jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (117 posts)

We are Basically BABY GODS [well, not everyone!]

  1. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    What it comes down to (the existence of life and its meaning) - in plain language - is this:



    There eternally exists an ultimate Spirit/Consciousness, and this consciousness resides beyond what we call and perceive as 'time'. Our physical universe resides inside IT's spiritual world - and - is an expression of its artistic and engineering creativity.

    We are - I mean most of us - are direct split of this 'God Spirit Consciousness'. It's like someone breaks his/her index finger and that finger then becomes a little conscious human being, and then it is sent into a small-world specifically designed to fit its size and needs and requirements.



    The reason we are here?  -    it's a bit complicated to explain. Just as complicated as to explain the reasons why couples want to have kids of their own.

    God wanted to have friends whom He can love, and who can love Him in return. He didn't want to create some unconscious spiritual program. But He wanted to have 'real people'. Conscious entities who are as good as He is.

    Entities who can create for Him opportunities for loneliness...  and reunion.

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nice statements, but they would be much better for a little evidence.

      What can you provide, for instance, showing there is an eternal entity, or that our universe is a part of it's?  And no, scripture whether from the bible, Koran or any other "holy" writings does not count.

      What can you point to clearly showing your god wants friends it can love and not dog food for it's pet?

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        It can be 'shown' that this 'Consciousness' (God) indeed exists. But it requires some effort, because, you see, we are, in terms of size and scope, quite small and weak when compared to the physical existence (the universe).

        We are subject to its 'unchangeable' laws and must function within their limits. In that sense - we are not really 'free'. We can't live forever, if we want to. We cant really search (physically) the edges of the universe and see if there is an 'other side'.


        As such - we must rely on the clues and hints that we encounter during our 'not so free', and short, lifespan. We must be open to grander possibilities and must be willing to learn. If so - we may begin to understand that the 'spiritual' is indeed a reality.



        And that this is the *source* of everything that we have ever encountered.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
          EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          If it was shown to you, then you should be able to show it to us. Please do. Or, will we now be subject to a host of lame excuses as to why you can't show your 'Consciousness' (God) ?

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Wait a bit. I'm on the way...  smile

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Ah, a lame excuse. As suspected. smile

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I can't 'show' that over the internet. In real-life setting - yes. These things require direct physical contact.


                And that requires a 'little' organizational setup, a little funding, and - most importantly - the willingness and courage to make a positive change in the world.


                I'm on the way...




                Is that's the 'lame excuse' that you suspected?

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, it is a lame excuse. Thanks for offering it.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That's how you see it.


                    And you're not actually seeing it - maybe because you are unwilling to see. Yet, you can be equally thanked for offering it. And I do.

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  A little funding. Sounds familiar.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, zero funding - now, is everything okay? I'll travel the world on my feet. And eat biscuits in hotel rooms.

                3. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Ahh, funding… Surprise. What do you need $100, $1000 or $10,000? I'll wire it right to you. I have way to much money and no one to give it to. Just post your name and address and I'll get you whatever you want. I can't wait to see you prove God exists.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      God wanted to have friends so he created us tiny pathetic creature that can't even begin to comprehend his intelligence. I guess it's like me wanting friends so I create ants.

      Something seems off here.

  2. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    Your 'belief' on a hadron collider got zero funding. hahaha

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have no idea what that means. What belief are you speaking of. They do exist, you know.

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you seem to 'believe' that a large hadron collier has a utility and purpose to serve. and you seem to believe that it will achieve that - and therefore you wouldn't mind if your money is supporting that project.


        So - you have beliefs on something - and that is paying it money.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          OK. If you place your personal beliefs on the same level as scientific research I could see why you might think you deserved funding for rolling things around in your head. I don't see where your personal musings are of as much use to me (or, for that matter, humanity) but you are certainly free to believe what you want. Sounds like an ego trip. But, that's just my opinion.

          1. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well - as you said correctly - that is an opinion.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As are your beliefs.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What matters now is who's getting the funding.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Only if you place your personal musings on the same level as scientific research. Unfortunately for you, you would be the only person willing to do that.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It seems that you have a pretty solid faith on scientific researches.

