CREATOR / DEITY / GOD: How do we define what that means?

[BroncoBuff]

I'm fascinated by different scopes of reality. I think human beings are wildly prejudiced and too narrowly-focused upon data derived from their five senses. Vision informs us so powerfully of our "reality," that we stubbornly believe it to be dispositive of all that exists. When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption? Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

BUT .... how about other sentient creatures on Earth? Dolphins and Ants for starters. Both have extensive social interaction and great depth of communication. And yet, their understanding of the physical universe is extremely limited, at least from our point of view. So then what makes US so sure we understand our surroundings so completely?

Imo, Mankind is too "full of itself." What if WE are the Ants or the Dolphins in a much, much larger reality that we are incapable of understanding through our five senses?


So what then could God be? Most definitions I've run across are consumed with the survival of our human identities after death. That we will see our dead relatives, etc. I think it's more likely that afterlife - and "God" - are beyond the comprehension of our senses, and beyond mere definitional terms. Pure energy could be God ... God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

[alkemical]

I wouldn't even know how to begin to define what god is/could be/etc - It would mean i have a 'definite' of what God "IS".

Could god be DNA, or gravity (or is gravity a "law") that "god" would create?

For me, my cross roads happen to be, before i can define what god is, what is concsiousness is. Are we merley just a program scripted running from DNA (in which all living things have DNA) and we are all operating our "program" according to it? Of course then - what/whom/etc made DNA?

I have a thousand questions and suspicions of what god "could be" - but i don't know what god is or could be.

[Bronco Bob]

So what then could God be?

Hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin?

[BroncoBuff]

For me, my cross roads happen to be, before i can define what god is, what is concsiousness is. Are we merley just a program scripted running from DNA (in which all living things have DNA) and we are all operating our "program" according to it? Of course then - what/whom/etc made DNA?
Those are very "Matrix" questions. But without getting too cute, I think that the fact we are able to ask such questions proves that there is some element of "free will" in our existence. If we were merely following the "program" as you put it, then such questions would be a bug in that program, and would serve no purpose.

OR - could that self-important inquiry serve the purpose of deluding us that our lives exist beyond this physical plane? NO is the answer. If the "program" was "written" to delude us into believing that we survive the death of our physical bodies, then the programmers surely would've provided more "proof" that we survive (if for no other reason that to keep orangeatheist at bay ;D). There would be a more visible "carrot" to keep our noses to whatever grindstone constitutes the purpose of the programmers.


And yes - DNA is the script WE are run from. But WE is merely the physical vessel fashioned from DNA's blueprint. The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels is, in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. But for what? We don't know yet (though I trust we'll know when we find it). So, instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it. TO SUM UP - I think these physical vessels all house the same consciousness. Our physical plane is insufficient to host all that the greater consciousness is (God?), so the vessels are programmed to "go forth and multiply," and accordingly, there are 6 billion physical "nodes" that the greater consciousness can use toward its ends (whatever they are).

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So what then could God be? For most people, something to make them (their existence) feel worthwhile or necessary or validated, a reason why.

Once humans (if they) evolve past these insecurities and fears they may be able to finally become civilized.

[BroncoBuff]

Once humans (if they) evolve past these insecurities and fears they may be able to finally become civilized.
Agreed. FEAR is the enemy.

FEAR is what makes fundamentalists (of any religion) grip so hard, and lash out so hostilly toward anyone that questions their answers. Fundamentalists are those of us most consumed by fear I think. Those who demand ANSWERS - cold, hard, answers. Answers that any deviation therefrom can be ridiculed, marginalized and punished.

[BroncoBuff]

Wow ... I'm disappointed this hasn't resonated with anyone. To me, this is a SUBSTANTIVE discussion, rather than a definitional jerk-off like we had with "what is an atheist?" type arguments. Anyway, are my theories/descriptions too simple? Too complicated? Too silly? Too "far out, man"?

Lemme expand upon the thrust of my theory as laid out above:

The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels (ourselves), that inserts part of itself in each of us, is in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. Instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it.

We are "programmed" to push outward - to seek. That is the instinct placed inside us by this "greater consciousness" as I call it, this instinct willing us toward that goal. Viktor Frankl called it a "will to a meaning" (in "Man's Search for Meaning"). Through his experiences in a concentration camp, he believed that the 'will to a meaning' - which I call a "programmed-instinctive-energy" instilled in us by the 'creator/God/greater consciousness/pure energy' - is something we all need to make our lives more worth living.

This greater consciousness/higher power expresses itself in varying levels in all humans, to push us to seek out. This "programmed-instinctive-energy" can be harnessed by each of us - as Frankl did in Auschwitz to survive - toward our own individual ends. Zen Buddhism harnesses this through meditation imo - meditation as the inward forcusing of that "programmed-instinctive-energy" toward a peaceful awakening of one's true nature. It seems as if clavicula might have harnessed this same "programmed-instinctive-energy" to re-train himself - even heal himself.

Most humans have virtually zero awareness of this "programmed-instinctive-energy" inside. But I think there is a greater consciousness ... perhaps not an individual deity or God per se - but a larger consciousness that imbues us/implants within us/expresses itself in this plane through us, with this "programmed-instinctive-energy." It follows from all this too, that it operates to reject material things.

Jesus' teachings in fact are filled with admonitions that each of us has God inside him. I don't recall the chapter&verse, but at one point he gets frustrated that everyone comes to him with requests to be healed or something, and finally gets impatient and says: "heal yourselves!" He wasn't angry, but seemed more impatient that he was being relied upon by so many, even after he had taught them that "the Kingdom of God" was inside each of them. Since I was a small kid, I was struck that Jesus seemed to tell us all, again and again, that we could do everything he was doing if we looked within. And that is how I tie all this together: this "programmed-instinctive-energy" inside each of us can be harnessed. Through meditation, whatever.

[BroncoBuff]

If anybody wants to REALLY trip out along these lines of an instinctive urge to seek out, imbued within us by a greater consciousness but limited on this physical plane by our senses and our awareness of it .... read Stanislav Grof's writings abnout LSD. I'm not joking, there are some seriously deep and scientific ideas about what LSD can do along these lines.

