50/50 (Part Three)
Remember what I said? - The Spirit has one only property, the capability to observe.
Of course it has self-awareness (I exist).
Through observation the spirit creates knowledge: “I observe one object, and there is one more and they are moving closer to each other”.
The knowledge “there is other existence except my existence” is created, and also the knowledge that “there are two objects which are moving closer in distance.”
Meanings and concepts are created. Later the words will be created to express the meanings and the concepts.
All we (with small exceptions) share the same way of observation, the same meanings and concepts.
We have the property of the spirit to observe and we create knowledge through it.
We have self-awareness.
Animals also have the same, but they don’t question (at least we think so) their existence.
I think that the first intelligent human thought was to question an existence - sort of “What is this and where it comes from?”.
Now, we observe that we are not the only observers, and the Universe is existent even when particular observation over it is ceased. That leads as to the conclusion that we are not the main observer.
Am I saning now that if the main observer stops its observation the Universe will disappear.
Yes.
How is that possible?
As part of the Spirit we share the Spirit’s properties.
If the ability of observation is withdrawn we will not be able to observe the Universe, therefore it will not be existent for us except trough the knowledge for its past or presumably present existence.
It actually happens in similar way and it is called “death”.
The main point is the ability to observe thus creating meanings and concepts.
Let’s look in to that.
What is “existence”?
It is the state of observed object separated as different from the self-awareness.
(Do not look in the dictionaries. They suck.)
We observe objects and waves with our five senses.
We create meanings and concepts.
The weak point in the “existence” meaning is that ones we created it we started to apply it to different objects by saying “it exists” or “possibility to exist”.
We forget that existence is notion explaining presence of object in our observation.
We must not apply the “existence” word (and all words derived from it) to objects, because we speculate with it and deceive our understanding. Or at least we must be aware of the way we use it.
Is it possible the existence of rock in the middle of nowhere without being observed.
Yes it is possible and there are existing objects which we do not observe. The process of observation comes from the fact that there was existence which we were not aware off.
But we are also aware of the “existence” meaning and the question comes from that awareness.
The question wouldn’t come if we did never observe anything but only be aware of our existence without having five senses.
So, the mind speculates with created meanings.
Again: the question “is it possible existence of…?” stays in the already possible meaning “existence”.
The answer is: Yes existence is already possible because we KNOW the “existence” meaning.
From then on, everything which we already know as existent stands the possibility to exist in nowhere.
We don’t make the rock existent with our observation, because it is already existent in our understanding.
When we observe it, we will simply observe known object - matter.
The parallel with the “sound in the forest” can explain something very important.
If there was no creature to observe the sound, there was no sound but vibrations with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz. The “sound” meaning applies only to creatures which have sense to perceive it and interpret it as… sound. Otherwise there is silence.
Let’s play again with “existence” to make an explaining parallel.
We hypothetically assume that in our universe exists an entity which has no senses and has the capability to move through matter. This entity is aware of itself and the space which we call Universe. It keeps itself alive by moving through the space and matter. Actually the matter is giving (him) the energy required to keep its existence. That entity does not know that there is matter and that the matter is keeping (him) alive.
We do not exist for this hypothetic entity and the entity does not exist for us.
So, we exist and the entity exists but that existences do not interrelate and do not appear to each other.
What is the Universe?
Is it what we observe or what the hypothetical entity “observes”.
Which Universe is existent, the entity Universe or our Universe?
Because we are made from the matter which we observe does that mean that all entities in the universe are made of matter and interrelate with it as we do?
The Universe is what we observe and our senses for observation are limited to five.
The Universe except everything includes us.
All evidences are based on observation (us)
We can not have evidence of what we can not observe and… for our awareness which is self evident.
Now, back to the Spirit (God, Main Observer).
The spirit gives us the possibility to be self-aware and to be aware of existence through observation.
The Spirit’s properties are evident in us, which makes us part of the Spirit regarding its properties.
Our personalities are based on knowledge.
Our shared properties are based on the Spirit.
In that regard we are different personalities but one as part of the Spirit.
If there is God, it is in everybody as its shared properties – self-awareness and observation.
- -
50/50 (Part Two)
When I was in high school I got two points lower mark on physics test for saying that a dual particle (wave/matter) can not behave as wave if it is observed as particle.
Today’s quantum physics question it the way I did.
In my opening of this topic I did not want to mention the “God” word and to set you on that track.
I simply wanted to talk about the Universe which discussion and existence is only possible for us trough conscious observation and conscious discussion.