  3. Prodio profile image60
    Prodioposted 2 years ago

    The point is that you've missed the point.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think the larger point is that I think you have no valid point. smile

      1. Prodio profile image60
        Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "I can not 'demonstrate' that through the internet. It would require a real life setting to 'show' these things..

        And, for that, I need a 'little' organizational setup, a little funding, and - most importantly - the willingness and courage to make a positive change in the world.


        I'm on the way..."



        http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2590180

        [Well, it was there waiting for you, and you've missed it. Very good. It would be, however, another issue if you think that what have said there is irrational - and therefore is not a 'valid point''.]

        (note - I had to rearrange a few words because hubpages doesn't allow to repeatedly post identical replies.)

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You said:

          ""I can not 'demonstrate' that through the internet. It would require a real life setting to 'show' these things.. "

          The fact is - if you had some sort of "knowledge," some way to physically "demonstrate" your evidence - you could easily explain your process. You cannot - or will not.

          That leaves one of two conclusions and neither are complimentary. You're either making this up as you go (highly likely), or you're locked in a con and you're just waiting for a silly poster to bite.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1

          2. Prodio profile image60
            Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You seem to be rather very intelligent - because you seem to jump onto conclusions pretty quickly, without much laborious effort or consideration.


            "The fact is - if you had some sort of "knowledge," some way to physically "demonstrate" your evidence - you could easily explain your process. You cannot - or will not."




            Well, that is equal to asking to elaborate the process, through which one can demonstrate that things like 'love' or 'hatred' or 'empathy' or 'kindness' - indeed exist.

            If you haven't experienced these things before - in your life - or have an idea what these things might be like - then whatever I tell you over the internet, will not be sufficient to convince you of their existence.

            You might actually outright reject to accept that these things ever exist in our world. If you are more advanced - then you might try to convince me instead, that there is no room for these things in the electrical impulses that pass through the nervous system.



            The same applies to the process of demonstrating that the ultimate Spirit/Consciousness (God) - indeed exists - and is a reality. If you want to have it through the internet - then I expect that you meet the prerequisites.


            Otherwise - it requires real life setting - direct, immediate contact.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Prodio, you said:

              ” Well, that is equal to asking to elaborate the process, through which one can demonstrate that things like 'love' or 'hatred' or 'empathy' or 'kindness' - indeed exist.”

              Since the dawn of time philosophers and authors have written reams of books that describe just that. They elaborate on the mechanics, physically, emotionally and ethereally on the subjects of love, hate, kindness and empathy. An honest person who wants to help others does not play, “I have a secret and I’m not sharing unless you meet my criteria.” 

              ” If you haven't experienced these things before - in your life - or have an idea what these things might be like - then whatever I tell you over the internet, will not be sufficient to convince you of their existence.”

              So – if I am not convinced, you’ve lost nothing.

              ” You might actually outright reject to accept that these things ever exist in our world. If you are more advanced - then you might try to convince me instead, that there is no room for these things in the electrical impulses that pass through the nervous system.”

              Again, if I reject it – no loss. Nothing ventured – nothing gained. If I convince you that your opinion is faulty – and if you end up believing me – then your theory was false to begin with, right? And, if I do not convince you – again – no harm – no foul.

              ” The same applies to the process of demonstrating that the ultimate Spirit/Consciousness (God) - indeed exists - and is a reality. If you want to have it through the internet - then I expect that you meet the prerequisites.

              By asking for “prerequisites” you admit, by default, that your theory is shaky. For, were it true – it could not be threatened. Reality cannot be threatened and if it’s not reality- it simply does not exist. I’m guessing you’re going to expound on “we’re all vibration” or “we are all universal conscience in physical form,” type of a thing.

              But – you have nothing new – if you did – you would be singing it from the rooftops.

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "But – you have nothing new – if you did – you would be singing it from the rooftops."


                - Well, only time will tell that.





                As I said earlier - you're not a deep thinker.

                You didn't (totally) understand what I conveyed. Well, it is obvious that people have written books on 'love' and 'kindness' and etc. But that's not what I said.

                Did they write down (in their books), what these things ('love', 'kindness', 'empathy' etc) actually are - what makes them up - what material exactly makes up love and all those things? Where are they located? Are they made of atoms - or radiation - or what?

                Can they - despite all their expertise on these subjects - ever convince someone - that there exists a relationship of love, between two people? Or that someone is kind to an animal? How do they do that? What  mechanical devices do they use to 'detect' and 'measure' love - hatred - happiness?