[orangeatheist]

Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

What is the matter with you? Are you so desperate to pigeonhole everyone into your own worldview that you just take out your broad brush and stroke everyone you see with it?

Do you really believe that atheists (like myself) reject belief in a god merely because this god cannot be sensed physically? Do you really think we don't have other reasons?

I certainly commend your efforts in your thread title, however. Before one can accept or reject any notion of a deity, it is critical that a definition of that deity be presented. It is only by defining that entity that the evidence produced for the existence of the thing can be brought forward in support. Otherwise you'll see nothing but ad hoc'ing and goal post shifting.

[mosca]

So what then could God be? Most definitions I've run across are consumed with the survival of our human identities after death. That we will see our dead relatives, etc. I think it's more likely that afterlife - and "God" - are beyond the comprehension of our senses, and beyond mere definitional terms. Pure energy could be God ... God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.
I agree with the gist of what you're saying here ... if there is a "God" (for lack of a better word), I don't necessarily consider it to be a sentient being, or anything we can even try to comprehend. The concept of "God" is likely something far beyond our level of understanding. I'm comfortable admitting that - but I believe to some humans, that idea is threatening. It feels safer to worship a "God" that looks, acts, behaves like us, in a somewhat rational manner. Not to mention the enticing prospect of an afterlife, which for all we know, may still not exist, with or without a "God".

This video (and book by this author) sums up my viewpoint on "God" nicely:

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9feXeL-3XA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[bdv]

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption?

I don't assume that. Why do you?

Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

The very rare absolutely strong atheist, regarding any type of supernatural deity, may be this close minded. I don't know. But the vast majority of weak atheists (AKA atheists) are extremely curious compared to the population as a whole. Most of us, in contrast to most theists, would far prefer a difficult or unanswerable question to an easy, lazy answer.

So what then could God be?

First of all, a literal god can not logically be a metaphor. Next, to be linguistically consistent with virtually all historical uses of the word "god," I'll start with some minimum parameters: 1) he would need to think, 2) he would need to have the free will to take actions and affect change whenever he so chose, 3) he would need to be more powerful than humans, 4) he would need to at least have the capability to interact with us, 5) he would not be subject to the laws of nature, he would be supernatural.

Also, so that we don't arbitrarily redefine the word "god," he can not simply be energy. Indeed, the more "natural" we suppose this "god" to be, the more spurious the use of the word "god" becomes.

There is one more little requirement for our god to actually be real: HE CAN NOT break the laws of hard logic.

I firmly believe that this being could exist. Bear in mind, though, that he is not a scientific necessity, and there is no evidence to support the claim that he does exist; he is not testable, falsifiable, observable, verifiable, etc. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," though we have none. Doesn't mean we can't have fun supposing, though. After all, his existence is possible... hmmm...


If you had something else in mind, you may want to reconsider the use of the word "god," in its literal sense, to describe this thing.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption? I think that it's just the opposite for most people (it is for me at least). Every since I was a young kid, sleeping out under the stars at night (scouts, mountain trips, etc...), trying to comprehend the vastness and infinity of space was/is mind boggling! My mind would race with hundreds of thoughts of everything imaginable from how small, insignificant and unspectacular we could/must be to how many different forms of life could/must exist out there to what's beyond the darkness, beyond that and what's beyond that, etc...

I highly recommend people get out of the light polluted cities and sleep out under the stars as often as possible to get ones self grounded again (leave your radios, ipods, etc... at home). :)

[orangenblue2]

When we look into space and see nothing, we assume nothing is there. Is that a reasonable assumption? Atheists (strong or weak) tend to shut down inquiry because they receive no data from human senses, human vision.

Bulls**t. As an atheist, I most certainly don't "assume nothing is there". I can "see" all sorts of stars, planets, moons, galaxies, etc.; through my own eyes and with helpful "human" inventions like telescopes, satellites, photography, prisms, spectrometers, etc.. I can actually "touch" objects that have come from outer space as well as rocks brought back from our moon. I can "hear" the background noise of our universe with my own ears...and a little help from that "human" invention called science. I am profoundly amazed by "space" and all that it entails. Humankind learns more about our universe and our place in it every day. In fact, I would be willing to bet that a vast majority of scientists who work within these fields day in and day out are "atheists". The bottom line is that you need to quit generalizing "atheists"...seriously.

BUT .... how about other sentient creatures on Earth? Dolphins and Ants for starters. Both have extensive social interaction and great depth of communication. And yet, their understanding of the physical universe is extremely limited, at least from our point of view. So then what makes US so sure we understand our surroundings so completely?

Classic strawman. I would defy you to find any legitimate scientist, or any "atheist" for that matter, that believe we "understand our surroundings so completely". We certainly don't, but humankind's efforts to understand the universe at all, is directly related to human curiosity, inquisitiveness, and ingenuity. More specifically, we "atheists" aren't quite satisfied with the old "god did it" routine when we can't explain something.

Imo, Mankind is too "full of itself." What if WE are the Ants or the Dolphins in a much, much larger reality that we are incapable of understanding through our five senses?

Well, "mankind" is the best that we have. We may very well be the "ants or dolphins" as far as the universe goes...but we are the most highly developed creatures on our planet. I choose to celebrate mankind's achievements rather than grovel before an invisible being who we are supposed to feel unworthy of...


Pure energy could be God ...

Why the extra step...why call "pure energy" anything other than "pure energy"?

God could be all around us and inside us, but like Ants not seeing the oceans, or Dolphins not seeing the mountains, WE do not see God. So, demanding PROOF of God/Creator/deity is a narrow-minded self-impotant belief that our five senses sense all that there is. Which just cannot be true.

You've been talking to Clavi too much...:peace:

[alkemical]

Those are very "Matrix" questions. But without getting too cute, I think that the fact we are able to ask such questions proves that there is some element of "free will" in our existence. If we were merely following the "program" as you put it, then such questions would be a bug in that program, and would serve no purpose.

