Could God be a Dimension?

I am beginning to wonder.

I am a believer. I am not Catholic but I go to Mass and enjoy it very much. But I don't agree much with any organized religion.

But I have had wierd stuff happen - things not explainable in this dimension.

But what if there is another dimension? The God Dimension? There would be no size or space or time. But that dimension runs thru ours and can affect it in infinite ways.

Just playing with idea.

themselves as a personality, or being with an ego.

We project our own limited sense of Self onto All That Is.

To my understanding God is Consciousness.

In Alchmeny it's call, among other things, the One Thing.

The Universe is made up of Consciousness or Living Light.

I have lived a long time. And God is a mystery that gets stranger with each passing moment.

But I believe. And I believe there is an active God - not a passive force.

Half kidding, but I do find it curious how people could believe in something that they can't even define.

Mystics dwell in a realm with absolutely no definition.

I have no answers. I don't know what God looks like or if he is grumpy in the morning.

But I would guess that our feeble attempts to know what is going on are pretty far off base.

...now an atheist. Nobody has all the answers, that much we agree on. But I fall back to Sagan's question:

...what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?

Our thinking isn't terribly different. If someone asks me, "Where did the universe come from?" my answer is, "I don't know." If someone were to ask you, I'd imagine your answer would be, "From God." But if someone asks, "What is God?" Your answer would be, "I don't know." Our final answer is the same, I just skip a step.

I have no idea and besides it doesn't matter. Watever was, was. And nothing anybody believes will change that.

:popcorn:

but I'd be hard pressed to discuss electrical theory.

and our existance is just part of a great spritual reality show...what if we are just "this week's project" and God is The Apprentice?

plays with that idea.

His work is just so wonderful. And so thoughtful.

My own experience is to say that its not just all some game where God "with men for pieces plays."

The thing is that it is just so big that we can't even begin to get a grasp of it all. We just see fleeting glimpses of something we cannot even begin to conceive.

to the sensual experience associated with a "spiritual" life.

IMHO much important than the exact nature of what gods and santas really are.

I don't think God really needs our "awe."

That is something that I have pondered, however. Why do people think they need to shower God with "awe" in order to show "faith."

Evangelicals talk about "faith" and stuff a lot. I don't spend much energy going there.

I tend to be one for the more basic stuff. Like feeding the poor and not starting wars.

People think they would get awe if they were gods. They may say, "oh, you don't have to," but what is a mortal supposed to do when confronted with a god, especially one who is omnipotent, unpredictable and easily offended?

--IMM

God answering the imponderables, the God of the Gaps. That's why I don't believe there is one. Mankind will not truly grow up until people set aside this childish Santa Claus-like entity which theists cling to so desparately.

Say god IS a creation? What difference does THAT make? Well inherently none, in my opinion.

Is it bad to make walkers for infants, crutches and wheel-chairs for the disabled?

Well, I can see that it would really be unfortunate if a person exploited these things for profit by teaching people who don't need them to never learn or to give up walking.

Well, I can see that it would really be unfortunate if a person exploited these things for profit by teaching people who don't need them to never learn or to give up walking.

And that's precisely what religions do. They exploit people's ignorance for financial gain, especially Christians, and most especially fundementalist Christians with their fake tongue-speaking, fake faith-healing, selling indulgences, etc. If one bothers to actually read and accept the New Testament one could never come to the conclusion that these people were actually Christians.

And your walker/wheelchair metaphor is apt in another way. Many of these religions (not all of them) would place everybody in an intellectual walker, especially the fundie Christians, who are nearly universally a dispicable lot.

I know that there are good ones, too. It's just unfortunate that they do not have a very loud voice in matters.

The Gnostics would have agreed more or less with the wheel-chair analogy.

They not only had the "we are in the know" attitude, but they also thought of God as a santa clausz like mental crutch for those who couldn't deal with what they considered reality.

Her stuff is so interesting.

Especially the stuff on the material in the Nag Hammadi Library.

One might do better looking down on skid-row.

It is a very valid question. From an Anthropolical point of view there are very good reasons for a society to come up with a higher authority. And all society has done that in some fashion or another. It is a most effective way to keep people in line.