I’m quite sure that a quantum physicist will answer the question “Can we claim an occurrence of event without being observed” with “No”.
In that regard we can not say that this universe can exist without a conscious observation.
Then was it existent before to be observed?
We can not know.
If you take a deep thought you’ll probably come to the feeling that this Universe is more like a dream world which we inhabit.
That’s why I offered you to comment on the Big Bang and Guth’s theory and in the same time take a thought on my questions about them.
Instead most of you jumped in conclusions and requested from me to clarify my understanding about God.
Why would you need that?
You should comment on the Universe, not on God.
I thank to all who did comment on the subject.
I gave you an example how the limited by borders volume of the Universal mass creates unlimited Universal space in the modern Big Bang and Guth’s theories.
If we assume borders for the Universal mass in the Singularity we must assume that there was space out of the Universe, which can not be called Universal.
Why am I digging in to this?
Isn’t it easier to give my supportive evidences for God’s existence?
After all this is what most of you want.
Based on what must I give my evidences?
Based on your believe about the nature of the Universe?
What evidence about the sound and the light can I give to a person who was born blind and deaf?
You think that this is not a serious argument?
Why?
But let’s talk about God.
The religions make it simple, because they put it on belief.
Every religion has a belief about God but all religions explain it as Spirit.
My English is not good enough for definitions, but I’m sure that all of you will agree that Spirit is consciousness in non material body.
Most religions put personality in God.
God which I’m presenting is not a personality but Spirit which has one only property – capability to observe.
I used few times the “consciousness” word and I found out that it is hard for you to imagine consciousness without intelligence.
As I said few times intelligence is knowledge created in the process of separating subjects and events.
Spirit or Pure Consciousness has no knowledge, but only awareness for itself – “I exist”.
That Spirit will create intelligence only when observes subject or event which must be separated from its own existence.
Hope that the above explanation is clear enough.
Now, let see what we have as evidence for our own existence.
We are aware of our own existence as the Spirit is aware of its own existence.
Others are aware of our existence as the Spirit when separates subjects from its own existence thus creating knowledge about other existence.
We are also aware of other existences.
Except awareness what other evidence we have?
Oh, we are aware of our material bodies.
We are aware that our body needs brain through which our awareness creates personality and controls the body.
Do you have other evidences?
I don’t.
You want me to present evidence that Spirit exists.
It is self evident through your awareness.
But where did I get that Spirit from?
From the same theory you got your matter from.
- - -
50/50 (Part One)
A week ago I had interesting conversation with the atheists on Facebook until the topic was deleted.
Fine, I said, it is not first time to delete my topic or comment. Just a week before that they deleted my comment from the first page of Mr. Dawkins web site.
A day latter just before they ban me from the atheist group I received invitation to join Rational Responders and to get their rational respond to my ideas.
And so I did.
Here is the opening of the topic 50/50 posted in their Web Site.
***
The Universe
There were two theories about the nature of the Universe:
1) There is no moment of creation and the Universe is ever existent
2) There is moment of creation, therefore the Universe has beginning
The evidences do not support the first theory, because it is obvious that the Universe expands, which leads the science to the conclusion that there is a moment in which the expansion started.
That moment is considered to be the birth moment of the Universe.
That is how the Big Bang theory took place in the modern science.
However there is a weak point in the Big Bang theory.
Due to the quick cooling matter in the Universe we should not observe such equally distributed matter in the observed Universe.
There is also problem with the mass of the Universe and its gravitational force related to the speed of expansion and its eventual end.
Alan Guth came with new theory called Inflationary Universe which corrects three major points in the Big Bang theory one of which is: there wasn’t “explosion process” but the Universe inflated in “a fraction of a second”. According to the theory the inflation was possible thanks to the “repulsive gravitation”.
In both theories the Universe got its “birth” from a stage called Singularity.
Singularity is scientific taboo and the laws of physics are helpless for its explanation.
We can only say that Singularity is the Universal stage where is no time, space and matter.
Knowing that the matter is motion we can say that Singularity is Absolute Rest or… NOTHING.
Mind the NOTHING word!
We use that word to express lack of presence but in an absolute meaning NOTHING is unexplainable notion, because it is not only lack of presence but also lack of space for any presence.
Now, as we all can see a scientific theory is making us to believe that the observed Universe appeared from NOTHING.
Actually we don’t really believe it, because we don’t think about it.
We have the evidence of an existence and we are happy with it.
We don’t notice the lack of evidence for the assumption of “repulsive gravitation”, because it makes sense in explaining evidence – equally distributed matter in expanding Universe.