Unless of course, that's part of the program. How much does free will really dicate and on what level does it exist? Does it merley exist on just a level of how you react to 'something'? I had an opportunity to move to seattle, and did. It didn't work out on a 'material' nature so well - but on a 'spiritual' side it paid major dividends in terms of grounding myself as well as some other things that for me personally, were very benificial. So did i really have much of a 'choice'? Was i always going to go on that trip because, well - that's what i was scripted to do?



OR - could that self-important inquiry serve the purpose of deluding us that our lives exist beyond this physical plane? NO is the answer. If the "program" was "written" to delude us into believing that we survive the death of our physical bodies, then the programmers surely would've provided more "proof" that we survive (if for no other reason that to keep orangeatheist at bay ;D). There would be a more visible "carrot" to keep our noses to whatever grindstone constitutes the purpose of the programmers.


What's more visible and distracting than air conditioning, tv, and melted cheese? (Not that i disagree w/you at all, i just think that through our obsessions, we do what we are supposed to do - like an ant, or a bird.)


And yes - DNA is the script WE are run from. But WE is merely the physical vessel fashioned from DNA's blueprint. The consciousness that "inhabits" these vessels is, in fact, a separate entity. But the rise/potential/ability/purpose of that consciousness is constrained by the limitations of our vessel and its five senses. These senses are (thusfar in the evolutionary process) insufficient to give our greater consciousness the window it seeks. So our DNA - our instinct - pushes us ever outward to enhance our limited physical senses. Telescopes, microscopes, science and technology expand the senses - searching, searching, searching - instinctively searching. But for what? We don't know yet (though I trust we'll know when we find it). So, instinctively we search, search, search - because our consciousness/program wills it. TO SUM UP - I think these physical vessels all house the same consciousness. Our physical plane is insufficient to host all that the greater consciousness is (God?), so the vessels are programmed to "go forth and multiply," and accordingly, there are 6 billion physical "nodes" that the greater consciousness can use toward its ends (whatever they are).


Not that the 'brain' is a computer, and while i do agree with you in some degrees, i disagree with you on somethings here:

I don't think it's IMpossible to say that our level of consciousness could not be just the product of environment and the structure/wiring of the brain. It's sort of like asking if the brain is just hardware or software. Until you can define what consciousness can be, that's where the limitation of what a 'soul' is, or what 'god' is, or how we precieve god. (See 'god gene' (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=god+gene))

(of course if there is a god gene, then is it any different than a hair colour - or height, and if not everyone has a god gene why don't they have it, and who put the god gene in DNA? God, or was it just a prank?)

Or is "God/Sprituality" just an 'artistic' impression of the world around? If you believe in angles and demons, does your brain filter that through this 'program' and shows you the world through that perceptive program?


Trust me, for all the 'spooky' & 'paranormal' events i've seen - i cannot begin to tell you if they are 'real', other than they "were real enough".

[alkemical]

Agreed. FEAR is the enemy.

FEAR is what makes fundamentalists (of any religion) grip so hard, and lash out so hostilly toward anyone that questions their answers. Fundamentalists are those of us most consumed by fear I think. Those who demand ANSWERS - cold, hard, answers. Answers that any deviation therefrom can be ridiculed, marginalized and punished.


Fear also pushes the brain to move down to its bio-survival circuts, which often leads to decisions based on survival instead of 'logic'.

[alkemical]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying here ... if there is a "God" (for lack of a better word), I don't necessarily consider it to be a sentient being, or anything we can even try to comprehend. The concept of "God" is likely something far beyond our level of understanding. I'm comfortable admitting that - but I believe to some humans, that idea is threatening. It feels safer to worship a "God" that looks, acts, behaves like us, in a somewhat rational manner. Not to mention the enticing prospect of an afterlife, which for all we know, may still not exist, with or without a "God".

This video (and book by this author) sums up my viewpoint on "God" nicely:



I cannot see the vid due to being @ work:

anyway - That's sort of how i view what would be 'god'. IMO, god would have to be so "big" that it would be 'everywhere'. It wouldn't nec. be an 'intelligence' like we westerners may think an 'intelligence' would be.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

CREATOR / DEITY / GOD: How do we define what that means?

OK - you asked for it, dude.

I would define "God" as the attempt to represent - either with images or ideas (which are just abstract images) - that which transcends all imagination, thought, and attempts at conceptualization.

These images and ideas both reveal and conceal "God."

For me, 'God' is not so much supernatural as suprarational.

That is, 'God' isn't a "person," i.e., some sort of cosmic male ruler or technocrat who is ontologically distinct from 'His' "creation" and who "rules" or manipulates space-time, matter, etc., from outside it.

The question of 'God,' for me, is related to most questions concerning the human mind and its place in nature. In my view, the ego, i.e., the center of rational reflection, conscious attention, and volition, is just a minute fragment (comparable to an onion floating on an ocean) of the totality of who and what we are. This totality is expressed or represented - through dreams, myths, images, symbols, and religious traditions - as 'God.'

Christ realized this, and He was denounced as a blasphemer and a heretic.

Had Christ lived in India and proclaimed "I am God," people would have said "congratulations - at last you found out."

[alkemical]

I don't assume that. Why do you?



The very rare absolutely strong atheist, regarding any type of supernatural deity, may be this close minded. I don't know. But the vast majority of weak atheists (AKA atheists) are extremely curious compared to the population as a whole. Most of us, in contrast to most theists, would far prefer a difficult or unanswerable question to an easy, lazy answer.



First of all, a literal god can not logically be a metaphor. Next, to be linguistically consistent with virtually all historical uses of the word "god," I'll start with some minimum parameters: 1) he would need to think, 2) he would need to have the free will to take actions and affect change whenever he so chose, 3) he would need to be more powerful than humans, 4) he would need to at least have the capability to interact with us, 5) he would not be subject to the laws of nature, he would be supernatural.