But that argument does mean that God doesn't exist, either.

determine the Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, to which the answer has been established as "forty-two".

After 10 million years the final answer was "42."

hehe

For god to have created this universe He must have already existed. By definition, it would seem, He must have existed outside of universe. My conclusion, God has access to hyperspace.

Isaac Asimov did a wonderful story along these lines called the "last question"

I don't think we know much about God at all.

The Gospel of Thomas keeps saying to go back to the Light. That probably is not a bad place to begin.

They help us speculate about early big bang, when not all physical laws were yet in effect, what the black holes give us a glimpse of in terms of when light did not yet exist, that somehow God is the Light.

I kind of breathe it.

I sit in the back of the church at mass. And in January when the world is so bleak there is a burst of light that comes through the window and hits my seat.

So there is something to be said for sitting in the back. I don't know if anyone else knows about that streak of light. But I love it.

-- Joan Osborne

Only what is in my mind. And its always possible that I am completely insane. I try to keep that in mind.

I am a mystic and I think most of us are just more than a little odd.

especially if you see yourself as being "more than a little odd" :) Wish I'd read your post before I posted below! Anyway, here is an aphorism by my Pir, Zia Inayat Khan:

The goal of the journeyer is the Beloved
The goal of the Beloved is the journey.

I don't know, do I pretend to know, what God The Beloved is-but I have experienced such great gifts from God that all I can do is continuously give thanks and rememberance.

if you are speaking of what I figure you are speaking of. They appear to be void of time and space as we know it. I think it has to do with the interconnectedness of all things, which has been proven on a sub-atomic level, I believe. Our concepts of God and the nature of God are undergoing great change as we glance into the greater dimensions of existance. Mystics I know believe that God is everything; this concept crosses religions/belief systems.

One question: by "dimension" do you mean something that is simply there, without feeling or caring? PM me if you wish to discuss this further.

It is not definable or explainable or even argueable.

Just is.

For mystics God is in the silence, in the nothingness.
We are not a very loud bunch. But I don't think we really care.

But trying to define God is dangerous. Trying to put God into a box of any kind is dangerous.

We simply don't know.

My husband says you can't do it, because God is the box and everything else.

I think the best way to explain the mystic is in an old story. There was a town that was surrounded by a high wall. It was back in the Dark Ages, and no one ventured over the wall except a few brave souls who never came back. The city fathers finally decided they had to know what was beyond the wall, so they chose a brave fellow and tied a rope around his waist. He went over the wall, and with some struggling, was pulled back. But he was struck dumb by the experience and couldn't tell the others anything-could only smile.

Mysticism is a hard path. The questions are enormous. The feeling of total inadequacy in the face of a total unknown is frightening.

But I really believe that people are born to it. I was a practicing mystic at six year's old. It is just the way I am wired.

But there are lots of times when I wish I could just climb into the box and pull the lid over me.

I never know the answers - I am just constantly flooded with questions. Believe me, I have spent a long time considering the existence of God. Or is it all just a huge cosmic joke with Vonnegut as the author.

Now, after so many years I am more settled in. I just gave up on the questions because they are pointless.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here. They are just my things.
Times when I could see things in a flash of understanding. Times when I should have been killed but wasn't. Times when I heard a voice that pulled me out of the blackness.

Just times.

How could anything be before time?

But it's in the Bible. God is eternal. That means he was here before time.

A great thing to think about.

One step further. What if not only another dimension, but a dimension of dimensions? Maybe you'd have to be a math geek to think about that. :)

But I had considered inifinite dimensions. That simply interweave through ours. Dimensions of knowledge, of light, of warmth. I don't know. It would be endless.

The unfathomableness of it

Its just a waste of time. And a good way to get lost.

But fun to meditate about. Like floating on a float in the ocean, you have no idea how deep it goes or where each wave comes from.

But being suspended in the middle of the universe is nice.

I always wanted to build and infinity room - all the surfaces are mirrors and there are many, many lights all reflecting into space. I could just stand there in the middle of it all.

Time is slipping underneath my feet.

And it is Christmas Eve. I still have one present to buy.

Have a wonder Holiday you guys. Whatever your Holiday preference is. Or none, if that suits you.

Another dimension. Or just a human construct?

Is what we see just an illusion? Or is it real?

