the reader the impression that a superior being is responsible for all of this.

Exert from The Secret by Rhonda Byrne

Most people define themselves by this finite body, but you're not a finite body. Even under a microscope you're an energy field. What we know about energy is this: You go to a quantum physicist and you say, "What creates the world?" And he or she will say, "Energy." Well, describe energy.

"OK, it can never be created or destroyed, it always was, always has been, everything that ever existed always exists, it's moving into form, through form and out of form." You go to a theologian and ask the question, "What created the Universe?" And he or she will say, "God." OK, describe God.

"Always was and always has been, never can be created or destroyed, all that ever was, always will be, always moving into form, through form and out of form." You see, it's the same description, just different terminology.

So if you think you're this "meat suit" running around, think again. You're a spiritual being! You're an energy field, operating in a larger energy field.

How does all of this make you a spiritual being? For me, the answer to that question is one of the most magnificent parts of the teachings of The Secret. You are energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy just changes form. And that means You!

The true essence of You, the pure energy of You, has always been and always will be. You can never not be.

On a deep level, you know that. Can you imagine not being? Despite everything you have seen and experienced in your life, can you imagine not being? You cannot imagine it, because it is impossible. You are eternal energy.

DR. JOHN HAGELIN

Quantum mechanics confirms it. Quantum cosmology confirms it. That the Universe essentially emerges from thought and all of this matter around us is just precipitated thought. Ultimately toe are the source of the Universe, and when we understand that power directly by experience, we can start to exercise our authority and begin to achieve more and more. Create anything. Know anything from within the field of our own consciousness, which ultimately is Universal consciousness that runs the Universe.
The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

I do not want to get heavily bogged down in religion on this one. I am more interested in whether God or whatever you want to call the ideology, is a form of intellectual energy, much the same as the properties involved in Quantum Physics.

I am not saying anything specifically. I am investigating the idea under the premises of both our energy and Gods being of the same source, in its elementary form, but the energy it possesses being unique to each individual, like taking water from a reservoir to water crops or drink, both use elementary identical element, they just have different applications that produce different effects. The alternative being a sort of collective consciousness, like "The Borg" was in Star Trek, where every sub-atomic particle is like DNA, having identical information that tells us all identical information, which would suggest that we are all an integral part of God and just one source of light and knowledge, or, in other words, a shared identical intelligence, which could suggest that energy contains intelligence, in either case. What do you think?


Quote:
Derek sorry to answer your O/P so late.


Hey, better late than never.

Quote:
In my opinion, no God is not energy.


That is fair enough, if we agreed on everything then we would not be here.

Quote:
I can see your analogy as Energy cannot be destroyed but changes between one form and another.


What you have said here is true, however, you have missed one key point that makes a vast difference to the overall concept. Not only can energy not be destroyed, but it cannot be created either. Like God, it has always existed. It is these parallels that give rise to inquisitive thinking people a vista to appreciate. But how interesting that you say that it changes between one form and another, like water changing into wine, perhaps.

Quote:
However does God change, and change to what?


No, God does not change in his supreme intentions and pure love. He is our literal father in heaven and as such is set in perfect principles and morals. The scriptures tell us that he is the same today, tomorrow and forever, but that is who he is not what he is. Could he change his physical appearance? Well yes, we know that he has done just that, just like pure energy, he can adopt any form that he chooses, a bit like a shapeshifter, however, his character is set in stone.

Quote:
I believe and accept God The Father, God The Son and God the Holy Ghost (or Spirit, if you prefer) but that is not a change in my view.


This one is a constant source of contention that I would prefer not to get into right now

Quote:
Energy changes within the Laws of Physics,


Not quite Cymru, my friend. Energy remains what it is regardless of the effects of natural or supernatural laws. It accumulates to form and create differing objects within our world, but the sub-atomic particles that make up the existence of all things are a constant, never changing and acting intelligently. Energy is an integral part of the laws of physics. It attracts energy and bonds to it, yet another miracle that we do not fully understand, if we did we would solve the production of electricity through the energy release produced by splitting that bond, called fission.

That is how atoms are formed, they contain a positively charged core of mass containing protons and neutrons (analogous with the body) that is held together by being encircled by a cloud of intelligent negatively charged electrons (analogous with the spirit). The electron is full of sub-atomic particle, Fermions and Bosons, as demonstrated by the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, all of which act with a degree of intelligence, all knowing their place and what to do in it. That then evolves into molecules as atoms accumulate and join together by covalent or ionic bonding, where an electron, without rhyme or reason, begins to orbits two nuclei instead of the one, causing them to bond together, in a similar fashion as we are told that spirit and body are bound together, inseparably connected, until we die and the spirit is once again released. The electron and nucleus locked together by an electrostatic force of attraction between opposite charges, between electrons and nuclei, and that then causes it to evolve into matter, the building blocks that creates life as we know it, the soul of mankind. Bodies of both intelligent energy and matter have formed,  the nuclei and electron, or body and spirit, as I believe we are. That is very likely a simplification of how we are here today and how Jesus spoke to those intelligences when he turned water into wine.

