The following dialog between the author Nicholas Ginex and exceptional people with personal views on the article, Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? is presented below so that others may partake in the philosophical and fascinating discussion. As the author, I was honored to have received many comments in response to the article, which may be accessed via the link,
https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=Does-Consciousness-Prevade-by-Nicholas-Ginex-Atoms_Belief_Civilization_Civilization-140619-817.html
The responses received were so informative, personal, and intellectually presented that I was compelled to provide them for others to read and explore the philosophical avenues of thought about consciousness.
NOTE: The post, Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? has already received many comments and they are provided below as COMMENTS Set I and COMMENTS Set 2. The first set are replies from the website, http://www.gather.com, which no longer functions. The 2nd set was posted in OpEdNews, which may be viewed with the link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Does-Consciousness-Prevade-by-Nicholas-Ginex-Atoms_Belief_Civilization_Civilization-140619-817.html.
I welcome readers of this philosophical discussion to join by providing their thoughts in the COMMENT section provided at the bottom of this post under Leave a Reply. It will be interesting to pursue the idea if indeed consciousness is the inherent component to the beginning of our universe and all living things.
To initiate our philosophical discussion, a brief summary of the article, Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe is provided to set the tone of our dialog.
Brief Summary:
How did the universe begin? The most simplistic unit of all matter, the atom, is considered the basic building block of all matter. The hypothetical question arises, does the atom have as its goal, the development of inorganic and organic matter that can reach its height of perfection – to create the ability for thinking organisms to articulate a consciousness that can reach out and comprehend its own consciousness (which may be an inherent component of the atom)?
COMMENTS – Set 1
Shira C., July 18, 2011, 10:58 p.m. EDT
I don’t actually find this idea convincing, but a version of this has been taught by the Yogacara school of Buddhist philosophy for about 1,600 years. According to this school, the essence of the universe is mind. Although mind is impermanent and has no essential nature, it is the source of all the phenomena in the universe.
I have to say that some parts of Yogacara make sense to me and others do not. I can’t say I’m convinced that mind is the essential aspect nature. But if you want a fully worked out philosophical system based on the pre-eminence and pervasiveness of mind, there is (at least) one.
Nicholas Ginex, July 19, 2011, 12:47 p.m. EDT
Thank you, Shira, for informing me of the Yogacara school of Buddhist philosophy that developed the idea the universe has, in some way, the phenomena of mind. It is commendable that they were able to think of the universe having a mind capability as far back as 1600. I will try to search out some information on their approach to convey their understanding of the mind being a source of consciousness in the universe.
Shira C., July 19, 2011, 2:57 p.m. EDT
Sorry, I was unclear—Yogacara got its start in the 4th CE, so it’s been running for 1,600 years.
My pick for a good introduction would be this book (Internet link).
Nicholas Ginex, July 19, 2011, 7:36 p.m. EDT
Thank you, Shira, for recommending the book. I was able to do several searches on the Internet and found some very interesting reading on Buddhism and Yogacara. My discourse runs parallel to some of their ideas but is very different in my philosophical approach.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 4:57 p.m. EDT
To me, the “mind” is in the same category as the “Spirit” of God that pervades the entire universe intelligently . . . that which we experience intuitively . . .
The mind of God though, being the cumulative mind of all, also is made up of the mind of mankind . . . Thus, for many of us, we will tend to “filter out” the mind of God in favor of the “seemingly” more powerful mind of our fellow men who we more readily believe in because they are more objectively evident for rational man.
Richard W., July 18, 2011, 11:38 p.m. EDT
The idea is not new. In Hinduism, it is known as the “Atman”: that is, the universal self which pervades all existence and of which the individual soul is a part. To get to know the Atman, you must look into your own soul. Do a search on “Atman” and “Brahma.”
Nicholas Ginex, July 19, 2011, 7:45 p.m. EDT
Hello Richard,
I added additional information after performing some searches on the Internet. Please refer to my response dated July 19, 7:43 p.m. EDT below.
Steve B., July 19, 2011, 7:01 p.m. EDT
“A question surfaces as to why only at birth of an organic form would consciousness come into play?”
That assumes that there is only “local” consciousness. But I think there is ample evidence of “non-local” consciousness. Why make the assumption that awareness can only be experienced materially?
“It is this consciousness that reaches its height in human beings . . .”
It’s quite an assumption that humans are the “height” of consciousness. My experience suggests otherwise.
“Do you agree with this hypothetical idea that the atom, after many transformations from inorganic to organic matter, strives to achieve a consciousness to express itself by ultimately producing life forms with the ability to think?”
I wonder that the atom may be the manifestation of consciousness in matter.
Steve B., July 19, 2011, 7:02 p.m. EDT
Is there any evidence to support your notion? Do you have any experience that informs your speculation?
Nicholas Ginex, July 19, 2011, 8:41 p.m. EDT
Hello Steve,
You raised four interesting questions, and though not a spiritualist, I will give simply my hypothetical ideas as a response.
You wrote, “A question surfaces as to why only at birth of an organic form would consciousness come into play?” But then you gave an answer stating:
“That assumes that there is only ‘local’ consciousness. But I think there is ample evidence of ‘non-local’ consciousness. Why make the assumption that awareness can only be experienced materially?”
Good question. It is my belief that the ability of consciousness is a capability of only organic materials. I believe a tree, a flower, and anything that moves has a process that exhibits consciousness. We, as human beings, have attained the highest form of consciousness that I believe our universe wishes to have expressed. This consciousness need not be local. As you indicated, there is ample evidence of “non-local” consciousness, which many of us have experienced as mental telepathy. Perhaps that is why prayer is a way of placing into space the energy of brain transmitted waves to hopefully find receivers.
The body is a receiver and a transmitter, and hence it is a prerequisite to exist materially. With no organic material, the energy required to transmit or receive cannot be generated. I do not subscribe to a soul, a hypothetical concept without a body, having the ability to transmit and receive because it does not have the engine for such a process, which is a functioning, living body.
Steve, you then presented a thought after paraphrasing my question, which was “do you agree with this hypothetical idea that the atom, after many transformations from inorganic to organic matter, strives to achieve a consciousness to express itself by ultimately producing life forms with the ability to think?” Your thought, which is worth pursuing, was as follows:
“I wonder that the atom may be the manifestation of consciousness in matter.”
My answer to your thought is that it is the negative, positive and neutral properties of the atom that enable it to somehow generate many different compounds of inorganic and organic materials. This phenomenon in itself is a marvelous observation to find that the atom can transform itself to higher and higher levels of existence. We, each of us, are made of billions of atoms. But we are fortunate that we are not simply inorganic forms of matter that are also made up of atoms. So, hopefully, you can appreciate my hypothetical discourse that we are “all” made of the “same stuff” that make up our universe. The glory of it all is that we have attained the ability to think and appreciate what the very simple atom has done—made a solar system that sustains life.
Finally, Steve, your last question. “Is there any evidence to support your notion? Do you have any experience that informs your speculation?”
The only evidence I have is having learned as an engineer that the atom has positive and negative properties, opposites, such as a man (sperm) and a woman (ovum), that fight to express itself in the life forms it creates. Yes, the atom may be broken down still into other components, but as a simple man, I like to keep my thoughts at a level of understanding that at least I could accept. This is all hypothetical, but hey, that’s why we have brains—to think.
Thank you for allowing me to further express myself with your interesting questions.
Steve B., July 19, 2011, 11:19 p.m. EDT
“It is my belief that the ability of consciousness is a capability of only organic materials.”
Yet there is evidence that is not the case. “This consciousness need not be local. As you indicated there is ample evidence of ‘non-local’ consciousness, which many of us have experienced as mental telepathy.”
While telepathy has been demonstrated scientifically, a more profound—and non-organic—manifestation of non-local consciousness is near-death experience. Researchers, who write about near-death experience, theorize that consciousness manifests itself materially, but that’s not the same thing as being exclusively material.
“The body is a receiver and a transmitter, and hence it is a prerequisite to exist materially.”
Exactly. However, consciousness seems to operate non-materially, i.e., non-locally as well.
“With no organic material, the energy required to transmit or receive cannot be generated.”