Also, so that we don't arbitrarily redefine the word "god," he can not simply be energy. Indeed, the more "natural" we suppose this "god" to be, the more spurious the use of the word "god" becomes.

There is one more little requirement for our god to actually be real: HE CAN NOT break the laws of hard logic.

I firmly believe that this being could exist. Bear in mind, though, that he is not a scientific necessity, and there is no evidence to support the claim that he does exist; he is not testable, falsifiable, observable, verifiable, etc. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," though we have none. Doesn't mean we can't have fun supposing, though. After all, his existence is possible... hmmm...


If you had something else in mind, you may want to reconsider the use of the word "god," in its literal sense, to describe this thing.



What are the laws of hard logic? I did a google search and didn't find anything to reference that.

Also why couldn't 'god'(ess) be a term used if god would be 'natural' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis)? I sort of like the suspicion that we are all part/make up a superorganism. I can't say it's true, but it can make a lot of sense. (Which means that maybe, just maybe those old shamans did talk to Momma Earth). ;)

[alkemical]

Researcher induces out-of-body experiences (http://parallelnormal.com/2007/08/23/breaking-news-researcher-induces-out-of-body-experiences/)

A Swedish neuroscientist at the University College of London announced today that he has reproduced the out-of-body experience often reported by stroke victims, epileptics, drug users and those who have been through near death experiences.

University H. Henrik Ehrsson’s experiment sheds light on how people are able to experience phantom pains in missing limbs, for example.

Ehrsson in his most recent experiment, published by the journal Science, today, used a virtual reality headset and camera to cause 12 test subjects to view their own bodies as someone else’s.

Ehrsson has also shown how a subject’s brain can tricked into thinking that a rubber hand is a part of his body, causing the subject to react to a threat to the false hand as if it were his own (see link and expert, below).

The UCL experiment also shows how the controllers of virtual worlds such as Second Life might be able to blur the distinction between reality and fantasy with devices that literally separate consciousness from the human body.

The consequences of that disembodiment would be catastrophic. “If the distinction fails, the animal might try to feed on itself and will not be able to plan actions that involve both body parts and external objects,” Ehrsson told the BBC several years ago.



_____

""This study shows that the brain distinguishes the self from the non-self by comparing information from the different senses. In a way you could argue that the bodily self is an illusion being constructed in the brain." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3856051.stm) - Dr Henrik Ehrsson

[bdv]

What are the laws of hard logic? I did a google search and didn't find anything to reference that.

I made up the term "laws of hard logic" to distinguish from a more loose use of the word "logic." Lazy on my part. Anyway, here are some logical impossibilities, even for a god:

Using the intended definition of 2 + 2, God can not make 2 + 2 = 3. Also, God can not cause a formal paradox to exist. For example, he can not cause an unstoppable and an unmovable object to both exist at the same time. There are many illogical things that even a most powerful god could not do. If we go further, and the claim is that God is omnipotent without exception, the logical problems become endless. In addition to the above, he could not set up a task too difficult for God to achieve? e.g. "build something so large that God could not move it." Etc....

I wish I had more time to respond to your other question. It has to do with my opinion on how the word "god" ought to be used, and my use of the word "spurious." We would be thought of as gods if we showed off our technology to a primitive culture, but we wouldn't really be gods. Got to go... Crying baby needs me...

Talk to you soon :peace:
-Tim

[alkemical]

I made up the term "laws of hard logic" to distinguish from a more loose use of the word "logic." Lazy on my part. Anyway, here are some logical impossibilities, even for a god:

Using the intended definition of 2 + 2, God can not make 2 + 2 = 3. Also, God can not cause a formal paradox to exist. For example, he can not cause an unstoppable and an unmovable object to both exist at the same time. There are many illogical things that even a most powerful god could not do. If we go further, and the claim is that God is omnipotent without exception, the logical problems become endless. In addition to the above, he could not set up a task too difficult for God to achieve? e.g. "build something so large that God could not move it." Etc....

I wish I had more time to respond to your other question. It has to do with my opinion on how the word "god" ought to be used, and my use of the word "spurious." We would be thought of as gods if we showed off our technology to a primitive culture, but we wouldn't really be gods. Got to go... Crying baby needs me...

Talk to you soon :peace:
-Tim



Nope but even Pythagoras believed in math being the language of the universe. I'm sorry you are pent up on what 'god' should only be applied too. For lack of a better term - of saying the: "point of origin of the big bang/organizer of the ecosystem/the remote most high hidden self of man/etc'. But it's fine if you'd like to narrowly define god, i'm sure (s)he did the same. ;)

[mosca]

Nope but even Pythagoras believed in math being the language of the universe. I'm sorry you are pent up on what 'god' should only be applied too. For lack of a better term - of saying the: "point of origin of the big bang/organizer of the ecosystem/the remote most high hidden self of man/etc'. But it's fine if you'd like to narrowly define god, i'm sure (s)he did the same. ;)
Even your definition is a pretty loose one, not that I'm disagreeing with it. The problem is that most of the organized religions have a very narrow view of the word "God", and almost try to hijack the word. You or me, using the word "God" might be talking about something along the lines of "the remote most high hidden self of man" while talking to a Christian. They'll probably assume we're talking specifically about YHWH, even though that may not be the case. It's a communication problem.

[alkemical]

Even your definition is a pretty loose one, not that I'm disagreeing with it. The problem is that most of the organized religions have a very narrow view of the word "God", and almost try to hijack the word. You or me, using the word "God" might be talking about something along the lines of "the remote most high hidden self of man" while talking to a Christian. They'll probably assume we're talking specifically about YHWH, even though that may not be the case. It's a communication problem.



So i need to invent a new word?

[bdv]

mosca, clavi et. el.,

Do you mean to use the word "god" metaphorically or literally?

Scientists speak of "god" metaphorically quite often. The problem, as with the many quotes of Einstein, who was actually an atheist, is that using "god" in a metaphorical, figurative sense can be confusing to those who only have a passing interest in all of this.

[alkemical]

mosca, clavi et. el.,

Do you mean to use the word "god" metaphorically or literally?