                Does the existence of these 'feelings/emotions' depend solely on the evidences that establish them in our reality?





                If an infant were raised in an extreme hostile environment - where there is only death, abuse and violence before him/her - could you - ever - convince that child what 'kindness' - truly is? Or what 'love' really is like?

                If you read him/her aloud all the books that "since the dawn of time philosophers and authors have written that describe and elaborate on the mechanics, physically, emotionally and ethereally on the subjects of love, hate, kindness and empathy" - would he/she understand what those books really meant?




                Without the relevant prerequisites - it would be a waste of time and effort to take up such an enterprise. It requires firsthand experience in real life setting.

                I would definitely not lose anything if I write down the process - step by step - and if you do not understand. Agreed. But I must be convinced that I'm not trying myself before the undeserving.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  All you're doing is backing up lame excuses with logical fallacies. Next.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Thanks again.

                2. HowardBThiname profile image90
                  HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Prodio, you said:

                  "As I said earlier - you're not a deep thinker. "

                  Be that as it may - I can spot a charlatan.

                  "I would definitely not lose anything if I write down the process - step by step - and if you do not understand. Agreed. But I must be convinced that I'm not trying myself before the undeserving."

                  In this - you give yourself away. The "undeserving." You fail to understand that truth - real truth - is available to all - or it is a figment of your imagination.

                  Separating people into the deserving and the undeserving smacks of far Eastern philosophies - the creation of caste systems. This is beginning to smell more like mind altering meditation, which, is little more than brainwashing and self-deception.

                  You're not looking for the "deserving." You're looking for a patsy that isn't bright enough not to know you're peddling false enlightenment. Dangle that carrot and hope that someone is emotionally weak enough to follow it.

                  We have our share of the Jim Joneses and the David Koreshes of the world.

                  That road leads to ruin.

                  If you have a shred of integrity - lay out your system - or peddle your wares elsewhere.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You do not seem to be deserving.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
              EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but that is a fallacy. We can all experience and understand love, hatred, empathy, etc.

              What you are claiming is not remotely related because only you have this alleged knowledge and not us. That is why we are asking you to demonstrate.



              But, obviously we all do experience those things and don't need you or anyone else to explain them to us.



              But, we don't, hence the fact you are using a fallacy.



              Whatever.



              If we can experience and understand love, hatred, empathy, etc., and don't need you or anyone else to demonstrate it for us, then we have already met the prerequisites, the very same ones you possess.



              Nonsense, we have not had any direct, immediate contact. If you can have that, so can we. But, since we have not and you have, you need to demonstrate it. But, you can't, because you are making it up as you go along. You surely can't believe we are so dim witted to not be able figure that out?

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I read that.  I think HowardBThiname explained better than I did why you have no valid point.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            +1 smile

  4. flpalermo profile image23
    flpalermoposted 2 years ago

    You almost got it.....almost.
    flpalermo

    1. Prodio profile image60
      Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you.

      I excluded a few things for the sake of brevity.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Chocolate contains a lot of fat and sugar. if it did not contain so much fat and sugar, it would not taste yummy. Prodio, you are prodding those who do not want either the fat or the sugar. Just the chocolate. Why do you try to offer them more than what they want?? They like the bitterness of life. So, my advice is to just let them have it!
        Each to their own!

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The bitterness of life? False claims are not 'sugar'. False hopes are not 'fat'. Reality is not bitter. It is only those who perceive it as such who are in need of pretending that imaginary 'sugar' and 'fat' are necessary additives.

        2. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for the followup, Kathryn. Someone said something quite interesting recently:  "God needs a marketing department."


          As I see it - human spirituality is overdue a major update: it needs to be established as a reality. Currently - it is not. That's why we've got all these atheists and agnostics telling everyone that they are mad if *they* believe in God - or afterlife - or such things.

          This attitude, however - is not only restricted to school curriculum and talk shows. But this attitude - side by side with 'religious attitude' (which has done a major harm to humanity, as well) - is running the world.




          Both turn out to be wrong, when we investigate them microscopically (going as deep as we can - and evaluating them).


          We need a serious update. I'm into it. Let's see what happens.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Objectively? I think that word does not mean what you think it means. wink

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            lol Sorry, but reality establishes itself, we have nothing to do with that, we don't simply declare something that is reality if it has no evidence for it's existence and has been part of myth and superstition for a very long time.

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              hahaha

              So you're back again with your infantile emoticon? hahaha

          3. wilderness profile image97
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            How do you investigate (microscopically, no less) something that by definition is not of or in this universe?  To date, we have never found a method of detecting any such thing.

          4. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Q. 'How do you investigate (microscopically, no less) something that by definition is not of or in this universe?" ( I would add... and macroscopically)
            A.  In one word: Intuition.
            Q. How does one develop intuition?
            A. In one word: Calmness.
            It becomes quite scientific.

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Intuition - ah yes, that habit our brain has of presenting us with hunches, feelings and opinions, based on knowlege we've acquired but no longer remember.

              The brain is a marvelous organ. Here's a good explanation:

              "In the 1970s, University of Massachusetts psychologist Seymour Epstein, PhD, developed his "cognitive experiential self theory." In it, he points out that human beings process information through two systems: Just as we learn things consciously all the time--the cognitive part of the theory--we also learn things experientially, without realizing we've learned them.

              "Intuition is just the things we've learned without realizing we've learned them. And sometimes they're useful. Sometimes they're maladaptive," Epstein says."

              http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/knowing.aspx

              I've learned to trust my intuition and most of the time it serves me very well. As you say - it's quite scientific.

              1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
                EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Thank you for the link to that article, it linked to another article regarding the failure of intuition and the many problems it's use causes. It certainly does explain a lot of how believers operate:

                Because intuition operates on a gut level, its judgment is compelling. People develop heuristics--mindsets to view the world--using this system.

                And that's where we can get into trouble. "Intuition leads us astray because it's not very good at picking up flaws in the evidence," Gilovich says. "It will be faulty when the world conspires against us and presents information that is unrepresentative and misleading."


                http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar05/misfires.aspx

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Oh dear me…

              Our Intuition is a product of our evolution and was intended to help keep us alive while roaming bare footed across Africa. It's very effective at instantly letting us know what can be dangerous given things we've seen and learned from the past. However that is how it should be used as that is how it's effective. When used instead of reason for things that are not things like it's intent (survival, or avoiding harm) it will be wrong most of the time, and you can check that by using reason.

              For example if intuition is telling you that spirituality should be thought of as fact then reason will show you that there is nothing factual about something that can't be tested in some way.

            3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why do you try to refute the one thing that will get us out of this mess? The only way out is to intuit that God loves us and wants us to come home and that we can leave any time we want to rejoin Him. Why try to crush the undreamed of possibilities of others?

              1. Prodio profile image60
                Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well - you know this very well - that some people think (actually, they believe it) that there is nothing after *physical* death.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, you know this very well, that many people have experienced life after/beyond death in some way or another. Jesus was one.

                  1. Prodio profile image60
                    Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    What are your thoughts on telepathy?

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    That must be more of your intuition thinking. Try to remember what intuition is for and then try to remember what reason is for.

                    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/Gre … JEPG11.pdf

      2. flpalermo profile image23
        flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Speak to me son, I will never know what's in your mind.

        1. flpalermo profile image23
          flpalermoposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Perhaps you mean that we are gods "in conception"?

        2. Prodio profile image60
          Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "You almost got it.....almost."



          So (I'm assuming) - you meant that the 'Opening Post' of this thread doesn't have the 'full' picture (it doesn't have the meaning in its entirety) - while - it conveys almost the entire account - excluding a few points here and there (concerning life and God).


          In my earlier reply to you - I was suggesting that I kept my 'Opening Post' brief - so that it could have a stronger impact. I have more things to say - and more points to elaborate.

          Those (excluded) points might be what you thought to be missing in the 'Opening Post' of this thread. For example - I didn't mention - in my opening post - the subject of evil. There are more such things that I excluded.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image61
            EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Yet, all we can see there is a personal, irrational belief in life and God.




            The OP has no impact whatsoever and no elaboration.



            Yes, you excluded anything of value that would support the OP.

            1. Prodio profile image60
              Prodioposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              "Yes, you excluded anything of value that would support the OP."


              Change your statement!   hahahaha

 
working