I don’t know about that. Perhaps it is only “translated” into material manifestation.
“I do not subscribe to a soul . . .”
I don’t know what I’d call it—maybe just “non-local awareness,” but it is well documented that people experience awareness when they are clinically dead. There have been organic theories presented to explain those experiences, but they don’t hold up when the evidence is analyzed. I don’t think it’s important to call it a soul, but I think it’s a mistake to discount what people say they’ve experienced.
“So hopefully, you can appreciate my hypothetical discourse that we are ‘all’ made of the ‘same stuff’ that make up our universe.”
No doubt, we are all made of the same stuff, but again, are we the epitome of everything? I hardly think so, and the reported accounts of hundreds of people would seem to indicate that we are not.
“As a simple man, I like to keep my thoughts at a level of under-standing that at least I could accept. This is all hypothetical, but hey, that’s why we have brains—to think.”
To think, to be sure—also to observe, listen, learn. Maybe I over-value what many people say they have experienced. Perhaps that’s only because I have also experienced things that I cannot explain simply in terms of materialism.
Steve B., July 19, 2011, 11:31 p.m. EDT
Another thought, I am a huge fan of science. But science is not perfect, and one of its less than admirable features is the tendency to be reductionistic. Many times, scientific “skepticism” rules out possibilities, which is not justified by evidence. Indeed, evidence often suggests that some possibilities are supported. Further research is needed. I don’t think materialism is justified by evidence. Indeed, in a world in which we thought our single galaxy was the entire universe as recently as a century ago, I think it would be foolish to say, with solid evidence absent, what cannot be. Who would have thought that there are a hundred billion galaxies in the universe? Who knows, there may be a hundred billion universes . . . I have no trouble wondering that our “knowledge” of things as they are in themselves is fairly limited.
Nicholas Ginex, July 20, 2011, 2:03 a.m. EDT
Hello Steve,
You are a very interesting person to chat with, for you do raise questions and present alternative ideas to examine. I like that. It may mean nothing in the end to continue a hypothetical conversation, but great theories have evolved simply by thinking in a systematic manner. And, if anything else, it is a pleasure to use our minds with what we have learned in life. The mere construction of thoughts and ideas is fascinating to me.
I do not desire to counter many of your ideas since we are simply trying to see if there is some agreement or merit in the hypothetical idea I have presented in this post. You wrote “yet there is evidence that is not the case” to my statement “It is my belief that the ability of consciousness is a capability of only organic materials.”
I would be interested in what evidence is there that consciousness exists after the organic body is dead? You did allude to the after-death experiences that researchers have been able to verify. To those claims, I can only say the person may still have existed in a quasi-like state of mind where portions of the brain were still operable even after the person was determined to be clinically dead.
You commented, “Are we the epitome of everything?” I agree with you that we are not. We know animals have the ability to think, and it is possible that there are other life forms in other worlds that have a high capacity to think.
Regarding me being thought a materialist, I hope not. I only believe that it is organic matter that has the fluid chemistry to feel and have some sense of consciousness. Even a flower loves to bloom when the sun comes up in the morning and the dew on its leaves begin to dry. This is an organic response to its surroundings.
Your additional set of thoughts was with science. It is knowledge we have been able to discover over the past hundred years, which has led to an understanding of the atom and the power it possesses as witnessed by the atom bomb. There is an inherent set of forces within each atom, and their ability to form different compounds of different elements is a fascinating area of discovery. I would like to learn more with what science can reveal. However, I also know that there are hypothetical ideas and theories that have advanced mankind onto a moral path of integrity, righteousness, justice, and truth. These are not materialistic in nature but values that we construct in our own minds to help conduct our lives in harmony with one another.
The idea of God is such a construct, and if we associate the force of the atom as the lowest denominator of God to explain the existence of the universe, I have no problem with that. But again, to believe there are souls that can live eternally from lifetime to lifetime, where each life can be better based upon one’s conduct in one’s present life, is at least to me the dream of a spiritualist or a priest to sell the concept of love and compassion for one another. I do not need the reward of eternal life to lead a decent life with love and compassion toward others. Fortunately for me, it is a natural consequence of my disposition.
Steve B., July 20, 2011, 6:19 p.m. EDT
“To those claims, I can only say the person may still have existed in a quasi-like state of mind where portions of the brain were still operable even after the person was determined to be clinically dead.”
Yet there is no brain activity, at least as it is measured. This “explanation” of the near-death experience is addressed in the book of which I give the link below.
“I would be interested in what evidence is there that consciousness exists after the organic body is dead.”
Near Death Experience Research Foundation:
Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences
I don’t disagree with your notion that the atom is involved in the rise of consciousness. The evidence, though, I am pointing to suggests that consciousness finds ways to express itself in matter, but also seems independent of matter.
Steve B., July 20, 2011, 6:32 p.m. EDT
Also, another line of research supporting the independence of consciousness from matter comes from “parting visions,” in which people “see” or “experience” a loved one shortly after they have died—often before they know of that person’s death.
Parting Visions
Nicholas Ginex, July 21, 2011, 2:59 a.m. EDT
Hi Steve,
Yes, I have had the same experience when my twin brother was hurt. But I have had the feelings of somebody thinking intently about me, and it was also mutual. I guess it was a form of mental telepathy.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 5:17 p.m. EDT
For one to not interest themselves in other than this lifetime, it is perfectly natural to consider their ego the be all and end all . . . and a “balanced” ego is also perfectly (whole) natural . . .
For those who desire to see themselves “spiritually related” to other, then a soul is a required concept to designate a spiritual personality related to the eternal.
IMnsHO
Nicholas Ginex, July 19, 2011, 7:43 p.m. EDT
Hello, Richard W. and Gather readers following this thread. I have read several excerpts and definitions of Atman, Brahma, and the lower-case atman. Very impressive are the principles of Buddhism and Hindu philosophy dealing with the universal soul and human souls. It appears that Brahma can be defined as being located both in the physical, external world and also in the spiritual and inner world where it is present as Atman, “universal spirit.” At the individual level, every human being has an undying soul (atman) which lasts through eternity from life to life; this undying atman is a microcosm of Atman, the universal spirit.
It is to be understood that I have had no knowledge of Buddhism and Hindu philosophy except for having a faint idea of what is nirvana and use of the word karma. The ideas presented in this post are original and hypothetical ideas of my own. However, I can appreciate why it appears that my discourse runs along one of the central themes of Buddhism, which is that there is a spirit or consciousness that pervades the universe.
However, my philosophical ideas do not encompass the acceptance of a soul that lasts through eternity from life to life. It is my belief that the body is the engine of mental activity, and once it extinguishes, there is no more energy capable of being transmitted into the universe. Yes, I find merit in the idea that matter cannot be destroyed but transformed after being completely absorbed into dust or burned. But that transformation takes place billions upon billions of years after our sun has been dissipated or drawn into a black hole or becomes part of a quasar or pulsar phenomenon. What happens during such a period of time is that the gases, energy, and matter expelled back out into the universe gradually form other stars, planets, and galactic system that continue its life cycle process. At such a time, billions of years later, again inorganic and organic life forms take form.
The universal consciousness articulated by Buddhist spiritualists therefore subsides and begins anew, which, in my mind, nullifies the idea of a soul lasting through eternity from life to life. It is my belief that the life of an individual being enhanced by a higher order of life as its soul migrates is a philosophy to promote the value of living decent lives with love and compassion for one another. This is a good thing, but in reality, to achieve such an outcome demands instruction by loving, perceptive, and caring people for those young minds who join our civilization. Such men as Buddha and Jesus had the perception to teach us to respect ourselves and others. Jesus put it all in its very simplest terms—love one another.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 5:32 p.m. EDT
Nicholas, your view seems to be the ego (lower self) view, the natural dualistic man’s view . . . a view that can be transcended to the spiritual view of a “higher self” (i.e. soul), God, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth, Spirit of Christ, Atman, etc., etc., etc . . . . whatever name connects one with the highest truth representing God or his best representative allowable to you.