Scientists speak of "god" metaphorically quite often. The problem, as with the many quotes of Einstein, who was actually an atheist, is that using "god" in a metaphorical, figurative sense can be confusing to those who only have a passing interest in all of this.

I guess it would be more metaphorical, since it couldn't be 'literal' (IMO)unless 'god 'imself' kicked me in the bum. For me "god" wouldn't pertian to say.... Eris (well cuz she's a goddess, and well - i have this other thing from my studies that indicate "god" for one could be "angel/demon" for another - but that's another digression) or quetzecotal - since they'd have to 'eminate' from 'somewhere/someone' - or - answer to someone higher (logically IMO anyway).

[mosca]

So i need to invent a new word?
One-word explanations just don't seem to do justice for many ideas. Inventing a new word might work, but then it's also gonna be that much harder to get your point across to those who are unfamiliar with it.

[mosca]

Do you mean to use the word "god" metaphorically or literally?

Scientists speak of "god" metaphorically quite often. The problem, as with the many quotes of Einstein, who was actually an atheist, is that using "god" in a metaphorical, figurative sense can be confusing to those who only have a passing interest in all of this.
If I use it at all, it's in a metaphorical sense, as you describe. I have decided that from now on, I should probably refrain from using the word, simply to avoid confusion.

If only the followers of many of the world's religions could do the same, and refer to their God(s) primarily by their actual names - for example, Judeo/Christians could use the term Yahweh or whatever other tetragrammaton derivative is actually closer to the true name than the generic and mistranslated "God". But that opens up an entire new avenue of exploration, requiring an in-depth knowledge of linguistics and the history of the religion, which can be mindboggling, to say the least.

[Smiling Assassin27]

What's wrong with the definition of God as greatest conceivable being?

[orangenblue2]

What's wrong with the definition of God as greatest conceivable being?

The same thing that's wrong with defining "allah" as the greatest conceivable being, "jesus" as the son of god, "zeus" as the most powerful Olympian god, "mohammed" as the greatest prophet, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum...

[mosca]

What's wrong with the definition of God as greatest conceivable being?
Are you talking about Yahweh?

[BroncoInferno]

What's wrong with the definition of God as greatest conceivable being?

The 'greatest conceivable being':

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/features/1999/year/images/elway_sm.jpg

[alkemical]

One-word explanations just don't seem to do justice for many ideas. Inventing a new word might work, but then it's also gonna be that much harder to get your point across to those who are unfamiliar with it.

Well i figured it'd be easier than using YVHV from the QBL, etc.

[alkemical]

If I use it at all, it's in a metaphorical sense, as you describe. I have decided that from now on, I should probably refrain from using the word, simply to avoid confusion.

If only the followers of many of the world's religions could do the same, and refer to their God(s) primarily by their actual names - for example, Judeo/Christians could use the term Yahweh or whatever other tetragrammaton derivative is actually closer to the true name than the generic and mistranslated "God". But that opens up an entire new avenue of exploration, requiring an in-depth knowledge of linguistics and the history of the religion, which can be mindboggling, to say the least.

Agreed.

[alkemical]

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=1771

'Darth Venter' (J. Craig Venter) & The Archon Genomics X Prize
Biologist-entrepreneur J. Craig Venter is part of a new kind of scientific explorer whose uncharted territory was his own genes. Venter has just published almost all 6 billion letters, or 96 percent, of his own personal genetic code in the journal PLoS Biology. From diseases to personality traits, it's the most comprehensive human genome to date. Venter's gene map provides a new understanding of his genetic destiny, according to the DNA inherited from both his father and his mother.

Venter says it's just the beginning of a new era of personal genomics. "For the first time, we can answer almost any question of what's genetic, what's the environment. Our genes can tell us probabilities of what might happen and give us a chance to do something about it."

[alkemical]

Reality’s different levels or dimensions (http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=57099)

[orangeatheist]

Reality’s different levels or dimensions (http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=57099)

Are you endorsing this article, Clavi?

You said in the past you post articles that you find "interesting" (or some similar such sentiment). What is interesting --to you-- about this article?

[alkemical]

Are you endorsing this article, Clavi?

You said in the past you post articles that you find "interesting" (or some similar such sentiment). What is interesting --to you-- about this article?

**** you - you aren't interested in discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Reality’s different levels or dimensions (http://showbizandstyle.inquirer.net/lifestyle/lifestyle/view_article.php?article_id=57099)

From the link:

Have you wondered why some people cannot believe in the existence of a nonphysical world even though they may have encounters with nonphysical beings?

We're all "nonphysical beings" in the view of both modern physics and spiritual traditions like Hinduism and Buddhism insofar as the essence of who or what we are cannot be reduced to some fundamental or atomic building blocks, primordial "stuff," substance, etc.

Some people find this idea disturbing.

Others find it liberating.

"People like to examine the things that frighten them; to look at them and give them names. So saints look for God, and scientists look for evidence. They're both just trying to take away the mystery; to take away the fear."

- Allie, from "Taken"

[alkemical]

Reality tunnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_tunnel)

Reality tunnel is a term coined by Timothy Leary and popularised by Robert Anton Wilson.

The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental "filters" formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets this same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".

This is not necessarily meant to imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist Christian reality tunnel, the scientific materialist reality tunnel, or the libertarian reality tunnel.

A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias - our tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the "one true objective reality," Robert Anton Wilson emphasizes that each person's reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.

It is believed that through various techniques one can break down old reality tunnels and impose new reality tunnels by removing old filters and replacing them with new ones, new perspectives on reality - at will. This is achieved through various processes of deprogramming using neuro-linguistic programming, cybernetics, hypnosis, biofeedback devices, meditation, controlled use of hallucinogens, and forcibly acting out other reality tunnels. Thus, it is believed one's reality tunnel can be widened to take full advantage of human potential and experience reality on more positive levels. Robert Anton Wilson's Prometheus Rising is (among other things) a guidebook to the exploration of various reality tunnels.