There was never a time that God did not exist; nor will there ever be such a time. He is eternal and everlasting.

The age of this universe can be estimated by measuring the rate of radioactive decay of matter. We can see how fast the decay is proceeding, observe how far along it is, and thereby estimate the age of the universe.

Using this and other methods, the universe's date of creation can be estimated at about 14.5 billion years ago. Its mass can be estimated at about 25 billion galaxies the size of our own galaxy.

This creation of 25 billion galaxies worth of matter, 14.5 billion years ago, cannot be accounted for by any naturalistic explanations. The law of conservation of mass (the Lomonosov-Lavoisier law) tells us that mass cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, the only explanation for the creation of this unfathomably huge quantity of matter some 14.5 billion years ago is a supernatural explanation. It had to have been created by an entity with an existence independent of the universe.

There simply is no alternative explanation that accounts for these observed facts.

This creation of 25 billion galaxies worth of matter, 14.5 billion years ago, cannot be accounted for by any naturalistic explanations.

Prove it.

If you are interested in multi-dimensions you may find this quote interesting.

"If therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light." Matthew 6:22.

To most it means nothing but if you look deeper, the quote is describing the third eye.

There is a specific meditation that involves focusing on the third eye. Coincidentally, the meditation can result in a perception of immense light emanating from inside and other psychic phenomena.

Could the effects be something more than hallucinations? I'll leave that question for others to answer.

Here is more information. Tread carefully if you decide to use the exercise.

http://www.create.org/healingarts/path3rdeye.htm

to open the Crown Chakra fully and feel the Light Rush in.
Sounds kind of hokey and I don't spend a lot of time with it but it is a really neat feeling.

Most of the time I just "sit." I use the Prayer of St. Frances. I have studied a lot of Eastern stuff but I chose to stay in my own tradition. I'm just not sure a non-easterner can ever really comprehend the very root of eastern thought. Nor can they ever understand western thought in the way those of us raised in it can.

So I go to mass - which enjoy enormously. I love the tradition of the Catholic Church. I just don't worry about the dogma. And I love the Tradition of Judaism, too. But I don't know all that much about it.

That there could be another dimension (quantum mechanics predicts as many as 11 dimensions within our universe) that transcends space/time. A being on that universe would essentially be omnipotent/omnipresent from our perspective. If you're familiar with Star Trek:TNG, it would be analogous to the Q Continuum.

It certainly would be a nice "scientific" explanation for God.

What is your definition of dimension? Science theoretically postulates infinite dimensions. But, only three are tangible, a forth if you wish to stretch the conversation to include time. Your desire to extend understanding beyond rational experience, to include a god concept, is not new. Such thinking demonstrates a yearning we all have to look beyond the mundane, a desire to find order out of the chaos we call life.

However, claiming god as another dimension is without any sound scientific basis, no observability, no testability, other than a pleasant fiction, I do not think you can seriously consider the proposition. If a dimension exists in which capriciousness and abandon reign, then yes god can have his own dimension.

Its just an idea, that's all.

A whole set of dimensions made of spirit that winds its way through our own four deminsional world - if you include time as a dimension.

Though you can understand that given the current fundie atmosphere, atheists might be a bit sensitive, a bit defensive.

"where capriciousness and abandon reign, then yes god can have his own dimension"

If one cannot define what god is, how can one prove or disprove what cannot be defined?

Just wonderin' :evilgrin:
DR

Geez, I thought you'd have figured that out by now, rosie.

Well, better late than never.

....people are atheists because that is what they *choose* to *believe*...that god cannot be proven...but of course that was not really the point of my post, which was....if one cannot define what god is, how can one prove or disprove what cannot be even defined?


Hmm... maybe you should read a bit more slowly for comprehension before you decide to jump in.

People don't "choose" to be atheists any more than people choose not to have a mental illness.:evilgrin:

Thanks for providing support for our side, though.

Atheists know that you cannot prove a negative, which puts the burden of proof squarely on the believer.

Hmm, maybe you should read a little more about this subject before you make ridiculous statements and score a touchdown for our side.:rofl:





Slow day insulting DU and it's members at the whining place?

did god tell you were one? :rofl:

...or did you not, at some point in your life, decide that according to "your" criteria, god cannot be proven to exist, so you embraced the atheist *belief* or pov?