Abbie H., July 20, 2011, 12:11 p.m. EDT
This is very interesting, but nobody has invoked the presence of magnetic fields. Everything we (and I use that term loosely) know (right) is based on the idea of elements and compounds and not on magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are beyond and above most of the most educated individuals. And (because of an incident I experienced) magnetic fields control everything.
Nicholas Ginex, July 20, 2011, 10:53 p.m. EDT
Hello Abbie,
Thank you for finding this post an interesting one. I agree with you that electric and magnetic fields encompass much energy and exhibit forces that can be exceptionally powerful not only at the physical level that we can observe, but also at the unseen level within the atom itself. There are other levels within the atom, such as quarks, but for my hypothetical discourse, it was sufficient to have our readers understand that it is the different mix of atoms that forms different elements and compounds that create both inorganic and organic matter. It is my feeling that this is a unique way of billions of atoms expressing themselves into first inorganic matter and then into the higher form of matter that is capable of existing with its surroundings. Fundamentally, there must be heat from a star (sun), a planet, and moisture to allow for the growth of organic matter. It is marvelous to see we, and other living things, are the products of this phenomenon of creation.
What I would like to know is where did the atom come from in the first place? Does an atom develop out of nothing? And also, as you pointed out, how did the magnetic and electrical, positive and negative (and neutral) properties of the atom originate? These are questions that may never be answered satisfactorily. However, I am impressed that this force or energy finally can express itself through the intelligence it creates in a mixture of many life forms. Truly, I believe there is a consciousness in the universe that deserves our respect for we are part of, and made of, those atoms. Remarkable!
Ben Surbana, July 22, 2011, 3:16 p.m. EDT
Your comment, Nicholas, reminds me of the saying, “Being comes from nonbeing.” Here we enter the world of potentials and actualities . . .
And perhaps it is the mystery behind the opposites you mention, i.e. polar opposites in which one cannot exist without the other.
Whereas “potential” and “actual” are not opposites, positive and negative are . . . creating a necessary “tension” upon which life is dependent.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 5:46 p.m. EDT
I see “dualism” as the “considered” opposites, such as right/wrong, light/dark, etc., where the (/) denotes the “separation” or “division” as the “void” or “gap” between them . . . the way the ego (especially the unbalanced ego) would look at it.
That is why I added the “bridge,” the “connecter,” the “loving attractor” of (=) denoting the “spirit” (=) that replaces the gap (/) . . . and allows communication (via the mind).
Richard Regener, July 20, 2011, 3:03 p.m. EDT
Hi Nicholas,
You’ve gotten some rather interesting commentary in response to your post here, so let me add my two cents’ worth for clarification. To begin with, it should be noted that basic awareness and consciousness are two somewhat different states in that general awareness is a molecular or genetic response to external influences and consciousness is a developing awareness of self. One may evolve from the other with transformation, but they are by no means the same.
Your question as to why consciousness would form only at birth would suggest that the natural transformation from subatomic particle awareness into biological consciousness in new life may require a developed biological computer (organic brain matter) for consciousness to manifest in beyond the general molecular responsive coding of a single atom. Last time I looked, there is no brain matter to be found in plant life. Animal life on the other hand does think within the context of its developing consciousness and physical abilities.
The other part of this wonderful process of consciousness development involves what we call the soul, spirit, essence, energy, and so on, which I’ve always felt are one and the same. “You will note there is no god concept in this scenario,” in so far as I consider the evolution of existence a semi-random process evolving from subatomic particles. As to the question of whether or not our consciousness can survive death, my experiences would indicate some memories do, although complete consciousness is quite another matter since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner after death it’s quite difficult to accurately define this.
Nicholas Ginex, July 21, 2011, 2:53 a.m. EDT
Hello Richard,
Thank you adding your views to this discussion. In this post, I am attempting to describe a universal process that begins with the properties of an atom because I have accepted the premise that we, and all objects we perceive, are made up with a certain mix of atoms. On the other hand, I believe you are trying to further distinguish what do we mean by consciousness and when does it become activated. Now I did not go into such specifics because that was not the central theme of my discourse. It is true that inorganic matter has no consciousness or awareness as an inert object. But to what level of consciousness are we speaking of when an organic object has some kind of biochemical process in its life cycle?
In the plant kingdom, there is the process that takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. But there are advanced stages of plant life that can in fact capture an insect and devour it for its subsistence. Is there some kind of conscious level in the plant that can make it react to its surroundings? This is truly an instinctive level of consciousness rather than the thinking level we humans possess. But it is a level of consciousness.
You bring up a distinction of consciousness that is worth understanding. You noted that “basic awareness and consciousness are two somewhat different states in that general awareness is a molecular or genetic response to external influences and consciousness is a developing awareness of self.” This distinction of two levels of consciousness is good, but both levels are associated with the ability to react to stimuli. In Buddhism and Hinduism philosophy, there is a consciousness-only teaching that originated in the fourth century and was referred to as the “Yogacara” school of philosophy. They define the five sensory organs that provide sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch to influence the
consciousness of the mind. This may be called the awareness level of consciousness that senses the external world. The Buddhist teachings then go on to describe the “manas consciousness,” which consists of several levels that sustain self-consciousness and develop the concept of a soul that is affected by the actions of a person, which after death goes on to an eternal set of life cycles depending upon whether the life led was morally or destructively conducted.
Your comments alluded to a definition of the soul whereby there is no god concept employed. The Buddhist dogma does not present a god but does define the soul as the root of consciousness where “seeds” of good and bad deeds influence the karma of the soul and affect its transformations into the eternal life to life cycle. Herein, we “see” the Buddha purpose of the soul dogma is to direct the teaching of wisdom to lead a moral and compassionate life to attain immortality of the soul and enable it to reach transformations at higher levels.
We appear to be in agreement that the possibility of soul existing after death is difficult to define since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner any kind of consciousness is highly improbable. As I have expressed in another response on this post, I do not believe a soul exists after death because as you have pointed out the body or engine no longer supports the brain. But then, the soul also has no material substance or for that matter any atoms to keep its identity alive. The soul is a mental construct to persuade followers of the promise of eternal life.
I have tried to be brief in this response but also tried to address your comments. The one thought I wish to leave our readers with is that there is inherent in the atom the ability to form inorganic and organic matter whereby organic matter possesses certain levels of consciousness. It is the highest level of consciousness that the universe achieves its purpose—the creation of life forms that reach out and try to understand the universe they came from. My comments about God in my last paragraph of my discourse were simply doing what the Buddhist and Hindus have done, and that is to devise a system of morality. The big difference is that the Buddhist-Hindu dogma teaches that by living a proper life of morality and compassion for others one is rewarded with eternal life. The difference in my discourse is that I do not accept the idea of eternal life for a reward nor do I accept the idea of hell for punishment. Both ideas, at least to me, are infantile religious dogmas.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 6:03 p.m. EDT
I see the source of consciousness as coming from within as an output of the original source of everything manifested, that being the micro expanded into the macro.
Our five objective senses read the macrocosmos manifested for egoistic attention . . . the intuition reads the inner micro source, the spiritual realm for references . . .
Between the two, we find our natural true balance, the (=) of all that is available (+=−).
As I see it, the higher powered, higher frequency relationships of “signals” is the mind of God, the spirit, the universal intelligence, which speaks in “codes” through our soul which is manifested in our very DNA/RNA codes as our individualism (personhood), which is our “transceiver frequency code” for two-way communication, aware by us or not, usually not.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 9:38 a.m. EDT
Richard,
“As to the question of whether or not our consciousness can survive death, my experiences would indicate some memories do, although complete consciousness is quite another matter since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner after death it’s quite difficult to accurately define this.”
I’ve read that consciousness may be actually limited by the brain (in the sense of being focused), rather than made possible. People experiencing near-death, for example, often report 360 degree “vision,” as well as a kind of “timeless” apprehension of everything at once. In other words, the experience of time/space is not limited. Also, there is very good evidence that consciousness survives death. For more information, see Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 10:10 a.m. EDT
Nicholas, “In the plant kingdom, there is the process that takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. But there are advanced stages of plant life that can in fact capture an insect and devour it for its subsistence.” Also, there is plant “communication.”