[alkemical]

Networks, Bacteria, and the Illusion of Control (http://www.brainsturbator.com/site/comments/networks_bacteria_and_the_illusion_of_control/)

“The good Christian should beware of mathematicians and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and confine man in the bonds of Hell.”

--St. Augustine

I’ve been working on an article encompassing these themes, but I had a revelation. If all I’m doing is re-organizing and synthesizing the work of other humans, why do I write so much? Rather than burden you with my own meditations on “The Illusion of Control,” I’ve decided to abandon that illusion altogether for this piece. I’m going to keep going for three more sentences and then I will step out of the way completely.

Everything assembled here is brainfood with a purpose: triggering shifts in perspective. When you get used to the same perspective—or “stuck”—it can be alarming to feel yourself shifting, but that’s a good thing—that’s neurons waking up, that’s muscle tissue saying THANK YOU, that’s new hormone combinations in your bloodstream. After all, even if your conscious “self” actually was in control, you’re only driving the car—you’re only manipulating something else.




Wired Magazine, November 2004
(source)

Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking “superorganisms,” highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses.

That’s the view of scientists at Imperial College London who published a paper in Nature Biotechnology Oct. 6 describing how these microbes interact with the body. Understanding the workings of the superorganism, they say, is crucial to the development of personalized medicine and health care in the future because individuals can have very different responses to drugs, depending on their microbial fauna.

The scientists concentrated on bacteria. More than 500 different species of bacteria exist in our bodies, making up more than 100 trillion cells. Because our bodies are made of only some several trillion human cells, we are somewhat outnumbered by the aliens. It follows that most of the genes in our bodies are from bacteria, too.

Luckily for us, the bacteria are on the whole commensal, sharing our food but doing no real harm. (The word derives from the Latin meaning to share a table for dinner.) In fact, they are often beneficial: Our commensal bacteria protect us from potentially dangerous infections. They do this through close interaction with our immune systems.

The information in the human genome itself, 3 billion base pairs long, does not help reduce the complexity.

“The human genome provides only scant information. The discovery of how microbes in the gut can influence the body’s responses to disease means that we now need more research into this area,” said Nicholson. “Understanding these interactions will extend human biology and medicine well beyond the human genome and help elucidate novel types of gene-environment interactions, with this knowledge ultimately leading to new approaches to the treatment of disease.”

Neurons in the Stomach
(source)

Q Why do we need a second brain?

A Most importantly, to control digestion. It also works with the immune system to protect us from hostile bacteria.

Q Does it use neurotransmitters?

A Actually, 95% of all serotonin in the body is in the gut, where it triggers digestion. Nerve cells in the gut also use serotonin to signal back to the brain. This information can train us not to eat certain foods by communicating pain, gas and other terrible feelings.

Q Does the brain in our heads influence the “second brain”?

A Yes. Butterflies in the stomach arise when the brain sends a message of anxiety to the gut, which sends messages back to the brain that it’s unhappy. But the gut can also work in isolation.




(source)

A recent article published in Nature Neuroscience reveals that when the stomach is empty, it makes a special hormone called ghrelin.

Amazingly, ghrelin travels to the hippocampus portion of the brain and causes new connections to form between brain cells there. As discussed in previous posts, the hippocampus is the memory engine of your brain.

More interestingly, when lab animals are injected with extra ghrelin, their learning ability and memory improved.


Symbiotic Bacteria Networks and You
(source: Common Ground magazine)

Young kids are forever sticking things in their mouths, but there’s a reason for that. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that early exposure to dirt, dust and bacteria actually helps childrens immune systems develop more effectively. The concept has been coined the “hygiene hypothesis.” One study concluded that children who grew up on farms had fewer allergies than their counterparts in urban areas. Conversely, health studies have shown that mothers who kept their children in antiseptic environments were actually compromising their health. Children need to be exposed to the natural environment of threats and benefactors so their immune systems learn to distinguish between the two.

...scientists have determined that 90 percent of the cells in the human body are bacterial. Only five percent of the cells in your body constitute “you,” in the sense of your genetic heritage. In relative scale, bacteria are much smaller than your own cells, so they account for only a small fraction of your body weight. Nearly all of these microbes are located in your gut, where they keep you working at optimal health.

There’s a new paradigm in microbiology emerging, in which bacteria are no longer seen exclusively as disease-causing killers, but rather as lifelong partners. In a certain sense, they’re the immigrants, doing the work the rest of the community isnt up for.

Many of these one-celled fellow travellers are introduced soon after birth. Breast-fed, versus formula-fed, infants show a marked difference in the predominant microflora in their GI tracts. LivingWell Communications president Victoria Shanta Retelny writes in For the Record: “The fecal flora of breast-fed infants is so heavily dominated by the probiotic genus, bifidobacterium, that it is considered the “gold standardâ€� type of gut flora, which imparts excellent resistance to infection.” On the other hand, “In formula-fed infants, no one microbial group predominates, rendering the system less able to fight infection,” she notes.

National Geographic, July 2007
(source)

“Ants aren’t smart,” Gordon says. “Ant colonies are.” A colony can solve problems unthinkable for individual ants, such as finding the shortest path to the best food source, allocating workers to different tasks, or defending a territory from neighbors. As individuals, ants might be tiny dummies, but as colonies they respond quickly and effectively to their environment. They do it with something called swarm intelligence.

Where this intelligence comes from raises a fundamental question in nature: How do the simple actions of individuals add up to the complex behavior of a group? How do hundreds of honeybees make a critical decision about their hive if many of them disagree? What enables a school of herring to coordinate its movements so precisely it can change direction in a flash, like a single, silvery organism? The collective abilities of such animals—none of which grasps the big picture, but each of which contributes to the group’s success—seem miraculous even to the biologists who know them best. Yet during the past few decades, researchers have come up with intriguing insights.

One key to an ant colony, for example, is that no one’s in charge. No generals command ant warriors. No managers boss ant workers. The queen plays no role except to lay eggs. Even with half a million ants, a colony functions just fine with no management at all—at least none that we would recognize. It relies instead upon countless interactions between individual ants, each of which is following simple rules of thumb. Scientists describe such a system as self-organizing.