Sorry, but I'd definitely call that a *choice*.


(football analogy the best you can come up with? ooohh...rah. rah. go. team.
...and where exactly did you find "support" for your team in my post?
Nevermind. Not into bmus fantasies today.)

Happy New Year :)

DR

Ok, so you believe in a god, and the supernatural. Great, but I do not and neither does BMUS. I can only speak for myself, but I lack a belief in god and the supernatural for lack of evidence. The Bible is full of stories about the origin of Earth and of humankind, stories conflicting science. So what? Science is the answer? Science built my car, cooks my food, heals my wounds, and gives me understanding about the world around me. So yes, science is pretty powerful.

Can science explain evil, morals, why the death penalty is wrong or why a woman's right to choose is to be protected. No, science does not have all the answers. Sorry, Spock.........;)

A person does choose not to believe in god, but you can be sure that it is a well informed choice. Reading about the world's religions, undergrad and grad school, traveling around the world, I have poked my little head into many cultures, beliefs, texts, history, and just do not see any evidence that a god, or supernatural realm, exists. Reincarnation, living for eternity, ever lasting consciousness, all sound great. I have considered the proposition of life after death, living in another time, a pleasant fiction, a day dream I had during all those years of history classes. But where is the evidence?

You are very good with the attack DR, but you seem reluctant to state your beliefs and why you hold them to be true. Your sarcasm makes for interesting reading, but lacks substance.

Oh, and happy New Year, damn it is 3 am, time for bed..............

Never even occurred to you, did it, genius?

WHAT a concept!

A child can actually be taught to use reason instead of beliefs in supernatural beings and superstition.

What will they think of next?

Secular education?



I didn't choose to stop believing in fairy tales because I wasn't brought up believing in fairy tales.

That's why I can't join you in your fantasy world where sylphs eat contrails and the power of orgonite protects you from bad energy.

But if it makes you happy, enjoy LaLa land.


Oh, and while you're there, say hello to http://www.matthewbooks.com/mattsmessage.htm">Matthew.

:evilgrin:

Maybe you need to reread your post from the skeptic forum...



You sure seem to have recognized yourself.



btw, loved the genius comment, thanks. :)

if this is too adversarial for you.

And really, show some class. The proper thing to do is pm Skinner to complain about atheists posting in this forum, don't whine about it in here.


If I wanted to play that game, I could repost your comments constantly insulting DU and its members from the latest Clubhouse of the Crybabies forum at PI, but I'll save those for later.


And yes, you're correct as usual, I use genius as a compliment.

Quite a little sense of humor there bmus.

Not sure which is better....
*show some class * or *go back to your happy place*
(to paraphrase your pal FM: "Ouchy I am almost stinging with pain" :evilgrin:


Oh yeah, so jus' let me know when you make up your mind if I should pm skinner, alert or whine? Sometimes I swear there just seems to be NO pleasing you girl.



DR

Ah, the new age in you is coming out. God is perhaps not the god of the bible, but a life force in the universe, perhaps energy itself, am I getting your drift? Since god is not definable, how can you proceed to the next mental gymnastic, proving or disproving god's existence.

I do not hold your world view, I have abandoned the "god" concept with a refusal to accept the supernatural. Lacking any credible evidence to the contrary. However, I must also acknowledge that your belief does not necessarily harm the world, least not on an individual basis. Harm as in cause war, persecution, beheadings, denial of human rights etc. But I must also acknowledge that your belief system does little to advance society when judged on a rational, scientific basis.

Yours is a selfish personal fiction? You realize that modern religion is flawed, yet you are too afraid to forsake the supernatural, motivations may include arrogant self importance; of the individual?, of humankind? Perhaps a fear of death; unable to acknowledge the finality of your own demise or that of a loved one?

Need the world always be judged in a rational, scientific basis? No, and I am the first to concede this point. Live and let live is still a sound credo in my book.......... However, one can live just fine with healthy debate...............

On edit, got to stop posting in the witching hour......