“The possibility of soul existing after death is difficult to define since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner any kind of consciousness is highly improbable.”
Again, that seems to be a “materialistic” bias, and there is evidence to the contrary, which I referred to above—and linked sources. What seems more likely is that consciousness is “limited” in order to “fit” into matter. In other words, the brain is a function of consciousness, rather than the other way round.
Nicholas: “The difference in my discourse is that I do not accept the idea of eternal life for a reward nor do I accept the idea of hell for punishment. Both ideas, at least to me, are infantile religious dogmas.”
Of course, people are entitled to their beliefs. I am just trying to point to evidence, which has been researched and published. People who experience clinical death and then are revived report highly consistent and universal experiences. These reports have been studied and systematically catalogued. Attempts to “reduce” them to material explanations have not held up in the face of the evidence.
I do not know how the atom fits into this if it does. Is consciousness more basic than the atom? I have heard that overwhelmingly, the total mass and energy of the universe has not been identified; it is called “dark matter” and “dark energy.” No one seems to know what that is, but it is there. Theoretical physics speculates that “ours” may very well not be the only “universe.” There are so many open questions. I do not see any justification for conclusions regarding what is not possible—or even likely.
A recent film I saw opens with a very old woman on her death bed. Her grieving daughter is there with her. She asks her mother if she is afraid. The old woman answers with a single word, “Curious.” I think that is a profound and marvelous orientation to have.
Jerry Kays, July 24, 2011, 1:26 p.m. EDT
As to whether there are “other” universes or not seems to me a far-fetched question when we have yet to satisfactorily define our own universe . . .
I get the feeling that most who speak of universe have actually excluded the “things” from it that they cannot “objectify” . . . such as black holes, which are mentioned as “doorways” to “other” universes where black matter and black energy exist . . . things that to me are related (relative) to all that we do accept as allowable (or normal) . . .
In other words, to me the universe would be the total mix which included all of the black categories also . . . That of course goes right along with the inclusion of God, spirit, and even the “potentials” of the more “negative” aspects of those . . .
IMnsHO (+=−) > (+/−)
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 1:51 p.m. EDT
Jerry,
“As to whether there are ‘other’ universes or not seems to me a far-fetched question when we have yet to satisfactorily define our own universe . . .”
It was not even a century ago, when we thought the idea of “other” galaxies was “far-fetched.” Now we know there are a hundred billion of them, each with hundreds of billions of stars. The best theoretical— mathematically consistent—theory points to dimensions other than the four we’re familiar with. I have no idea what is, but I marvel at just the scope and breadth of it all.
From my work in mental health—background in analytical psychology—I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that there is “intelligence” or consciousness or awareness which is an inherent property of whatever describing—universe or multiverse. I also have no doubt that human intelligence, as impressive as it is, is not the “alpha and omega” of awareness.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 2:12 p.m. EDT
Jerry,
“The ego sees everything associated with thought as limited to the brain, even memory.”
Perhaps one has to experience “non-local” awareness oneself to understand that there is a conscious awareness that is light years beyond everyday typical human thinking—a mere function of brain activity (if that even is an accurate statement).
I am continually emphasizing experience. I see no reason to discount, disconfirm, or otherwise “reduce” what so many people say they have experienced. There are also documented ways in which they are “different” after the experience.
Nicholas Ginex, July 24, 2011, 11:35 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry and Steve,
I found your dialogue very interesting, and there is some merit to some of your ideas. First, I want to thank Steve for the link that supports plant consciousness. I have always had an affinity for plants and flowers and can sense their alive attributes. Experiments show that plants exposed to beautiful music tend to grow at a better rate. Of course care, as you would care for a baby, also helps.
As I indicated in an earlier response, I have had non-local consciousness transmitted to me, and I felt that in some way I initiated that transmission by my intent thoughts on that person, for, in a matter of days, I received a letter from that person whom I recently met but was unable to contact her. Again, I stress that I believe it was due to my brain activity in thinking intently about a particular person.
Steve, you indicated that you believe there is an inherent consciousness in the universe. I have tried to describe that the atom itself has, as Jerry indicated, opposites (electrons and protons) that are capable of sustaining itself. How the atom is able to mix with other atoms to first form nonorganic compounds and set the stage to create other elements to form organic compounds is a mystery. But that mystery seems to point to some kind of inherent process that seems to know what it wants to do. It appears that, in the end, the atoms want to create life forms that are capable or have the ability of communicating at higher levels of consciousness. It may be the atoms seek to have individual life forms question the consciousness of the universe itself.
This is why I respect and have an affinity for the beautiful trees and flowers that surround us. I feel all life forms are expressing a way for them to exist, and we all are interconnected in the entire life cycle process. As you know, plants manufacture oxygen, and we depend on that element just as they depend on the carbon dioxide we exhale.
I just have one thought in reply to Jerry’s idea or acceptance of reincarnation. Jerry, you wrote, “Nicholas, by eternity I mean the multiple lives available through reincarnation and then spiritual dimensions of differing orders . . . the idea that we are spirit and connected to other realms for evolving experiences.” I have to address this idea because I do not believe in reincarnation or the soul transferring through multiple lives. Regarding spiritual dimensions of differing orders, these are words, and I cannot relate to any other dimensions of different orders.
If you have been able to convince yourself of the soul transferring into another life and have some experience confirming that, then you have some special ability that I do not possess. Again, it is my belief that the priesthood of the Egyptians, the Buddhists, and Hindus have fabricated the idea of a soul to sell the concept of a hereafter or a chance at another life if you mess this one up. Consciousness is a wonderful thing, and I appreciate the hypothetical ideas the human mind is capable of dreaming of. Some of those dreams have resulted in wonderful discoveries because the ability to think logically can build marvelous things such as the radio, TV, airplanes, etc. and not least of all, to be able to construct the model of an atom and synthesize the elements that atoms can make.
However, one must be careful not to develop hypothetical dreams or concepts that may prove to be false. I will agree that I share the idea that the consciousness in the atom and throughout the universe is an attribute of the mysterious, incomprehensible, and unknowable God that we will continually try to reach out to and try to understand.
Ben surbana, July 22, 2011, 2:23 p.m. EDT
Jesus said, “If the flesh has come into existence because of the spirit, it is a marvel; but if the spirit has come into existence because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But I marvel at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.” (St. Thomas)
That humankind can be aware of consciousness itself is what separates mankind from all other species.
Concerning soul survival, one might more accurately describe “survival” as a return to God, rather than just merely surviving. And in what condition or state shall we best return? As perfected individuals through the unity of soul and spirit, as a state of “heaven.”
If we are made in God’s image, then God, whose presence dwells within us, is the primal consciousness of which we must manifest in order to return through the expression and the living of the highest love—as a gift to others—and as the desire to become whole, complete, perfect, holy.
Our will to receive the God is an elevation of human consciousness to a divine level.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EDT
I’ve been thinking about the oxidative state of things lately and redox reactions. But Richard Regener’s description of these things, which are all part of the living world, is not spiritual enough for me.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 3:56 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
Thank you for joining in this conversation. It would be nice to understand what level of spiritual consciousness or existence are you referring to? It appears that you are implying that the soul exists apart from the living world, and it would be instructive to explore this idea.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 4:13 p.m. EDT
What is the spirit and what is the living world?
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 4:23 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
Since you indicated that Richard’s response was not spiritual enough for you, I thought you might share your thoughts on the existence of the spirit or soul. Speaking for myself, I believe that the idea of a soul is a noble one but taught to express the concept that God will receive your soul upon living a moral and ethical life. This is good. However, I rather believe in teaching our youth the attributes of integrity, honestly, compassion, and love for our sisters and brothers regardless of the reward of eternal life.
The spirit is the ability for higher forms of life to think and act for the benefit of others. The living world is what we experience with our senses while alive.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 4:41 p.m. EDT
Your second paragraph answers the question.
But have you ever thought about the essence of the soul? Do you believe it exists in words or do you think of it as something which cannot be addressed?