Quote:
but whose Laws of Physics, Man's Law or what he attempts to comprehend as Fact and then discovered his Fact is incorrect.


No, it was never man's laws of physics Cymru. It has always been Gods laws of physics, it was He who created the universe and all that is in it. He is the master scientist. Mankind discovers God's law, which He has drip-feds to them over the centuries, after which they denounce him and exclude him completely from that which he has created by trying to rid him from our world. Not very appreciative of them, is it?

Quote:
God, on the other hand, commands ALL, man cannot comprehend ALL God commands,


Absolutely, I will not argue with you there, however, God has told us that, "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." through the gift of the Holy Ghost. therefore, the potential is there to progress in our knowledge and wisdom. To the same level as God? Certainly not in this world whilst hampered with mortality we can't, but in heaven? Maybe. In Colossians, we are told that it is, the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the Lord's people. This is the final dispensation to whom this knowledge is being imparted.

Quote:
man tries to and Theories become man made fact as man cannot dispute his fact, but, man cannot understand all of God's Laws. Man needs God to lead and teach him. Some open their eyes and hearts and accept God, His teachings and Guidance, sadly some don't and remain in ignorance.


I cannot argue with that but must add that it is those that are in ignorance who believe that they have knowledge. those are they that are a blight to our society for they turn the hearts of men against God, as demonstrated by the thread so arrogantly started by Jim, "Explain". The scriptures warn us of these people who condone a little sin here and a little there, what harm will it cause, yes, god will punish us a little, but He will forgive us.

Isaiah 5:20 - 24

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight! Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink, Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! Therefore, as a tongue of fire consumes stubble And dry grass collapses into the flame, So their root will become like rot and their blossom blow away as dust; For they have rejected the law of the LORD of hosts And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel

I just love the Scriptures, don't you? They never pull punches and always call a spade a spade. You can find answers to any of life's dilemmas right there in it's pages.

Who justify the wicked for a bribe, Like Cyberman defending your poor behaviour knowing you were wrong but doing it out of false loyalty.

And take away the rights of the ones who are in the right! Like me being persecuted and victimised on this forum. Suspended and moderated for telling the truth. Vilified for my opinions and beliefs. But no complaints as Jesus didn't say that it would be easy but he did say that it will be worth it.
Ketty

Derek wrote:
Yes, it is true that Joseph Smith believed that man could eventually become Gods,


Derek, thank you again for confirming again that Joseph Smith and those who promote him as a 'prophet', have the 'secret' belief that is 'secretly' taught, that man will eventually become Koloby-type gods.  

It goes along with their 'secret' words and 'secret' handshakes and 'secret' names: there's a lot of secrets in the outfit.  Maybe they need to be kept secret until people are truly sucked into the inner sanctum and brainwashed sufficiently that they are not able to question the lies, and are blinded to them.  Thank the LORD* for those who have seen the light and escaped to reveal what goes on.  I have you to thank Derek, for illuminating the goings on within the LDS's hierarchy and temples.  Without you, I'd have been blissfully unaware of their false teaching and preaching.

There is nothing at all in the Bible to suggest that men will become gods and rule their own little planets with the families they had on earth in this age.  There is plenty in the Bible to refute that false teaching.  Proof positive, again, that the Mormon LDS outfit is based on the lies of its founders, and erroneously claim the label 'christian' in order to deceive.  

As you were ...


*  I AM:  The Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
Derek

[quote="Ketty:127682"]
Derek wrote:
Yes, it is true that Joseph Smith believed that man could eventually become Gods,


Quote:
Derek, thank you again for confirming


Now that sounds like you are  trying to say that I have done it before, you and I know that is not true, therefore, you are, once again, telling porky pies that you will have to repent for.

Quote:
Derek, thank you again for confirming again that Joseph Smith and those who promote him as a 'prophet', have the 'secret' belief that is 'secretly' taught, that man will eventually become Koloby-type gods.


If it were secret, Ketty Dear, then how is it that everybody knows about it, only the definition of "secret" is "not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others." The opposite is true about this, heck, even you know about it. Secret! Nah  

Quote:
It goes along with their 'secret' words and 'secret' handshakes and 'secret' names: there's a lot of secrets in the outfit.