Nope..no supernatural references for you Mr Rational Materialist Atheist666 :evilgrin:



uhm, no, you are not really getting my drift at all...just your projections of what you think I am. Amusing, but not close. *new age* in me? :eyes: So you think you know what my definition of "god" is or *beliefs* are? Isn't using your "psychic powers" to read my mind bordering on the "supernatural" just a teeny bit?
:evilgrin:

Actually, I don't think proving or disproving god is about mental gymnastics at all, but for those who like to view the world by *rational thought* (now that is truly an oxymoron ) I suppose it might be.



My my,how "large" of you. How magnanimous of you ....but judged by you on a rational scientific basis, my *beliefs* ( and you know what they are by the above mentioned psychic powers, right?) are found lacking. Oh darn. I am so upset.




A "selfish personal fiction"? Oh that is too funny. Are you serious? That's quite a bit of psychological speculation on your part that you try to foist on me as if it were some kind of an argument or point...sorry ain't buying. LOL. Maybe those things belong to you.




I agree, live & let live is good...but within that "live & let live" credo should also come a large dose of accepting that others have their own paths, reasons and learning around those paths, so perhaps an attitude of "judgment" is not conducive to that "live & let live" idea....also not terribly conducive to "healthy debate".

:)
DR

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You hit alert whenever someone hits a little too close to home.

And the good doctor is hardly alone in thinking that woo woo beliefs do little to advance society.

Some great minds take it a little further:

you make a lot of assumptions about things you know nothing about.

....and as usual, your assumptions are wrong.

But I will refrain, don't want to make you uncomfortable.

its not about right, wrong, "uncomfortable"...or "too close to home" .....

...it's simply about DU rules.

Please enlighten me on this......

Prove, disprove, define, such terms. Let us approach the topic from a different angle. Some humans believe that a god figure exists, a supernatural power which created the universe and all of humankind. Great. No proof, I cannot disprove your supposition anymore than you can offer undeniable proof.

Changing the topic for the moment, Thetans are spirits from a long extinct civilization, many light years from here, which have infested our souls, and cause most of the ills we see in society. Only through auditing can we rid ourselves of these evil spirits and attain a state of clear. Again, you can't prove me wrong......

But wait, on mount olympus there resides a cadre of immortal souls, gods, which take part in our daily lives, only through offerings to these gods can we find peace and tranquility........ But wait there is more.....

The spirit of the television will honor you with long functionality provided that you pray to the spirit, an occasional burnt offering may further your period of maintenance free bliss. Perhaps a shrubbery, one that looks nice, and is not too expensive......

Where do you draw the line? I prove nothing, as an adherent to science I support or disprove and work within the dictates of the scientific method. Yep, materialism, nope, no supernatural. Nothing in this life has caused me to doubt a scientific world view. Free of spirits, hauntings, UFOs, moisten dragons residing in scottish lakes, hairy men in ape suits, I go wondering around the world and see no evidence for a supernatural.

Humans invented the supernatural realm, in part, to explain the evil which exists on earth. Look around, you need not consider much more than your neighbor to explain evil. Provided your neighbor is a republican. :evilgrin:

OK..maybe not.... O8)


I draw the line by truth. Your examples are clearly limited by your "beliefs" (or lack of them LOL) and expectations.


According to your experiences. Got any proof to back up that statement?

Curious that you don't believe in "supernatural" yet you believe in "evil". How do you determine "evil" simply by your scientific world view? What do you use to determine as to whether something is "evil" or not?
Your views seem very simplistic and dualistic.... good/evil, materialism/supernatural, atheist/theist?


No, of course you don't....for you it doesn't exist. Too bad. Think of what you might be missing :evilgrin:

DR

Proof of the supernatural? Proof? The center of Pluto is made of cream cheese? Prove me to be in error.
Ohhhh, not the evil vs good thing again. Now you seem to be projecting, oops my wife's psychiatric talk is showing. Simplistic world view, black and white, how I have failed to communicate. But I do agree, 'evil' is a sloppy term, what humankind defines as evil varies with culture and time.

Missing out on the supernatural? What do you see in this world that establishes the existence of the supernatural? Exorcism, hauntings, capricious gods, images on my corn bread? Sorry, my grilled cheese, the supernatural apparently only goes so far. :evilgrin:

Note, As I post this I am watching a commercial for the the Q-Ray ionized bracelet. Only twenty bucks, perhaps I need to get my Ying and Yang in order? Hell, my Ying don't work half the time, and I haven't been able to find my Yang for the last three years.