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 6:48 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
I try to answer questions based upon what I have experienced and learned in life. My answers are not authoritative but honest in what I think and feel in my heart. Regarding the existence of a soul, the best answer I perceive is that from the very beginning of creation by the forces within the atoms that we are composed of there is an intelligence or consciousness that seeks to express itself in matter. That matter first consists of the elemental properties that make up inorganic substances, and these substances form the basis for the beginnings of organic life to occur. This entire process by the inherent properties of the atom continues until very high forms of life begin to form whereby such life begins to reach out and question its own existence. Such consciousness may be characterized as the soul.
However, I do not believe in the transformations of the soul going from life to life as do the Indian philosophies of Brahma and Atman. To me, once the engine of consciousness is dead, such as the body and its brain functions, the consciousness that was once created stops existing. I am not afraid of death for I have led a life of wonderful experiences as well as pain, but through it all that is what makes us enjoy the reality of this life. To suppose there is an afterlife, I do not count on that. I only believe in what one of our greatest teachers left for us to follow and that was the Word of God—love one another. This does not mean I know or understand the mysterious, incomprehensible, and unknowable God, but it does mean that I subscribe to the wisdom we have been able to teach ourselves. If you think about it, God does not teach you anything. What you have learned has been taught to you by teachers of many generations. However, do not believe everything that is taught for much of it may need to be revised based upon the knowledge we have attained today.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 6:56 p.m. EDT
I see “wisdom” as being the essential balance of things, the peaceful harmony of said balance, of which the spiritual (=) view would consist of . . .
That is also the offshoot of the spiritual awakening where one transcends the normal intelligence of rational connectivity into the “heart” of the “inner knowing” (gnosis) of things . . . why it grants great peace of mind, the truth that sets one free . . . free from worry and fear, free to let things be, no more worries. Let go and let God.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 7:06 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
Your description of a spirit soul as the universal realm of God previous to the making of a physical world is a hypothetical concept which is not necessarily true, but at the same time, it is not necessarily false. I frankly do not know. However, there are those human beings gifted with the insight to make and believe in such a concept.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 7:29 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
Wisdom is not easily attained. I have found that much wisdom I have gained was from former teachers in the past who have been caring enough to write their thoughts down for others to examine and grow from. I have not been fortunate to gain wisdom from my own mind. However, from the wisdom and data input I have acquired over the years, I am able to hypothesize such thoughts as “Does Consciousness Pervade Our Universe?” The “spiritual awakening” you write of is motivated by a disposition to love and teach others how to lead wholesome lives. To have such an awakening and not put it to good use is a self-centered way to gratify oneself. This is why I admire such great writers as I have referred to in my book Future of God Amen. Their energy and time in providing us with written knowledge and findings they have been able to discover is to be applauded.
If readers of this post wish to avail themselves of some of the finest writers, I recommend they examine the bibliography of the book presented on the website http://www.futureofgodamen.com .
Jerry Kays, July 23, 2011, 3:03 a. m. EDT
Nicholas, many have professed wisdom over the years and many have had it and expressed it properly and truly . . . but offsetting that are the many more, even who have made the same claims and written them into books who have never really had it; on the contrary, they have taught people the wrong way to think and act in so many cases . . . The institutions of religion have been as guilty of that as any . . . not to mention our leading politicians who daily set examples of what not to think and do . . . all accepted by too many as our leaders and authorities to be emulated . . .
When any person truly has a relationship with God through the spirit who seeks truth . . . that person automatically receives all the wisdom required to lead an exemplary life through their own intuition . . . There is no better teacher . . . bar none.
IMnsHO (and experience)
Nicholas Ginex, July 23, 2011, 2:38 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
I respect your relationship with God as I do for all those who have beliefs they live by. However, my experience in life about receiving wisdom has been given to me by people who have been willing to share their thoughts. You are right that not everything written has validity, but all the wisdom I have acquired was by keeping my ears open and reading books by those who took the time to put into writing the many ideas and points of view that have added to my store of knowledge. As I reflect back on the knowledge received, I must admit that God never spoke to me or entered my consciousness to provide truth and wisdom.
The belief in the spirit or soul is a nice construct to accept the idea of eternal life. The Egyptians, Buddhists, and Hindus have developed very marvelous concepts of the soul and its passing to meet the Creator Spirit upon living an ethical and moral life. I don’t know if this is true and therefore cannot subscribe to this hypothetical concept. However, I will continue learning from the wise men and women who have set their thoughts on paper for me and others to gain insights into our purpose in life and how to lead a life of integrity, honesty, and compassion.
Jerry Kays, July 23, 2011, 7:20 p.m. EDT
I agree completely . . . as to whether there even is a God, and how that may affect mankind will only be truly known by God . . . The rest are but our own concepts, and some could be right on and others way out there somewhere . . . in the final analysis, to each their own. IMnsHO
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 6:03 p.m. EDT
I see the source of consciousness as coming from within as an output of the original source of everything manifested, that being the micro expanded into the macro.
Our five objective senses read the macrocosmos manifested for egoistic attention . . . the intuition reads the inner micro source, the spiritual realm for references . . .
Between the two, we find our natural true balance, the (=) of all that is available (+=−).
As I see it, the higher powered, higher frequency relationships of “signals” is the mind of God, the spirit, the universal intelligence, which speaks in “codes” through our soul which is manifested in our very DNA/RNA codes as our individualism (personhood), which is our “transceiver frequency code” for two-way communication, aware by us or not, usually not.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 9:38 a.m. EDT
Richard,
“As to the question of whether or not our consciousness can survive death, my experiences would indicate some memories do, although complete consciousness is quite another matter since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner after death it’s quite difficult to accurately define this.”
I’ve read that consciousness may be actually limited by the brain (in the sense of being focused), rather than made possible. People experiencing near-death, for example, often report 360 degree “vision,” as well as a kind of “timeless” apprehension of everything at once. In other words, the experience of time/space is not limited. Also, there is very good evidence that consciousness survives death. For more information, see Evidence of the Afterlife: The Science of Near-Death Experiences.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 10:10 a.m. EDT
Nicholas, “In the plant kingdom, there is the process that takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen. But there are advanced stages of plant life that can in fact capture an insect and devour it for its subsistence.” Also, there is plant “communication.”
“The possibility of soul existing after death is difficult to define since without a physical brain to correlate and process data in a cohesive manner any kind of consciousness is highly improbable.”
Again, that seems to be a “materialistic” bias, and there is evidence to the contrary, which I referred to above—and linked sources. What seems more likely is that consciousness is “limited” in order to “fit” into matter. In other words, the brain is a function of consciousness, rather than the other way round.
Nicholas: “The difference in my discourse is that I do not accept the idea of eternal life for a reward nor do I accept the idea of hell for punishment. Both ideas, at least to me, are infantile religious dogmas.”
Of course, people are entitled to their beliefs. I am just trying to point to evidence, which has been researched and published. People who experience clinical death and then are revived report highly consistent and universal experiences. These reports have been studied and systematically catalogued. Attempts to “reduce” them to material explanations have not held up in the face of the evidence.
I do not know how the atom fits into this if it does. Is consciousness more basic than the atom? I have heard that overwhelmingly, the total mass and energy of the universe has not been identified; it is called “dark matter” and “dark energy.” No one seems to know what that is, but it is there. Theoretical physics speculates that “ours” may very well not be the only “universe.” There are so many open questions. I do not see any justification for conclusions regarding what is not possible—or even likely.
A recent film I saw opens with a very old woman on her death bed. Her grieving daughter is there with her. She asks her mother if she is afraid. The old woman answers with a single word, “Curious.” I think that is a profound and marvelous orientation to have.
Jerry Kays, July 24, 2011, 1:26 p.m. EDT
As to whether there are “other” universes or not seems to me a far-fetched question when we have yet to satisfactorily define our own universe . . .
I get the feeling that most who speak of universe have actually excluded the “things” from it that they cannot “objectify” . . . such as black holes, which are mentioned as “doorways” to “other” universes where black matter and black energy exist . . . things that to me are related (relative) to all that we do accept as allowable (or normal) . . .
In other words, to me the universe would be the total mix which included all of the black categories also . . . That of course goes right along with the inclusion of God, spirit, and even the “potentials” of the more “negative” aspects of those . . .