By demonstrating the power of self-organizing models to mimic swarm behavior, Reynolds was also blazing the trail for robotics engineers. A team of robots that could coordinate its actions like a flock of birds could offer significant advantages over a solitary robot. Spread out over a large area, a group could function as a powerful mobile sensor net, gathering information about what’s out there. If the group encountered something unexpected, it could adjust and respond quickly, even if the robots in the group weren’t very sophisticated, just as ants are able to come up with various options by trial and error. If one member of the group were to break down, others could take its place. And, most important, control of the group could be decentralized, not dependent on a leader.

“In biology, if you look at groups with large numbers, there are very few examples where you have a central agent,” says Vijay Kumar, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Pennsylvania. “Everything is very distributed: They don’t all talk to each other. They act on local information. And they’re all anonymous. I don’t care who moves the chair, as long as somebody moves the chair. To go from one robot to multiple robots, you need all three of those ideas.”

Closing Words from Lynn Margulis
“We would have to accept that bacteria, touted to be our enemies, are not merely neutral or friendly but that they are us. They are direct ancestors of our most sensitive body parts. Our culture’s terminology about bacteria is that of warfare: they are germs to be destroyed and forever vanquished, bacterial enemies make toxins that poison us. We load our soaps with antibacterials that kill on contact, stomach ulcers are now agreed to be caused by bacterial infection. Even if some admit the existence of “good” bacteria in soil or probiotic food like yogurt few of us tolerate the dangerous notion that human sperm tails and sensitive cells of nasal passages lined with waving cilia, are former bacteria. If this dangerous idea becomes widespread it follows that we humans must agree that even before our evolution as animals we have hated and tried to kill our own ancestors. Again, we have seen the enemy, indeed, and, as usual, it is us. Social interactions of sensitive bacteria, then, not God, made us who were are today.”

[Bronco Bob]

Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking “superorganisms,” highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses.



Don't forget the nematodes.

Of the pseudocoelomates, the Nematodes are the most common. Nematodes have successfully adapted to nearly every niche from marine to fresh water, from the polar regions to the tropics, as well as the highest to the lowest of elevations. Though 20,000 species have been classified it is estimated that this number might be upwards of 500,000 if all were known. In certain fertile areas the topsoil is estimated to contain in the billions of nematodes per acre. In the 1914 edition of the Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture N.A.Cobb wrote on the abundance of nematodes:
If all the matter in the universe except the nematodes were swept away, our world would still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembodied spirits, we could then investigate it, we should find its mountains, hills, vales, rivers, lakes and oceans represented by a thin film of nematodes. The location of towns would be decipherable, since for every massing of human beings there would be a corresponding massing of certain nematodes. Trees would still stand in ghostly rows representing our streets and highways. The location of the various plants and animals would still be decipherable, and, had we sufficient knowledge, in many cases even their species could be determined by an examination of their erstwhile nematode parasites.

[alkemical]

Don't forget the nematodes.

Of the pseudocoelomates, the Nematodes are the most common. Nematodes have successfully adapted to nearly every niche from marine to fresh water, from the polar regions to the tropics, as well as the highest to the lowest of elevations. Though 20,000 species have been classified it is estimated that this number might be upwards of 500,000 if all were known. In certain fertile areas the topsoil is estimated to contain in the billions of nematodes per acre. In the 1914 edition of the Yearbook of the United States Department of Agriculture N.A.Cobb wrote on the abundance of nematodes:
If all the matter in the universe except the nematodes were swept away, our world would still be dimly recognizable, and if, as disembodied spirits, we could then investigate it, we should find its mountains, hills, vales, rivers, lakes and oceans represented by a thin film of nematodes. The location of towns would be decipherable, since for every massing of human beings there would be a corresponding massing of certain nematodes. Trees would still stand in ghostly rows representing our streets and highways. The location of the various plants and animals would still be decipherable, and, had we sufficient knowledge, in many cases even their species could be determined by an examination of their erstwhile nematode parasites.


thanks, interesting information. I'm always hungry for more! It's why i find the work of Howard Bloom so provoking.

[alkemical]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyQpkRARA7o"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wyQpkRARA7o" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[alkemical]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20724322/

Life’s ingredients may have ‘sprinkled’ on Earth
A component of DNA might survive space and sprinkle onto planets

[Bronco Bob]

Why couldn't adenine also have formed on earth? All it takes to form adenine is to polymerize five hydrogen cyanide molecules,
and there was plenty of hydrogen cyanide on early earth.

The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago showed simple gases exposed
to electrical discharges could form amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

Not saying adenine couldn't have come from space, On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, in some cases so much so that the surfaces of these bodies are turned dark red or as black as asphalt. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed.

Just that there is no way of knowing one way or the other where adenine came from. It could even be some of it was formed indigenously and some of it came from space.

[alkemical]

Why couldn't adenine also have formed on earth? All it takes to form adenine is to polymerize five hydrogen cyanide molecules,
and there was plenty of hydrogen cyanide on early earth.

The Miller-Urey experiment was conducted in 1953 by Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey at the University of Chicago showed simple gases exposed
to electrical discharges could form amino acids, including 13 of the 22 that are used to make proteins in living cells, with glycine as the most abundant. Sugars, lipids, and some of the building blocks for nucleic acids were also formed.

In 1961, Joan Oró found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. He also found that his experiment produced a large amount of the nucleotide base adenine. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

Not saying adenine couldn't have come from space, On September 28, 1969, the Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia was found to contain over 90 different amino acids, nineteen of which are found in Earth life. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, in some cases so much so that the surfaces of these bodies are turned dark red or as black as asphalt. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed.

Just that there is no way of knowing one way or the other where adenine came from. It could even be some of it was formed indigenously and some of it came from space.

yeah i dunno - saw the article and thought it fit in this thread. I wasn't around back then that i can remember.....

[orangeatheist]

**** you - you aren't interested in discussion.

Wow.