See post #75 and click on the woo woo words.

You know, Doc, if you think about it, life must be easier for stupid people.

What's that sound...?

and our Quaker theology doesn't even attempt to define God in human terms but simply accepts that God, whatever he, she, or it is, simply exists on his, her, or its own terms. We think more about the Light, which is the temporal existence of God in all of us. We also consider it far more important to care about how we live this life in the Light than worrying about understanding things beyond our abilities.

Last year's Templeton Prize winner was George Ellis, a South African Quaker cosmologist, who has mused over the idea of God being the innate intelligence of the universe. His bio here should give a hint that he's no lightweight thinker:

http://www.templetonprize.com/bios_recent.html

Digging through the bios and works of his and other Templeton Prize winners is a pretty good place to start looking for the integration of science and spirituality.I personally prefer to use "spirituality" rather than "religion" because religion implies organized dogma while spirituality connotates a more individual experience and search. Many of us are looking for a spiritual understanding of our lives, but aren't all that interested in someone's else's guesswork about the nature of God.

As far as God being a dimension goes, I first saw that in a Gurdjieff book years ago, "In Search of the Miraculous" I think it was, and then in other popular and New Agey stuff talking about dimensions. Imagine a plane being that cannot see height- only length and width. It lives on your coffee table wandering around the surface, not knowing what else is out there. If you put your fingertips on the table, it will only see five separate flat obstructions it must get around, and have no idea that they are connected to a hand and a body sitting in a room. One could then easily consider God a higher dimensional being who's reality we cannot understand, but who affects us in every way, both actively and passively. And who may not even be aware of our existence.

"Flatland" is probably the best known tale of the two-dimensional world, and can be some fun to read:

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/

beyond not attempting to define God is abandoning the concept of God altogether. I think there is such a thing as spirituality, but to connect it to God, whatever God is, seems to be attributing a source for spirituality developed before the Age of Reason and development of Scientific Method. The invention of God was a way of explaining the unknowns in life, afterlife, creation, but in the modern era, we can start to move beyond founding our spirituality on the concept of God. We all have inner light, but is it God, or just us? The Quakers are most of the way there, but it would seem the final step is to remove the concept of God and replace it with us, our own consciousness. Maybe this is what some types of Buddhism or Taoism do.

"Quaker theology doesn't even attempt to define God in human terms but simply accepts that God, whatever he, she, or it is, simply exists on his, her, or its own terms. We think more about the Light, which is the temporal existence of God in all of us."

I like this quote that seems to say the same thing in a humorous way.

"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized I was talking to myself."
- Peter O'Toole

certainly well explored in many spiritual paths, mainly Oriental ones.

There are already quite a few Quaker atheists who have moved from the concept of an unknowable God to one who isn't even there, or at least who we don't care about since he is unknowable.

God is so ingrained in our western religions that it is difficult to make the leap to no God at all, and even the leap to one who is unknowable or indifferent is quite a stretch for many. In most spiritual quests, there is the question of what is beyond us, and we seem to simply call it God, whatever it is out there.

God is a black hole? Dark matter? A Vulcan? Or that mysterious link between lifeforms that was behind "The Secret Life of Plants."

God as a being in the fourth or fifth dimension starts to make some sense after a while, but whatever it is, "God" seems to be the term we prefer.

what is within us more than what is beyond us. Certainly there is the rest of the universe and maybe multiverse out there, and I'm not suggesting that we don't explore that, even in a spiritual way. But I think that the quest for spirituality would be more direct if we examine it's source, which I think is within us, not to imply that we don't derive spirituality from our experiences with people, from nature, from the cosmos. But is God involved?

Part of the problem with religions that rely on spirituality obtained from God, is that interpretation of God's will is different for each religion, and historically, that has led to wars and many other societal conflicts, in extreme cases, resulting in crusades, inquisitions, religious wars, the Holocaust, or in the modern era, 911. Maybe it's time we left the concepts of our ancient God or Gods behind us and moved toward a future where spirituality is derived from explorations of our inner self, and how we can live peacefully with each other and in balance with nature.