IMnsHO (+=−) > (+/−)
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 1:51 p.m. EDT
Jerry,
“As to whether there are ‘other’ universes or not seems to me a far-fetched question when we have yet to satisfactorily define our own universe . . .”
It was not even a century ago, when we thought the idea of “other” galaxies was “far-fetched.” Now we know there are a hundred billion of them, each with hundreds of billions of stars. The best theoretical— mathematically consistent—theory points to dimensions other than the four we’re familiar with. I have no idea what is, but I marvel at just the scope and breadth of it all.
From my work in mental health—background in analytical psychology—I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that there is “intelligence” or consciousness or awareness which is an inherent property of whatever describing—universe or multiverse. I also have no doubt that human intelligence, as impressive as it is, is not the “alpha and omega” of awareness.
Steve B., July 24, 2011, 2:12 p.m. EDT
Jerry,
“The ego sees everything associated with thought as limited to the brain, even memory.”
Perhaps one has to experience “non-local” awareness oneself to understand that there is a conscious awareness that is light years beyond everyday typical human thinking—a mere function of brain activity (if that even is an accurate statement).
I am continually emphasizing experience. I see no reason to discount, disconfirm, or otherwise “reduce” what so many people say they have experienced. There are also documented ways in which they are “different” after the experience.
Nicholas Ginex, July 24, 2011, 11:35 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry and Steve,
I found your dialogue very interesting, and there is some merit to some of your ideas. First, I want to thank Steve for the link that supports plant consciousness. I have always had an affinity for plants and flowers and can sense their alive attributes. Experiments show that plants exposed to beautiful music tend to grow at a better rate. Of course care, as you would care for a baby, also helps.
As I indicated in an earlier response, I have had non-local consciousness transmitted to me, and I felt that in some way I initiated that transmission by my intent thoughts on that person, for, in a matter of days, I received a letter from that person whom I recently met but was unable to contact her. Again, I stress that I believe it was due to my brain activity in thinking intently about a particular person.
Steve, you indicated that you believe there is an inherent consciousness in the universe. I have tried to describe that the atom itself has, as Jerry indicated, opposites (electrons and protons) that are capable of sustaining itself. How the atom is able to mix with other atoms to first form nonorganic compounds and set the stage to create other elements to form organic compounds is a mystery. But that mystery seems to point to some kind of inherent process that seems to know what it wants to do. It appears that, in the end, the atoms want to create life forms that are capable or have the ability of communicating at higher levels of consciousness. It may be the atoms seek to have individual life forms question the consciousness of the universe itself.
This is why I respect and have an affinity for the beautiful trees and flowers that surround us. I feel all life forms are expressing a way for them to exist, and we all are interconnected in the entire life cycle process. As you know, plants manufacture oxygen, and we depend on that element just as they depend on the carbon dioxide we exhale.
I just have one thought in reply to Jerry’s idea or acceptance of reincarnation. Jerry, you wrote, “Nicholas, by eternity I mean the multiple lives available through reincarnation and then spiritual dimensions of differing orders . . . the idea that we are spirit and connected to other realms for evolving experiences.” I have to address this idea because I do not believe in reincarnation or the soul transferring through multiple lives. Regarding spiritual dimensions of differing orders, these are words, and I cannot relate to any other dimensions of different orders.
If you have been able to convince yourself of the soul transferring into another life and have some experience confirming that, then you have some special ability that I do not possess. Again, it is my belief that the priesthood of the Egyptians, the Buddhists, and Hindus have fabricated the idea of a soul to sell the concept of a hereafter or a chance at another life if you mess this one up. Consciousness is a wonderful thing, and I appreciate the hypothetical ideas the human mind is capable of dreaming of. Some of those dreams have resulted in wonderful discoveries because the ability to think logically can build marvelous things such as the radio, TV, airplanes, etc. and not least of all, to be able to construct the model of an atom and synthesize the elements that atoms can make.
However, one must be careful not to develop hypothetical dreams or concepts that may prove to be false. I will agree that I share the idea that the consciousness in the atom and throughout the universe is an attribute of the mysterious, incomprehensible, and unknowable God that we will continually try to reach out to and try to understand.
Ben Surbana, July 22, 2011, 2:23 p.m. EDT
Jesus said, “If the flesh has come into existence because of the spirit, it is a marvel; but if the spirit has come into existence because of the body, it is a marvel of marvels. But I marvel at how this great wealth has made its home in this poverty.” (St. Thomas)
That humankind can be aware of consciousness itself is what separates mankind from all other species.
Concerning soul survival, one might more accurately describe “survival” as a return to God, rather than just merely surviving. And in what condition or state shall we best return? As perfected individuals through the unity of soul and spirit, as a state of “heaven.”
If we are made in God’s image, then God, whose presence dwells within us, is the primal consciousness of which we must manifest in order to return through the expression and the living of the highest love—as a gift to others—and as the desire to become whole, complete, perfect, holy.
Our will to receive the God is an elevation of human consciousness to a divine level.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 3:22 p.m. EDT
I’ve been thinking about the oxidative state of things lately and redox reactions. But Richard Regener’s description of these things, which are all part of the living world, is not spiritual enough for me.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 3:56 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
Thank you for joining in this conversation. It would be nice to understand what level of spiritual consciousness or existence are you referring to? It appears that you are implying that the soul exists apart from the living world, and it would be instructive to explore this idea.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 4:13 p.m. EDT
What is the spirit and what is the living world?
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 4:23 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
Since you indicated that Richard’s response was not spiritual enough for you, I thought you might share your thoughts on the existence of the spirit or soul. Speaking for myself, I believe that the idea of a soul is a noble one but taught to express the concept that God will receive your soul upon living a moral and ethical life. This is good. However, I rather believe in teaching our youth the attributes of integrity, honestly, compassion, and love for our sisters and brothers regardless of the reward of eternal life.
The spirit is the ability for higher forms of life to think and act for the benefit of others. The living world is what we experience with our senses while alive.
Werner V., July 22, 2011, 4:41 p.m. EDT
Your second paragraph answers the question.
But have you ever thought about the essence of the soul? Do you believe it exists in words or do you think of it as something which cannot be addressed?
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 6:48 p.m. EDT
Hello Werner,
I try to answer questions based upon what I have experienced and learned in life. My answers are not authoritative but honest in what I think and feel in my heart. Regarding the existence of a soul, the best answer I perceive is that from the very beginning of creation by the forces within the atoms that we are composed of there is an intelligence or consciousness that seeks to express itself in matter. That matter first consists of the elemental properties that make up inorganic substances, and these substances form the basis for the beginnings of organic life to occur. This entire process by the inherent properties of the atom continues until very high forms of life begin to form whereby such life begins to reach out and question its own existence. Such consciousness may be characterized as the soul.
However, I do not believe in the transformations of the soul going from life to life as do the Indian philosophies of Brahma and Atman. To me, once the engine of consciousness is dead, such as the body and its brain functions, the consciousness that was once created stops existing. I am not afraid of death for I have led a life of wonderful experiences as well as pain, but through it all that is what makes us enjoy the reality of this life. To suppose there is an afterlife, I do not count on that. I only believe in what one of our greatest teachers left for us to follow and that was the Word of God—love one another. This does not mean I know or understand the mysterious, incomprehensible, and unknowable God, but it does mean that I subscribe to the wisdom we have been able to teach ourselves. If you think about it, God does not teach you anything. What you have learned has been taught to you by teachers of many generations. However, do not believe everything that is taught for much of it may need to be revised based upon the knowledge we have attained today.
Jerry Kays, July 22, 2011, 6:56 p.m. EDT
I see “wisdom” as being the essential balance of things, the peaceful harmony of said balance, of which the spiritual (=) view would consist of . . .
That is also the offshoot of the spiritual awakening where one transcends the normal intelligence of rational connectivity into the “heart” of the “inner knowing” (gnosis) of things . . . why it grants great peace of mind, the truth that sets one free . . . free from worry and fear, free to let things be, no more worries. Let go and let God.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 7:06 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
Your description of a spirit soul as the universal realm of God previous to the making of a physical world is a hypothetical concept which is not necessarily true, but at the same time, it is not necessarily false. I frankly do not know. However, there are those human beings gifted with the insight to make and believe in such a concept.