Again you repeat the same old same old. If it were secret then how come you know about it. Not that secret, is it? It is sacred to Mormons, do you understand what sacred means.

Quote:
Maybe they need to be kept secret until people are truly sucked into the inner sanctum and brainwashed sufficiently that they are not able to question the lies, and are blinded to them
.

You are projecting, Ketty Dear. That is exactly how I see you, and your clan, to be. Brainwashed, or indoctrinated, into believing a load of old hogwash, that must have appealed to you for you to capitulate to them. The easy option, the best suited to excuse your poor behaviour, so to speak.

Quote:
Thank the LORD* for those who have seen the light and escaped to reveal what goes on.
 

Ketty Dear, one has only to read a handful of your post here to know how bitter your fruit are to the taste. You are deluding yourself if you believe that crock. Your post is a testimony to the fact that you are a gullible messenger of the Born Again Christians.  

Quote:
I have you to thank Derek, for illuminating the goings on within the LDS's hierarchy and temples. Without you, I'd have been blissfully unaware of their false teaching and preaching.


That is your choice. If that is how you have interpreted my words then you are not as clever as you think you are.

Quote:
There is nothing at all in the Bible to suggest that men will become gods and rule their own little planets with the families they had on earth in this age.


There is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus was God incarnate either, however, your bunch of apostates believe in it. You condemn the Mormons for their unusual beliefs yet yours are far more peculiar than theirs is. Ironic and hypocritical, or what?

Here is a prime example of you getting it monumentally wrong. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation, do you believe that? If you do then how come you have just said that they will rule over planets with the families they had on earth. What happens if they are the only one out of  their family saved, their families having all failed. Are you saying that their families will be exalted with them just because they are family? If you are then your mentors have not thought that one through enough, have they? You don't have a clue Ketty Dear, you are just a brainwashed messenger of somebody else's words.

Quote:
There is plenty in the Bible to refute that false teaching.  Proof positive, again, that the Mormon LDS outfit is based on the lies of its founders, and erroneously claim the label 'Christian' in order to deceive.


If there is plenty in the bible that refute that, then why haven't you cited any of it, or is it just the empty words thing again. Have you actually read the bible?

I am not going to play "tit for tat" with you, but you really should wash your hands before pointing your figures. Billy Graham's hypocrisies made the hands of the Born Again Christian's filthy dirty, for example, as does Joyce Myer's false teachings. I do not defend Joseph Smith if he lied as a man with imperfections and failing, which he said that he had plenty of, however, his words, spoken as a Prophet of God, are quite interesting and without guile. You would not see that though because of your bigotry and narrow-mindedness. You believe in obscure things, like the trinity, because that is what your pastor told you. That is termed as gullibility Ketty Dear. You have no place to critique the beliefs of other religions, but especially so when your own is so corrupt and imperfect. Indeed, you are told not to judge others, but there is probably an exception for you Ketty Dear. You do what you want and then justify it.
Ketty

Derek wrote:
Now that sounds like you are  trying to say that I have done it before,


You have done it twice on this thread alone, even though you started out by saying it was a lie that Joseph Smith and his cohorts preach and teach that men can become Koloby-type gods ruling their own planets.  Like I said 'thank you' for confirming that the Mormon LDS are founded on the lies of one of its founders, and thank you for assisting in illuminating the false preaching and teaching of that particular expression of 'church' which erroneously and falsely claims the label 'christian'.

Derek wrote:
Yes, it is true that Joseph Smith believed that man could eventually become Gods,


Derek wrote:
you and I know that is not true, therefore, you are, once again, telling porky pies that you will have to repent for.

If it were secret, Ketty Dear, then how is it that everybody knows about it, only the definition of "secret" is "not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others." The opposite is true about this, heck, even you know about it. Secret! Nah  

Again you repeat the same old same old. If it were secret then how come you know about it. Not that secret, is it? It is sacred to Mormons, do you understand what sacred means.

You are projecting, Ketty Dear. That is exactly how I see you, and your clan, to be. Brainwashed, or indoctrinated, into believing a load of old hogwash, that must have appealed to you for you to capitulate to them. The easy option, the best suited to excuse your poor behaviour, so to speak.

Ketty Dear, one has only to read a handful of your post here to know how bitter your fruit are to the taste. You are deluding yourself if you believe that crock. Your post is a testimony to the fact that you are a gullible messenger of the Born Again Christians.  

That is your choice. If that is how you have interpreted my words then you are not as clever as you think you are.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus was God incarnate either, however, your bunch of apostates believe in it. You condemn the Mormons for their unusual beliefs yet yours are far more peculiar than theirs is. Ironic and hypocritical, or what?