To borrow an analogy from Sam Harris, consider how ancient medicine used the process of boring holes in one's skull to relieve spirits responsible for causing illness. Modern medicine has moved beyond this primitive technique, yet the world's religions have evolved very little in the same time span. The reason is that religion cannot be questioned or examined without risking penalties of various severity. As Thomas Paine once said:

"The Bible is a book that has been read more, and examined less, than any book that ever existed."

I think we need to examine the Bible and God. :)

a zoo that had lions and monkeys living peacably together, but then they put a Methodist minister, a rabbi, a Catholic priest and a Mormon in a cage and by morning not a one was left alive.

Looking within ourselves is a good idea, but we will still want to look up to the heavens for some sign. It's just who we are and how we think.

And, we do have this nasty habit of fighting to the death over the silliest things-- whether or not religion is involved. We just like to fight about stuff, and religion is as good as any other reason to fight. More often, though, it's a cover for something else we really want to fight about.

Certainly if there were some signs, I'd be the first to say let's explore them, but I'm not aware of any evidence to date of God, in the heavens, or anywhere else.

The problem in tying one's spirituality or beliefs to faith in things that have no evidence to support them, has been demonstrated throughout history. We can justify killing and torturing if it's what God wants. So, if spirituality was more of a science like medicine or psychology, then we might get past the point where people fight over which way is the right way, whose God is the right one. There will be fewer divisions for people to make and fight over. Then we can focus more on things like the equity in our economic systems, our health systems, welfare, education, environmental issues, important stuff. The religious right would rather separate us by talking about God instead of the issues. The past five years it's been God or Osama, but very little of the above important issues. Will we let the fundamentalists decide our future or work toward a future that doesn't look for answers from God to set the agenda? I think it's time to move beyond that, beyond the agenda set by the ancient God worshiping despotisms.

Mark Twain, what a gem:

"Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."

"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

"Religion consists in a set of things which the average man thinks he believes and wishes he was certain of."

I'm not talking about omens or comets or clouds that look like the Virgin Mary.

Many of us try to look outside of the observable universe to find something more. maybe we see signs we recognize, maybe we don't, or maybe we just think we see signs.

But we search, nonetheless, often in darkness.

The fundies of the world have been causing far more trouble than their numbers would suggest. About half the world is either Christian or Muslim, and most of those billions go on about their business without any bother at all. Can you imagine the hell this planet would be if they all followed their crazier leaders? Solve the overpopulation problems, that's for sure.

I've never bought into the idea of religious war. Sure, it's happened here and there, like with Philip II, but most of the time religion is used as an excuse for a far more nefarious plan. European "religious" wars more often had to do with certain unpopular royal families or property held by "heretics." Even the Crusades were driven more by the desire for access to trade routes than any doings in the Holy Land. And, while the Spaniards brought missionaries to the New World and happily slaughtered hundreds of thousands of uconverted heathens, it was gold, not souls, they were after.

And that has usually been the source for religious feelings, but religions tend to go too far and interpret these mysteries in a revealed way. Einstein describes this pretty well. He said in one interview that if he wasn't a Jew, he would be a Quaker. :)

From "The World as I See It":


http://www.einsteinandreligion.com/mysterious.html

His "religion" was based on reason and imagination. When I read this, I see no real difference from what I believe, which leads me to think of him as an atheist. But during his time, it was not very safe to be considered an atheist, so he never comes out and says so. I think the clues are in how he describes his feelings of awe of nature and the cosmos. There is no faith, only reason in his "religious" feelings.

Regarding religion being a secondary reason for war, I agree to a large extent. Often it's a tool, just as it was used in the Crusades, or the conquest of the Americas.


http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state_rockefeller_and_evangelism.html

It does seem like there's a religious war going on in the Mid East, and again with economic motives, as in the Crusades, we have an economic agenda (oil), the Islamic fundamentalists have their own agendas.

is that Einstein seems not to be celebrating reason as much as that which is unreasonable. He is celebrating mystery and the unknowable as much of what makes us human and our lives interesting.

Religion, science, art, philosophy... there are ways any of us can try to solve the mysteries of our lives and all are valid in their own ways, and they complement each other. The only problem is when we insist one particular way is the only way. Life is a series of paths, and we choose a path while respecting the others. It is just our path, not the only one and maybe not even the best one.

Einstein's thoughts are very similar to much Quaker thought, and we do have Jewish Quakers so he would have been quite welcome at meeting. We don't worry at all over the nature of God and prefer to talk of the Light, which is the temporal experience of God that leads us. We don't care much for thoughts of heaven and hell, either, and leave open the possibility of the afterlife but prefer to deal with the present. God and whatever exists or doesn't after death are quite capable of taking care of themselves without our assistance.

Rather they suggest that we don't yet understand the reasons for them. Using reason and imagination to contemplate these mysteries is what he thinks yields a truly religious experience.

He was a pacifist, so I think that's partly why he was attracted to Quakerism. He also mentions that Buddhism seemed compatible with a scientific society of the future.

"there are ways any of us can try to solve the mysteries of our lives and all are valid in their own ways"

As long as they don't rely on blind faith, which is closing the eye of reason.

you have to eat and poop with the same orifice. Otherwise you would be split completely in half.

and then it kinda makes you wonder what a four-dimensional orgy would be like.

(Maybe we're in one but can't see it)

Our reproductive system is already rather two dimensional. In and out the same orifice!

continues to state that the energy of a human being, even when they die will remain. I don't understand quantum physics, but I hope there is something better on the other side. I read in Gnostic Christianity as well as in mainstream Christianity that death is a sleeping. Especially in Corinthians plus a lot of other places throughout the holy bible.

Whenever death is mentioned it is called, "The sleep of death." Just like whenever life is mentioned, there is no true life without the "Breath of Life." That is why I do not believe that life begins at the moment of conception. In the book of Genesis, for example, until God gave Adam the "Breath of Life," he did not open his eyes.

At least not in the sense you intend it. Please don't abuse science.

...because I am so very, very tired of hearing the concept of conservation of energy being offered up time and again as some sort of scientific defense of Eternal Life.

To the extent that one can apply physics to metaphysics at all, what's far more relevant than conservation of energy (the first law of thermodynamics) to any concept of the preservation of the self is the second law of thermodynamics -- ever increasing entropy.

What makes you you isn't energy so much as well-ordered patterns and arrangements of energy and matter. That kind of order is exactly what physics tell us is NOT conserved. Energy is conserved, but it becomes more and more dissipated and disordered over time. Conserved though it may be, the energy powering the functioning of your brain is constantly turning into nothing more than waste heat. When you die the last of that energy will turn into waste heat as well, no more special or personal or human than the waste heat from a car engine or a light bulb.

This and your previous post bring a lot to the discussion. I am also tired of scientific truths being used as catchphrases to make people feel better about their various assumptions.

Another one: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" has a specific physical meaning, and says nothing about what in some circles is known as karma. But people love to use it that way, thinking it lends an air of credibility to their speculation.

Could God be the sound of one hand clapping?

The question "Could God be a Dimension?" makes very little sense and, I'm sorry to say, shows very little understanding of what a "dimension" is.

You first have to define what you mean by "God".
You then have to ascertain whether or not any such entity as you have defined is likely to exist.
You then have to define what you mean by a "dimension".
You then have to ask yourself whether or not attributing a "dimension" to this particular conception of "God" in any way changes what you mean by God, provides any explanatory power or further insight into the nature of this God, or if it's just deep-sounding but ultimately empty and meaningless rhetorical fluff piled on top of more of the same.

er, sorry. wrong thread....

Been a while since I posted but seems like a good enough time to get back into it.

My take is this.

God is consciousness.

Dimensions are rooted in consciousness and God, like girls, just wants to have fun.

I just happen to have a short book on the nature of God, consciousness, dimensions, The Unfolding (of consciousness) and all that jazz. Its free and its available here

http://www.red-ice.net/michaelsharp/index.html

with more information here

http://bookoflight.michaelsharp.org/

Desertrose has read it so maybe she can provide a summary (or not).

anyway, free read and a rockin god discussion could be had.

you know, it has been said that people who live in straw houses shouldn't burn the candle at both ends

ms

definitely not height. could be length, i suppose. but i'm going with width.