Nicholas Ginex, July 22, 2011, 7:29 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
Wisdom is not easily attained. I have found that much wisdom I have gained was from former teachers in the past who have been caring enough to write their thoughts down for others to examine and grow from. I have not been fortunate to gain wisdom from my own mind. However, from the wisdom and data input I have acquired over the years, I am able to hypothesize such thoughts as “Does Consciousness Pervade Our Universe?” The “spiritual awakening” you write of is motivated by a disposition to love and teach others how to lead wholesome lives. To have such an awakening and not put it to good use is a self-centered way to gratify oneself. This is why I admire such great writers as I have referred to in my book Future of God Amen. Their energy and time in providing us with written knowledge and findings they have been able to discover is to be applauded.
If readers of this post wish to avail themselves of some of the finest writers, I recommend they examine the bibliography of the book presented on the website www.futureofgodamen.com
Jerry Kays, July 23, 2011, 3:03 a. m. EDT
Nicholas, many have professed wisdom over the years and many have had it and expressed it properly and truly . . . but offsetting that are the many more, even who have made the same claims and written them into books who have never really had it; on the contrary, they have taught people the wrong way to think and act in so many cases . . . The institutions of religion have been as guilty of that as any . . . not to mention our leading politicians who daily set examples of what not to think and do . . . all accepted by too many as our leaders and authorities to be emulated . . .
When any person truly has a relationship with God through the spirit who seeks truth . . . that person automatically receives all the wisdom required to lead an exemplary life through their own intuition . . . There is no better teacher . . . bar none.
IMnsHO (and experience)
Nicholas Ginex, July 23, 2011, 2:38 p.m. EDT
Hello Jerry,
I respect your relationship with God as I do for all those who have beliefs they live by. However, my experience in life about receiving wisdom has been given to me by people who have been willing to share their thoughts. You are right that not everything written has validity, but all the wisdom I have acquired was by keeping my ears open and reading books by those who took the time to put into writing the many ideas and points of view that have added to my store of knowledge. As I reflect back on the knowledge received, I must admit that God never spoke to me or entered my consciousness to provide truth and wisdom.
The belief in the spirit or soul is a nice construct to accept the idea of eternal life. The Egyptians, Buddhists, and Hindus have developed very marvelous concepts of the soul and its passing to meet the Creator Spirit upon living an ethical and moral life. I don’t know if this is true and therefore cannot subscribe to this hypothetical concept. However, I will continue learning from the wise men and women who have set their thoughts on paper for me and others to gain insights into our purpose in life and how to lead a life of integrity, honesty, and compassion.
Jerry Kays, July 23, 2011, 7:20 p.m. EDT
I agree completely . . . as to whether there even is a God, and how that may affect mankind will only be truly known by God . . . The rest are but our own concepts, and some could be right on and others way out there somewhere . . . in the final analysis, to each their own. IMnsHO
COMMENTS – Set 2
Nicholas Ginex Comment, June 19, 2014:
We all reflect and wonder about the creation of the universe. This article attempts to have us reflect on what is considered the basic building block of all matter – the atom. The question arises: does the atom have an inherent consciousness that seeks to create life forms that will someday articulate the very nature of its consciousness? Does this consciousness pervade the universe?
E.J.N. comment, June 20, 2014:
Except for one paragraph, which spoiled it for me, the article could have been one I would have liked to discuss. But in that one paragraph the author plugs his book, Amen, the Beginning of the Creation of God, and I happen to know it is based on the same erroneous assumption as his book The Future of God Amen.
Both books, like his web site, are largely based on the claim that “the Amen” mentioned in John’s Christian book of Revelation (in 3:14) refers to the Egyptian God Amen-Ra (also known as Amun-Ra, Amon-Ra, Amon, Re, etc.).
That erroneous assumption made by Nicholas Ginex is misleading, and that would be obvious to anyone who has read the Christian book of Revelation written by John.
Revelation 3:13-14 states: “He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write: These things say the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation …” (NIV) — also called “the faithful and true witness, the original of God’s creation” (NRSV), and “the beginning of the creation of God” in the old King James version.
The latter designation, however, is not the crucial one, because what is crucial is that “the Amen” is the “true and faithful witness.”
The latter designation merely refers to the original Man, “Adam,” which is why Jesus had said “Before Abraham was, I am.” That’s because in Christian theology Jesus represented the original soul, the oversoul, if you will, which developed over time from “Adam” and then finally to Jesus as the perfected Man, the martyred sacrificial “Lamb without blemish.”
But, whatever the latter designation is, it is beside the point.
The most crucial thing is being identified as “the faithful and true witness,” because as many other passages in Revelation clarify, that speaks of Jesus.
The fact is that Revelation 3:14 is the last of a series of commands for John to write to the seven churches, and that sequence of commands begins in Revelation 1:4-13, where Jesus, the “witness” of God, was identified as the one who is “speaking” to the seven churches.
(Continued …)
Reply to E. J. N., June 20, 2014:
Revelation 1:4-13 — “John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, … I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What you see, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches … And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man ...”
John makes it clear that he writes the testimony of Jesus, the son of man, who is “the faithful witness” and the voice that speaks to John. That is made clear by John in many other instances as well.
For example, Revelation 3:21-22 states: “To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says unto the churches.”
The “speaker” there is obviously Jesus, and he’s speaking of his “Father” (and of “Our Father in heaven,” as he said before he was killed).
John also makes that clear in Revelation 11:15 where he envisioned the future and wrote: “And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.”
Notice the phrase “the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ,” because John distinguishes between “our Lord and His Christ,” and between the “Lamb” and God,” as is made very clear in Revelation 7:10, 11:15, 14:4, 15:3, 21:22, and 22:1-4, all of which distinguish between God and God’s servant and “witness.”
Perhaps the most obvious of those is Revelation 15:3 which states: “And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, ‘Great and marvelous are your works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.’”
Notice that the Lamb Jesus did not sing a song to himself. He sang a song to the Lord God.
All of that clear scriptural evidence proves that Jesus is “the Amen, the faithful and true witness,” and Jesus is the Lamb of God and servant of God, not God.
Jesus had made that clear when he said things like “God is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “You have not heard God’s voice or seen God’s shape at any time.” (John 5:37)
Therefore, Ginex is mistaken in his assumption that “the Amen” in Revelation speaks of the Egyptian god Amun-Ra or “Amen- Ra.”
But Ginex even claims it is mentioned elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. But the fact is that in every instance but one the word “Amen” is used to express assent and solemn concurrence. In only one instance is the word “Amen” mentioned in another context, and in that one instance it refers to Jesus the “faithful and true witness.”
Therefore, the basic premise of Ginex’s books (like the premise of his Islamaphobic article “Islam Objective Is To Dominate the World“), is baseless and erroneous. (And if you read the thread on that article, you will see plenty of demonstrations of Ginex’s error and hypocrisy.)
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 21, 2014:
This reply is in response to the above comments made by E.J.N. Once again you sidestep the article and bring up previous articles that are not related to this philosophical discussion. This article challenges readers to participate and share their thoughts about the beginnings of our universe.
Please devote your religious arguments to the proper OpEdNews articles. Regarding your reference to the books, Future of God Amen and AMEN, The Beginning of the Creation of God, our readers will be able to judge for themselves the validity of the facts and findings use to substantiate the conclusions made. They may also refer to the book reviews and overviews of a very topical book that addresses an Islamic threat to countries around the world; it is titled, Allah, We, Our and Us. Overviews and book reviews of these three books may be viewed on:
www.futureofgodamen.com
Regarding the OpEdNews article, Islam Objective is to Dominate the World, readers are requested to read the article for themselves and judge if the facts and findings have been presented fairly and honestly. It may be viewed with the following link:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Islam-Objective-is-to-Domi-by-Nicholas-Ginex-Allah_Bigotry_Community_Evidence-140514-663.html
The credibility of this writer can be read by reading a full page book review by Mike Voyce for the book Future of God Amen. Mike is a retired lawyer, teacher of law, psychology, radio-talk show host in the United Kingdom, and writer of two books, Edward and The Necromancer.