Here is a prime example of you getting it monumentally wrong. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation, do you believe that? If you do then how come you have just said that they will rule over planets with the families they had on earth. What happens if they are the only one out of  their family saved, their families having all failed. Are you saying that their families will be exalted with them just because they are family? If you are then your mentors have not thought that one through enough, have they? You don't have a clue Ketty Dear, you are just a brainwashed messenger of somebody else's words.

If there is plenty in the bible that refute that, then


Derek wrote:
why haven't you cited any of it,


No need Derek, there are plenty of threads on here, proving that LDS is based on the lies of its founder, and not based on Biblical truth.  I'm sure you're capable of searching out previous threads if you need to have anything 'cited'. I'm not going to repeat all that's already gone before.  The Bible stands as its own proof.

Derek wrote:
or is it just the empty words thing again. Have you actually read the bible?

I am not going to play "tit for tat" with you, but you really should wash your hands before pointing your figures. Billy Graham's hypocrisies made the hands of the Born Again Christian's filthy dirty, for example, as does Joyce Myer's false teachings. I do not defend Joseph Smith if he lied as a man with imperfections and failing, which he said that he had plenty of, however, his words, spoken as a Prophet of God, are quite interesting and without guile. You would not see that though because of your bigotry and narrow-mindedness. You believe in obscure things, like the trinity, because that is what your pastor told you. That is termed as gullibility Ketty Dear. You have no place to critique the beliefs of other religions, but especially so when your own is so corrupt and imperfect. Indeed, you are told not to judge others, but there is probably an exception for you Ketty Dear. You do what you want and then justify it.


Now, if you can, try and debate the subjects rather than attacking the posters and return to the topic of the OP where you are making an effort in attempting to prove your idea that 'god' and 'energy' are the same thing.   The Christian God*, of course, created all and so is greater than any one part of His Creation, energy included.  Mormons and others who consider themselves worthy of becoming gods, are free to believe otherwise.

I AM: the Triune Godhead - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
Derek

Quote:
[quote="Ketty:127687"][quote="Derek:127686"]Now that sounds like you are  trying to say that I have done it before,


Quote:
You have done it twice on this thread alone, even though you started out by saying it was a lie that Joseph Smith and his cohorts preach and teach that men can become Koloby-type gods ruling their own planets.  Like I said 'thank you' for confirming that the Mormon LDS are founded on the lies of one of its founders, and thank you for assisting in illuminating the false preaching and teaching of that particular expression of 'church' which erroneously and falsely claims the label 'christian'.

Derek wrote:
Yes, it is true that Joseph Smith believed that man could eventually become Gods,


Derek wrote:
you and I know that is not true, therefore, you are, once again, telling porky pies that you will have to repent for.


May I invite you to show me exactly where I have done it, just to clarify.

My confirmation of the dealings of the Mormons is as irrelevant as yours. Neither of us are Mormons so it counts for nothing.

It is a lie that Joseph Smith preached and taught that men could become God as an official teaching of the church as part of their beliefs. Even today it is not part of the official teachings of the church. So I stand by what I said as it is true.

According to the teachings of the Church, the restoration of the church was done at the hands of both God and Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith just obeyed them. ~That does not make him a founder of anything.

Who are you to judge who is or is not a Christian when you act so very badly on this forum and sin so easily. Again you point figures with dirty hands.

Quote:
If it were secret, Ketty Dear, then how is it that everybody knows about it, only the definition of "secret" is "not known or seen or not meant to be known or seen by others." The opposite is true about this, heck, even you know about it. Secret! Nah  

Again you repeat the same old same old. If it were secret then how come you know about it. Not that secret, is it? It is sacred to Mormons, do you understand what sacred means.

You are projecting, Ketty Dear. That is exactly how I see you, and your clan, to be. Brainwashed, or indoctrinated, into believing a load of old hogwash, that must have appealed to you for you to capitulate to them. The easy option, the best suited to excuse your poor behaviour, so to speak.

Ketty Dear, one has only to read a handful of your post here to know how bitter your fruit are to the taste. You are deluding yourself if you believe that crock. Your post is a testimony to the fact that you are a gullible messenger of the Born Again Christians.  

That is your choice. If that is how you have interpreted my words then you are not as clever as you think you are.

There is nothing in the Bible that says that Jesus was God incarnate either, however, your bunch of apostates believe in it. You condemn the Mormons for their unusual beliefs yet yours are far more peculiar than theirs is. Ironic and hypocritical, or what?