[alkemical]

Past Lives…Scientific Evidence (http://www.inlightimes.com/archives/2007/06/past-life.htm)

Past Lives…Scientific Evidence

by Dr. Dorothy Neddermeyer, PhD


Edgar Cayce, known as the most prolific prophet of our time, was the first to bring past lives to light in the 20th Century. His many readings are archived at the Association for Research and Enlightenment center in Virginia Beach, Virginia.

A convincing form of confirmation that we live more than one life is demonstrated by those who have experienced past lives via hypnotic regressions. The details are documented in many countries, and authenticity of many of these examples cannot be disputed or an alternative explanation offered.

Established by Hazel Denning, PhD, 1980, IARRT, the International Association for Regression Research & Therapies Inc., is the first professional organization for regression practitioners. IARRT provides education and research in past life regression and metaphysical healing. www.iarrt.org.

The scientific community more often than not refutes the proof of past lives. However, there are many scientific examples, some of them very convincing. In a case reported by Dr. Morris Netherton (www.victorzammit.com), an eleven-year-old boy who when under hypnosis was taped speaking in an ancient Chinese dialect. This astonishing taped regression was taken to a Professor at the Department of Oriental Studies at the University of California, where it was found to be a recitation from a forbidden religion of ancient China. (Fisher 1986:202.)

In the past ten years, multiple independently researched reincarnation cases have emerged, which reveal that from lifetime to lifetime, people have the same facial features, personality traits, passions and even linguistic writing style. The most compelling cases involve those in which children have spontaneous memories of a past lifetime that can be factually verified. The case of James Leininger, aired on ABC Primetime in 2005, and the case of Anne Frank/Barbro Karlen, are examples. www.johnadams.net

Walter Semkiw, MD the author of, Return of the Revolutionaries: The Case for Reincarnation and Soul Groups Reunited and Born Again, independently researched reincarnation cases that demonstrate objective evidence of reincarnation, including the cases of neurosurgeon Norm Shealy, Police Captain Robert Snow, Asst. Fire Chief Jeff Keene and author William Barnes.

The case of Robert Snow, a Captain in the Indianapolis Police Department, in charge of the Homicide Division, was initiated on a dare by a fellow police officer. Captain Snow, in his book, Looking for Carroll Beckwith, relates that he only did a regression so that it didn’t look like he had “welched on the dare.” Captain Snow did not believe in reincarnation and did not expect to have a meaningful experience. Captain Snow researched Beckwith’s life by studying an extensive diary found in Bethwith’s belongings. Of the 28 specific memories Snow documented from the regression, such as the painting of a hunchback woman, 26 were verified through his research. Though initially reluctant to accept reincarnation as the basis for his regression experience, Captain Snow finally came to the conclusion that he was Carroll Beckwith in a prior lifetime. Snow states that the evidence he compiled would stand up in a court case and that no plea-bargaining would be offered if it were a murder case. www.robertsnow.com.

Past lives can also be derived from spontaneous memories and confirmed in past life regressions. William Barnes, author of, Thomas Andrews, Voyage into History, started having spontaneous past life memories when he was a child. Thomas Andrews, Voyage into History, is the story of Tommie Andrews, Titanic’s designer. Barnes’ motivation for writing this book is, in part, to clear Tommie’s name of any wrongdoing in the context of Titanic’s sinking. In a recorded regression into the life of Thomas Andrews, Barnes spoke with a heavy Irish accent as he describes the ordeal of Titanic’s sinking and relives his death on the deck of the great ship. www.pinenet.com/~rooster/titanic.html.

Jenny Cockell had memories of being in Ireland. She remembered facts about her previous life, such as the name of her eight children. As a child she drew a picture of a church and a map of her childhood town, with an accurate description of her house etc. The impact of these memories disturbed her day-to-day functioning to the degree she consulted a hypnotherapist. After many past life regressions and armed with a list of several items—including two oval-shaped photos, one of her and a child and the other of a soldier. She went back to the town where she lived. She not only found the house with a rabbit hutch in the back (now in disrepair) where she died at a young age, leaving her eight children motherless, she found and met seven of her living adult children from that life time. Her oldest child, a son, although reluctant to meet with her eventually agreed. Together they compared memories—only one item on Jenny’s list of memories remained unsubstantiated by him. The ABC TV program 20/20 documented the reunion including a birthday party with her oldest child.

he most profound researched proof of past life connections is documented by National Geographic DNA journey. www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html You can explore your own genetic journey with Dr. Spencer Wells, Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project. DNA analysis includes a depiction of your ancient ancestors and an interactive map tracing your genetic lineage around the world and through the ages.

Diba Ayten Yilmaz, Past Life Regression Therapist, Turkey wrote. “One of my clients is a 39 years old woman, who is a computer engineer in IBM Turkey. At the first meeting she mentioned that she had felt an attraction to Russia since childhood. She found herself as a woman in Russia in the first Past Life Regression Therapy session.

She sent her DNA sample to Genographic Project of National Geographic. The results showed her origin goes to Russia!

In the second regression session she found herself as a young woman in a small village, which she called Lappland. She had been killed by German soldiers along with the entire village.

After this session we both wanted to know where is Lappland and does it exist? She searched on the Internet and saw that there was an area called Lappland in Sweden!

The second question was about the German soldiers! Yes, the German soldiers had killed all the people in the small village of Lappland in the late period during World War II.

The amazing thing is; after our session she checked her Genographic results again on National Geographic. The NG follows and updates the DNA journey results and saw that her DNA has a connection to Lappland!

If you want to see her DNA results I can send it to you. You can check your DNA results on NG or do you know someone who has checked?” www.radianced.com.

Association for Research and Enlightenment website: www.edgarcayce.org.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dorothy M. Neddermeyer, PhD, Hypnotherapist and Past Life Regression therapist, author, 101 Great Ways to Improve Your Life. Dr. Neddermeyer empowers people to view life’s challenges as an opportunity for Personal/Professional Growth and Spiritual Awakening. www.drdorothy.net