We don’t also notice something very illogical:
Obviously the “repulsive gravitation” must be greater than the one we know; otherwise the expansion wouldn’t take place. If so, why the “repulsive gravitation” is not evidently present and working IN the Universe?
It can only be explained if it is placed outside (!) the Universe or to avoid the stupid “outside” word we can use the less stupid expression “the repulsive gravitation only applies to the Universal borders” (correct my English if wrong).
We know that the science uses highly sophisticated abstractions to fit the theory to our understanding; such as “the Universe expands in itself” which is suppose to explain the question “in what space the Universe expands?”
The above abstraction does not explain the NOTHING notion due to the fact that in NOTHING there are no borders.
What do I mean?
Imagine that the Universe did not start from NOTHING but from the possibly smallest particle or even fireball if you prefer so. I’m quite sure that this is much easier to imagine than the birth from NOTHING.
A material particle has properties one of which is “end” which end we call “border”.
If we have border we have space and time to travel in direction opposite of the border.
We need very abstract explanation to accept that a border is possible only from inside but never from outside of material volume (the Universe in this particular case)
We can only make sense in explaining all this if we assume that a border is possible only through observation or conscious understanding about it. That would mean that since there is no consciousness out of the Universe, no outside border exists even if the Universe has the size of a fireball or the size of the smallest known particle.
Now we can correct the theory by saying that the Universe needs consciousness in order to exist in itself even when it is as small as the smallest imaginable particle.
Let’s talk about this before we move forward.
- - -
God, the most personal thing
I’m glad I started to go more often on Facebook.
I meet there some interesting people who make my life even more enjoyable.
Today I stumbled in to an interesting book with a colorful name “Soul Graffiti” by Mark A. Scandrette
There is interesting conversation in the beginning of CHAPTER 5: DARKNESS AND LIGHT: THE SCANDAL OF ETERNITY.
It is chat about God. Although some of the personalities in the conversation sound rough or even ignorant, I’d say that these people are the best motors of humanity and human spiritual and cultural elevation.
A person is never a problem.
The problem comes from the personal ignorance put in the crowd and accepted as an idea to follow.
When a saint say “Jesus died because of humans sin”, the weak man hears “Jesus died for our sin” and the crowd which sees no power in itself to resist the sin, elevates a Saviour, not an example to follow through which the salvation comes.
The crowd doesn’t need a path. It needs a hope.
Then the greedy monsters made the crowd to accept the sin in order to accept the Saviour who comes ONLY through the rules of the church.
The problem is not in the person.
The problem is in the personalized need of the crowd to be saved.
The hope that I (the crowd) have a God who will save me no mater of my personal sin.
Just accept the sin and the Saviour.
There is no escape unless the cattle runs out of the herd.
There is precipice on the end.
God is the most personal thing in humans life.
If you have it, He is the One Who was born with you.
If you don’t have it, He is the One Who will die with you.
He is always present in one of the ends.
And for the present He is your life and you are His Life.
Get out of the herd.
Astray is the way to find.
Jesus and The Old Testament
I’m having some kind of “frustrating time” with my Muslim friends in Facebook.
Discussing the Koran and pointing that Mohammad few times ordered killing as a solution, the Muslims answer back with quotes from the Old Testament in the Bible.
Let’s get clear about the Old Testament and Jesus.
Even Christians have problem with the Old Testament when it sneaks between them and Jesus.
For The Christianity the Old Testament is not a Book to follow.
It is in the Bible as a proof for Jesus’ coming and as a root of the faith in God.
When I say this to my Muslim friends they answer with Jesus’ words:
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jesus is right, he came to fulfill the prophesy and the Law of God who said to Jeremiah:
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
So, Jesus came to fulfill the prophesy, not to destroy it.
He came to fulfill the Law of God by signing the New Covenant.
Having new one we abolish the old.
And it couldn’t be other way, because Jesus clearly broke the rules of the Old Law: He did not obey the Sabbath and cured people in that day, He did not obey the law “eye for an eye” and gave new order “love your enemy”, He put the man before the gifts for the altar, He divided the earthy rules from the rules of God by saying:
Mat 22:20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Do you think that The One who was hated for braking the old rules will say “follow the old rules”?
If we still follow the Old Testament with all its rules, why Jesus came?
Do you really think that He came to say something which was known from hundreds of years?
Did they put Him on the cross because He agreed with them and because He was following their rules!?
I am surprised that Jesus’ clear message can be missed and interpreted in such a wrong way?