Here is a prime example of you getting it monumentally wrong. Each individual is responsible for their own salvation, do you believe that? If you do then how come you have just said that they will rule over planets with the families they had on earth. What happens if they are the only one out of  their family saved, their families having all failed. Are you saying that their families will be exalted with them just because they are family? If you are then your mentors have not thought that one through enough, have they? You don't have a clue Ketty Dear, you are just a brainwashed messenger of somebody else's words.

If there is plenty in the bible that refute that, then


Quote:
Derek wrote:
why haven't you cited any of it,


No need Derek, there are plenty of threads on here, proving that LDS is based on the lies of its founder, and not based on Biblical truth.  I'm sure you're capable of searching out previous threads if you need to have anything 'cited'. I'm not going to repeat all that's already gone before.  The Bible stands as its own proof.


Are you suggesting that there exists another source of the word of God, this forum? Should we take the word written here as the word of God and thus proof of his existence. Are you saying that we should take the word of a handful of posters to prove a whole religious organisation to be false?

You do not quote from scripture because there is nothing there for you to quote.

Look at this. Look at what you are claiming. That this forum proves that Mormonism is not true. That Holy Writ proves that Mormonism is not true when Mormonism testifies of the truthfulness of the Bible. A circular argument if ever I saw one. Surely this is sufficient to expose you for exactly who you are?

Do you not know that debating never proves anything, how can it when it is merely the clash of opinions leaving it up to the audience to determine what is right and what is wrong and that is so subjective that it is impossible to determine. Maybe you should reconsider your perceptions of what a debate is and then you wouldn't be so aggressive. I have never considered myself to be a winner of a debate, especially when I have learned something from it. A debate should always be a win, win experience. To try and win it creates all sorts of confrontations.

"there are plenty of threads on here, proving that LDS is based on the lies of its founder"

Quote:
Derek wrote:
or is it just the empty words thing again. Have you actually read the bible?

Quote:
I am not going to play "tit for tat" with you, but you really should wash your hands before pointing your figures. Billy Graham's hypocrisies made the hands of the Born Again Christian's filthy dirty, for example, as does Joyce Myer's false teachings. I do not defend Joseph Smith if he lied as a man with imperfections and failing, which he said that he had plenty of, however, his words, spoken as a Prophet of God, are quite interesting and without guile. You would not see that though because of your bigotry and narrow-mindedness. You believe in obscure things, like the trinity, because that is what your pastor told you. That is termed as gullibility Ketty Dear. You have no place to critique the beliefs of other religions, but especially so when your own is so corrupt and imperfect. Indeed, you are told not to judge others, but there is probably an exception for you Ketty Dear. You do what you want and then justify it.


Now, if you can, try and debate the subjects rather than attacking the posters and return to the topic of the OP where you are making an effort in attempting to prove your idea that 'god' and 'energy' are the same thing.   The Christian God*, of course, created all and so is greater than any one part of His Creation, energy included.  Mormons and others who consider themselves worthy of becoming gods, are free to believe otherwise.


As you know, I never attack, I retaliate.

I think you should steer well clear of a debate that you do not understand. There are just two things in this world that we know are eternal in nature. Just two that we know has the potential of transcending the event of the Big Bang. Just two that can neither be created or destroyed. God and Energy. Energy has been scientifically proven that it cannot be created or destroyed and Christians believe the same of God. That is why many astute thinkers question whether they are the same thing.

According to you God is not who we believe him to be but he is a magician able to perform that which cannot be performed, creating something that has always existed. Before you say "yes, he can", do you think that God is capable of sinning. It is impossible for God to sin for as soon as he did, He would cease to be God. So, God cannot sin, he is limited to that which can be done. He is not capable of the impossible, and has never said that He is.

If energy is God then by saying that He created it you are saying He created himself. God could not create himself, neither could he create anything that has always existed, if anything else existed. To create something is to bring into existence something that did not exist prior to that creation. It had a beginning and will have an end. Energy has always existed and will always exist, just like Heavenly father.

How are you able to believe in a fairy tale, unrealistic God. Is that what you want Him to be, or have you just been conditioned to think that way, or is your knowledge of our universe that limited that you cannot see God's miracles in action in the universe and know that it is Him, without a shadow of a doubt, who created it all and if only one entity exists who could have create it then God and intelligent energy must be synonymous.

Quote:
Mormons and others who consider themselves worthy of becoming gods, are free to believe otherwise.


If you really believed this then you wouldn't be so quick to critique them.
bnabernard

Problem with energy is that it can be observed, however what energy exists in can't.

Nothing,

bernard (hug)
bnabernard

Once man has built his fountain of knowledge his temple of light that shows him the way in his darkness, will he be able to live with it?

bernard (hug)

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Christian chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum