jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (79 posts)

The World is on a Network of Consciousness

  1. God shet profile image60
    God shetposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11875736_f520.jpg

    We have been bombarded with (utterly absurd) 'Western materialism'. We have been forced to believe that we (as consciousness) are a product of matter and this is the predominant way that we view it (the entire material universe), and ourselves.


    But in reality - we are (the way it can be best described) on 'a platform of consciousness' - the pinnacle of which is what we commonly term as 'God'. The material universe that so acutely insist on us - can be adeptly compared to 'a grand software program' created and designed by the 'pinnacle consciousness'. The examples of it are almost everywhere - from the pull of gravitation on a drop of dew - to the 'beauty' and 'design' we witness all around us in the universe.

    We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them. Actually - we still do not have enough idea how 'the organ that we employ to see the stars' (eyes) - exactly function. We still can't create them ourselves to give sight to the blind.


    The magnificence of the 'pinnacle consciousness' is boundless on us. But it excepts us to behave well with each other - and to love.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting concept, but I do take exception to some of it.

      First, only a fool would believe that "thus we understand it (the entire material universe)." - very few, if any, people would believe such nonsense.  We ARE a product of matter - as an experiment (performed billions of times in our history, with identical results every time) you can take away the matter and see if the consciousness remains. 

      We can use our senses and instruments to find this "matter" we are composed of; what do you use to find the god you propose?  How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion?  The pull of gravity, after all, is a material thing, not consciousness, and that humans find beauty in everything they see is a comment on humans, not on nature and certainly does not indicate any form of design outside what we design and find beautiful ourselves (The Sistine Chapel, perhaps).

      You may not understand how stars form, but others do.  You can understand, too, by studying the problem (it's called "gravity"), just as you can understand what goes on inside one (it's called a nuclear reaction).  This ignorance, then, does not promote the idea of a god, only that we are ignorant of some things around us (contradicting your first statement).

      So you are left where you started, trying to provide support for a boundless god and for what you have determined it wants.  Do you have something to support the idea or just imagination?

      1. God shet profile image60
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        1. "First, only a fool would believe that "thus we understand it (the entire material universe)." - very few, if any, people would believe such nonsense."

        ~ I've no idea what you're talking about.



        2. "We ARE a product of matter - as an experiment (performed billions of times in our history, with identical results every time)"

        ~ Well, our (what are 'we'?) 'bodies' are definitely made of 'matter' (what is 'matter' by the way? what are 'atoms' made of?).



        3. " you can take away the matter and see if the consciousness remains."

        ~ As I said earlier, 'Western materialism' is utterly absurd. It may (and does) negate the most obvious realities of life.



        4. "We can use our senses and instruments to find this "matter" we are composed of; what do you use to find the god you propose?"

        ~ Who are 'we'? What are 'we' made of? We can study 'matter' - can 'matter' study us? We may use the same 'faculty' to study 'God' - that we may use to study 'matter'.



        5. "How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion?"

        ~ I choose answer this a little later.



        6. "The pull of gravity, after all, is a material thing, not consciousness,"

        ~ You've misunderstood what I've said on there. Please recheck.



        7. "that humans find beauty in everything they see is a comment on humans, not on nature and certainly does not indicate any form of design outside what we design and find beautiful ourselves (The Sistine Chapel, perhaps)"

        ~ That is what YOU believe that issue (of 'beauty' and 'design') to be.



        8. "You may not understand how stars form, but others do"

        ~ You've misunderstood what I've said, again.



        9. "You can understand, too, by studying the problem (it's called "gravity"), just as you can understand what goes on inside one (it's called a nuclear reaction).  This ignorance, then, does not promote the idea of a god, only that we are ignorant of some things around us (contradicting your first statement)."

        ~ What is 'gravity'? What is 'gravity' made of? Have you taken a tour inside stars? How do know what exactly goes inside them or how they start off? What allows and enacted the system of 'nuclear reaction'? How exactly does the process happen and what are all the ingredients that participate in that process - made of?



        10. "So you are left where you started, trying to provide support for a boundless god"

        ~ You're not on a very good platform to profess anything like that. It's inherent in the Western way of thinking that to fragment human understanding of the world that they live in. It's a catastrophic belief system, and we witness its influence and affect on our lives everyday. It has internally enslaved us because we haven't been exposed to anything that is better than this system.

        It's quite like the 'Windows vs Mac' scenario. Windows definitely comes cheaper.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          From the OP: "We have been forced to believe that we (as consciousness) are a product of matter...".



          Again you seem to claim there is something else, but can only insinuate it without providing any support for the claim.  My 5 senses provide support for the claim of matter; what provides support for a claim of something else?



          Do you deny that removing the body removes consciousness?  Can you provide support for the denial?



          Repeating: what do you use to provide support for your claim?  Irrelevant questions do not support your claim.



          "created and designed by the 'pinnacle consciousness'. The examples of it are almost everywhere - from the pull of gravitation on a drop of dew - to the 'beauty' and 'design' we witness all around us in the universe."  You claim that a material action (pull of gravity) is an example of god, but of course it is nothing of the sort.  No misunderstanding, just claims without reason behind them.



          And what makes your claim that a god designed it to match humans any better? 



          "We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them."  Outside of contradicting your first statement that we understand everything, what is the meaning of the statement?



          What are your questions driving at?  That we do not know everything in spite of your saying we are trained to think we do? 



          You are correct: we haven't been exposed to anything better than this system, including a god.  Which is what I've been saying, in spite of your unsupported claims to the contrary.  And maybe that's because there IS nothing else, and we really ARE getting a handle on understanding what is around us by dumping the old notions of a creature from another universe that makes demands of us without ever saying or doing a thing.

          1. God shet profile image60
            God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            1. "Again you seem to claim there is something else, but can only insinuate it without providing any support for the claim.  My 5 senses provide support for the claim of matter; what provides support for a claim of something else?"

            ~ How do you assure yourself of the existence of 'air' using your 5 senses? How do you convince yourself of the actual size of the sun and the stars (that they are really big, and that they just appear small because they are far away from earth) using your 5 senses?

            Are sure that our 5 senses can even detect the 100% of the totality of the reality that we live in?

            And most importantly: what created these 5 senses on which you rely so desperately and on which you have that much faith?



            2. "Do you deny that removing the body removes consciousness?  Can you provide support for the denial?"

            ~ I negate - for the sheer sake of reasoning with other 'consciousnesses' - that there is a certainly that human body produces human consciousness during conception - and that it (consciousness) dies once the body dies (we do not know what 'death' exactly is, by the way). That idea is preposterous.

            Personally, I know that 'consciousness' is eternal.



            3. "Repeating: what do you use to provide support for your claim?  Irrelevant questions do not support your claim."

            ~ I've already elaborated my idea regarding evidence and all that. Please quote at least one example of the numerous ' Irrelevant questions' that you see anywhere in my post.



            4. "You claim that a material action (pull of gravity) is an example of god, but of course it is nothing of the sort.  No misunderstanding, just claims without reason behind them."

            ~ Well, it appears to you that way. For me - it doesn't.

            Seeing from your perspective:  unless you can pin down the exact codes that hold up the phenomenon that we call 'gravity' - you can not honestly assert what might not be behind that phenomenon.



            5. "And what makes your claim that a god designed it to match humans any better?"

            ~ Please first off define these 2 phenomena:   'beauty' & 'design'.



            6. " "We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them."  Outside of contradicting your first statement that we understand everything, what is the meaning of the statement? "

            ~ Any sane person may understand what's written in that statement. I can't help it if you can't. Please mention how that (statement) contradicts my first statement - if you 'CAN'.



            7. "What are your questions driving at?  That we do not know everything in spite of your saying we are trained to think we do?"

            ~ My questions are driving at where they are driving at. And you presumably have no idea where.



            8. "You are correct: we haven't been exposed to anything better than this system, including a god.  Which is what I've been saying, in spite of your unsupported claims to the contrary.  And maybe that's because there IS nothing else, and we really ARE getting a handle on understanding what is around us by dumping the old notions of a creature from another universe that makes demands of us without ever saying or doing a thing."

            ~ You are providing one after another glaring examples of what Western thinking is all about, and its actual worth and where it belongs.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              1.  Additional questions do not answer the question of how you know.  Can and will you provide any more data or just ask questions to which you already know the answer?

              2.  You know that consciousness is eternal, but what are you basing that knowledge on?  So far you've refused to give any evidence at all, just unsupported opinion - and it IS opinion whether you call it knowledge or not.

              3.  The question was asking for supporting data (" what do you use to provide support for your claim?"), not an idea.  You've presented your ideas, now present the supporting data, please.

              4.  Why?  What are you using for data?

              5.  Look up the definitions yourself: there are several good dictionaries online.

              6.  Already did: I've quoted you in two statements that are contradictory.

              7.  Oh, I understand where; trying to show a god where there is no data to support the statement.  That's what people do, after all - make up an imaginary creature, claim it is real, and talk all around it as "proof" of the claim.  Which is what you are doing.

              8.  Sorry - I did not supply anything showing the worth of "western thinking".  I've let the progress of humanity from pre-stone age to present speak for itself.  It took many millenia to improve a stone spear point while it took 50 years to go from the Wright brothers to Neil Armstrong via "western thinking".  I'd say the difference is striking and does not need repeating from anyone.

              You don't seem to understand a very basic matter: while I find your ideas intriguing (and not always wrong) it is not the idea that I'm looking for.  I want to follow your reasoning, I want to see your evidence, I want to make the deduction of a god myself rather than merely take your word for it.  Man has done that for thousands of years and come up completely blank; it's time we actually know if there is a god, but you have supplied exactly zero reason to think it is out there.  If all you can provide is unsupported imaginings, it isn't worth much; if you can supply reasons, verifiable and testable, for the belief it suddenly becomes worth looking into.  Can you?

              1. God shet profile image60
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                "You don't seem to understand a very basic matter: while I find your ideas intriguing (and not always wrong) it is not the idea that I'm looking for.  I want to follow your reasoning, I want to see your evidence, I want to make the deduction of a god myself rather than merely take your word for it.  Man has done that for thousands of years and come up completely blank; it's time we actually know if there is a god, but you have supplied exactly zero reason to think it is out there.  If all you can provide is unsupported imaginings, it isn't worth much; if you can supply reasons, verifiable and testable, for the belief it suddenly becomes worth looking into.  Can you?"



                ~ I thank you for saying this. And I understand your position. The point is - you need to first soften up a bit. It's actually a question of attitude.

                You, or anyone standing where you are standing (intellectually) - may ask: "What will I get if I know (discover) that 'God' is real?" - which is a very valid question. Will that knowledge have any practical application?

                Will that make us financially rich or improve our employment status or anything of this sort?


                We need to get the basics right before we approach. You can't learn - and I can't learn also - from anyone whom we do not trust and respect - and are not willing to understand how they view themselves, the world, and the universe.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  In my world one does not get automatic trust OR respect.  I listen to my Yoga instructor, for instance, and try what she says.  If I get the results I hope for I repeat the process - this I have done until I both trust AND respect her, at least to a point (she tells me to jump off the cliff and flap my arms, that trust will disappear very quickly as the results if she is wrong are too severe).

                  But you don't give me anything to try.  You don't give me anything I can test or check.  Just unsupported opinion that you refuse to explain.  You, an unknown voice on the web, have not earned any trust - on the contrary the refusal to explain any reasoning process at all gives rise to the opposite.

                  1. God shet profile image60
                    God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I never thought about it that way. You always ask questions in a way that makes me feel that you disbelieve/suspect everything I say.

                    It would have been much better if we could communicated like this much earlier.

      2. God shet profile image60
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion? Do you have something to support the idea or just imagination?"



        ~ Let me begin by exploring something that you've just brought into my attention. The thing is - there are two type of evidence to be found here regarding this issue - and regarding all human issues as well.




        The first type is the evidence that is required to convince yourself - the other type is the kind of evidence that you need to convince others. You may see a 'golden eagle' through the window. That's enough evidence for you to accept that you have seen a golden eagle. But your friend may not believe that you have seen a golden eagle through the window that day exactly at 10.03.01 am on the 31 December's morning in 2012 while you were affected by conjunctivitis and were in Maui, Hawaii.

        He might be convinced only if you manage to show him a photograph of the whole scene (you + window + 'golden eagle + Maui, Hawaii).

        You may not want to go through the labor to produce such a photograph, because that's impossible.


        You've said that you know how stars are formed and what goes on inside them. No human being has ever physically explored the insides of stars. But we can freely use our consciousness to imagine what that might be like inside stars - and we may come up with a rational possibility which is very close to the reality of the issue. And we do it during our daily life activities and interactions. The pump isn't working - and a mechanic may tell you within a second what's wrong inside the pump.




        That a human consciousness survives after physical death - and that it may 'telepathically' contact the persons (consciousnesses) that it loves - is one of the most successful evidences to convince someone (denying everything 'spiritual') - that these 'things' are real and alive.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And yet...every single claim of a ghost talking to us has been either ignored or debunked.  Not a single case has ever been proven to be true.  Lots and lots of fraud, but not a single true case.

          Most people, upon seeing such evidence, will come down on the side of truth and decide that ghosts aren't there.  What is it that makes you decide they ARE there?  What are you using to convince yourself?

          1. God shet profile image60
            God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, there are (and have been) quite a number of human beings who had developed (or they have been endowed with) telepathic abilities. Trouble with these people are that they seldom realize that what is so acutely real to them - maybe alien to others who don't have access to that spectrum of reality.

            To us (human beings) - colors are insistently real. But there are many animals who may not see them all - or any colors at all. If they could communicate with you - you could never assure them that colors exist and are real.



            As far as I know - no one has ever tried to deal with this issue (of telepathy) very 'seriously' - perhaps just because they didn't feel any desperation to prove to others that its a real 'thing'.

            To them - it was a by-product which was triggered as a result of the extension of 'them' (the consciousness / spirit that they fundamentally are) on a level not commonly experienced by others. It was the result of the purity of their heart and the love that they felt inside, which manifested as a connectivity between them and the people/animals that they have loved. They didn't view it as a magic whose mysteries should be demonstrated to the disbeliever.

            But it (telepathy) is demonstrable.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry - I am unaware of any telepathy experiment that clearly showed telepathic abilities.  You claim many have the ability, but don't know it - how then do YOU know of it?

              There are a great many things we can't see that are quite real.  Neutrinos, for instance, and electrons.  But that we cannot see, with our own senses, something does NOT mean we should decide it is real.  The question of invisible unicorns comes to mind, as does a god that never interacts in any verifiable way with this universe.

              No one has investigated telepathy?  Have you heard of the Rhine Institute?  Or look back into military studies.

              If telepathy is demonstrable, beyond statistical error, then someone would have shown it.  Can you provide a link to such research - I've been unable to locate anything.

              1. God shet profile image60
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Well, it depends upon one's level of understanding, experience, and many other factors to determine what they 'can' believe - or 'can not' believe.


                To some remote African villagers, the existence of something like a 'helicopter', or a 'computer' - might seem be an impossibility. It may be that they can't even imagine that such things could ever take up a form in our reality. If you show them a mobile-phone, and tell them that this thing sends a kind of invisible wave and we can talk with anyone in the world through this system - you might cause a laugh riot amongst them.

                If they had some elementary knowledge and interaction with the physical science - then - they could still disbelieve you - but in more 'realistic' way.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  So you take them a helicopter and give them a ride on it. 

                  Or you produce your god, but in all the thousands of years that has never been done.  Just the claims, without the proof.

                  Now when your aborigine wants to know how or why the helicopter (or cell phone) works, that's another matter and will require much education.

                  But I don't ask why your god exists, what it is, or how it created the universe.  Just that it exists at all.  Show me the "helicopter".

              2. God shet profile image60
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                I do not have the exact (global) data of how many people can/could communicate telepathically. I personally have met at least one (and he is alive) - and I can demonstrate it (telepathy) to others.

                I do not trust news agencies or internet organizations. I can not recommend their research on 'telepathy'.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  This, then, is a problem.  You don't trust research organizations, but you have proof telepathy works in your own (repeatable) experience.  Proof you refuse to show anyone, and yet expect (hope?) they will take your word you can do it.

                  No one in their right mind will do so.  Unsupported claims contrary to experience are worth exactly what the evidence is worth; zero evidence = zero worth.

                  1. God shet profile image60
                    God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Quote the exact sentence(s) where I've said that I have advised anyone to blindly trust me or my words. I've shared what I know. The rest is up-to you. If you find the 'shared knowledge' to be unacceptable or invalid - then just ignore it.

                    If you find it interesting - then you are always welcome to ask questions or inquire more about it.


                    The Way I First Encountered Telepathy:  The way it happened was that one night, around 10 pm of night, I remembered a person whom I had (accidentally) met a few days ago, and who had showed me strong support for my spiritual endeavors.

                    I actually remembered (flashed) his image - in my mind - his physical appearance and his face, that I had seen few days ago. A few seconds later, my cell phone rang - and this guy asked whether I 'remembered' him a while ago. I was surprised. His explanation was that if you like (love) someone - a connectivity is bridged between you and that person. And that it is possible to communicate - this way - even after (physical) death.


                    I distrusted what he said - and (internally) considered him a charlatan and an imposer. But he repeated this phenomenon. And this phenomenon is demonstrable.

                    I can arrange it for others if they find it helpful to experience it themselves.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "It's not necessarily logical to find any correlation between those two events that Elizabeth mentions in her book ( her prayer for water, to God - and the storm that occurred that very night).

    It might have been a coincidence that she could view no other way but as a 'living' answer to her prayers. And given her situation - we can't blame her that she viewed it that way."
    You say this with so much authority. You have not even read her words.
    - just never mind.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    - if you believe in ESP then, why do you not believe in miracles?  We can intuit God but He can't intuit and provide for our needs?

    1. God shet profile image60
      God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Please recheck that post as I've updated it. And I do feel that telepathic communication with 'God' is a 'valid' idea. It's possible. And it's possible to have that communication from both the ends.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Have you experienced miracles in your life? do you think God had restricted the use of miracles?   Because they are not logical?
        When the whole world/universe is a **** miracle!!!

        1. God shet profile image60
          God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But I must also make it clear that if I were 'God' - I might have restrained myself from using any 'miraculous' methods to rescue my 'spiritual children' - as that would easily disclose myself before the world.


          And given that our 'God' has designed a world where It has let lions and tigers to freely hunt innocent deers and such pacific creatures - we have every right to doubt the exact level of 'misery' that can really moves It to cross It's boundaries - even though these boundaries are Its 'personal' boundaries.

        2. God shet profile image60
          God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But it is also true that most 'miracles' are found in such a way that they can be considered as coincidences as well.

          If 'God' is behind any of those miracles, and if It really made that storm happen to help Elizabeth - I must say that our 'God' has discernment.

 
working