For a brief review of Future of God Amen, the following was written by the author of many books, Michael G Stone:
- Nicholas takes facts and figures from Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions and takes them into a new level where scholars, and professors alike will be mind blown and use this superb work of literature; Collaborating Ginex’s controversial piece of literature into their studies for centuries to come. This book is a must read for mystics or anyone who is interested in religious texts and studies!
E.J.N. comment, June 21. 2014:
The issue regarding the book titled AMEN, The Beginning of the Creation of God, was opened by Mr. Ginex himself when he mentioned it in the article. As I said, he shouldn’t have mentioned it but he did because he wants to sell his books. And because he did, that opened the door to discussion about the book.
I notice Ginex didn’t have anything to say about my critique, and that of course is because he cannot deny that what I have written is true.
Now, regarding the two people who reviewed Ginex’s book, I’m glad he mentioned them.
Regarding Mike Voyce, I think readers should know that on mikevoyce.com in his Blogtalkradio section he lists many sessions on “the secrets of past lives,” and he states: “I’ve started a new psychic circle in my local Spiritualist Church on Mediumship.” So that gives you kind of an idea where he’s coming from.
But even more revealing is a YouTube video of Mike Voyce titled Chemtrails, the Illuminati, Government and Us, which reveals him to be what most people would say is a wacked out conspiracy theorist. Just watch it for yourself, if you can bear to listen to the whole thing.
YouTube Video of Mike Voyce was provided.
The other person who has reviewed Ginex’s book is Michael G. Stone, who calls himself The Distorted Poet. His latest book is Season’s of Heaven and Hell, the first book of the Forest of Caves trilogy. The book is poetry and prose ranging from dark contemporary, Witch craft, love, and melancholy. He sounds like a interesting sort of guy, but he’s a poet and nowhere have I found anything that would indicate he is a religious scholar.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 22, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., you are insistent on discrediting me, my books, and my associates who need not have been maligned because of your devout religious beliefs.
I brought up two books at the closing of my article in context with the topic. The beginning of the universe and the association with God as being connected to consciousness that pervades the universe were some of my hypothetical thoughts.
To rectify your casting aspersions of a highly gifted writer, a teacher of law and psychology, I am proudly presenting the book review written by Mike Voyce for AMEN, The Beginning of the Creation of God to reveal to our readers that he is not a wacked out conspiracy theorist.
AMEN Review by Mike Voyce
No doubt it is extremely flattering that the author has quoted me at the beginning of his book. In fact I read the whole series and reviewed the first, a review Mr Ginex kindly reproduced. As chance would have it, the great Sigmund Freud was much taken up with the same story, following very similar lines of investigation and reasoning to that in Amen. I’m bound to say, Mr Ginex work is a great deal more readable; but it is not flattery or the footsteps of the great which lead me to comment again.
Now we live in a new astronomical age; no, the Earth did not disappear in a puff of smoke on December 21st 2012. Reality does not move in such predictable ways, but a revolution is occurring in our understanding for all that. Nick Ginex would, himself, deny being an incendiary; his work is far too scholarly and well founded, yet he is part of that revolution. What he does, very quietly and carefully, is set light to a bonfire of all our errors of religious tradition and culture, errors which have grown and persisted over many centuries. He does it with such charm and modesty, giving time for the reader to absorb the evidence, so that it is impossible to avoid the enlightenment his books bring.
I have watched Mr Ginex defuse the objections of the sceptic and the bigot without asperity or condescension; and it is refreshing, after the strident times we’ve lived through, to see someone quietly present the truth we should all know.
In Amen you will find a number of revelations; in fact, you’re in for a treat.
We live at a time when authority figures seem to have lost sight of the meaning of “truth,” ‘spinning’ cheating and dissembling to promote their own views and goals they have lost touch even with themselves. Being given the meaning of Amen at the beginning of the book, I am taken back to Ma’at, the ancient Egyptian essence of Truth. It is in the spirit of Ma’at you can take the word Amen, and the whole of this book. Indeed, Amen explains how Amen became the Lord of Truth.
Mr Ginex deals masterfully with a great sweep of Egyptian history, closing the gap between our understanding and Egyptian understanding in most remarkable ways; for instance his explanation of ka or soul outstrips what many modern theologians can offer.
Not content with this Amen takes on the great sweeps of Catholicism and Islam in a spare and direct way which allows readers to encompass the whole. Yes, it all pivots around the figure of Moses, as Freud’s work did, but without disrespect to the master of psychoanalysis, Mr Ginex is simply so much deeper, broader, richer and better.
It is the last section of Amen which most moves me, particularly the Hymn of Jesus. The treatment of Jesus and St. John’s revelations is profoundly insightful, it may well change your mind if not your life. It is the plea for oneness in the last paragraph of the text which I would most like to echo. There is hope, with Egyptologists like John Anthony West, scientists, researchers and teachers like Gregg Braden and Graham Hancock and far too many others to mention, we are at last breaking away from the small and the fearful. Now there is Nick Ginex, AMEN!
Review by Mike Voyce, 2/23/2013
Comment by Burl Hall, June 21, 2014:
You may be interested in this interview my wife and I did with physicist Tom Campbell: click here
Campbell states that the foundations of the universe is consciousness. I think beyond the atom there is what physicist David Bohm refers to as the Unmanifest Implicate Order. In my upcoming book, “Sophia’s Web”, I go into the creation stories (including Genesis 1:2) and relate them to Bohm’s idea of the Unmanifest.
It is interesting that one mystic, can’t recall if he was Christian or Hindu, who said, “the universe is uncreated and with each moment is created anew.” At a very deep level, we are within an Unmanifest Order and with each second the Manifest comes into being. Thus, when the Bible has God saying “let there be light (your consciousness, perhaps?) the world comes into being. So, is the Unmanfiest akin to the Unconscious which then gives rise to Consciousness and this conversation?
Whose to say, perhaps. Its great fun. o’ Lao Tzu,of the Tao Te Ching says, “be newborn, be free of yourself.” This is the unconditioned state of the Unmanifest. So, is this a place of infinite potential? Can we evolve into something greater than what we are”.more empowered and not at the mercy of politicians, gurus, preachers and corporate thugs?
Just saying. when I get into a conversation like this I always hear Ramakrishna saying, “Go deeper.”
Nicholas reply Burl Hall, June 22, 2014:
Hello Mr. Hall, it’s a pleasure to read your thoughts and invite me to the works of Tom Campbell. I enjoy to dialogue with people who have the imagination and perceptiveness to lead their thoughts into the philosophical realm.
As an electrical engineer, I have been exposed to a wonderful education that allows me to try to connect the dots and make sense of it all through logic based upon not necessarily facts, but a consistent idea that appears palpable and has a ring a truth.
The article I prepared on consciousness consists of no in-depth research of physicists and scientists but my own thoughts to explain the beginning of the universe. It appears to me that this discussion lies in the philosophical realm. This does not belittle the efforts of the thought process because many great discoveries and inventions started with the process of hypothetical thought.
I have respect for all different cultures, such as the Hindus and Chinese, to connect with the essence of life that consists out of body. I have tried to put my mind in such a state but I realize that whatever I perceive, it is the consequence of the data my mind has absorbed since I was born. That is, we are all constrained to the inputs and experiences we encounter in life. However, it is through the thinking process that our minds are free to go beyond the reality we experience in our lives.
Such phrases as “let there be light (Genesis)” and “be newborn, be free of yourself” are two expressions that are very different in connotation. Let there be light is simply the acknowledgement of the sun as the source of all life but to “be free of yourself” is to allow yourself to extend your thoughts to the unknown by questioning your own existence.
Yes, to “Go deeper” is to have the curiosity and imagination to allow your questioning spirit to seek answers to the why am I here, what is my purpose in life, the gift of life has been given me and have I used it for mankind, are there other living entities in the universe, will we someday have the honor to meet with other intelligence, and can all life respect and learn from one another to determine how our universe began?
Thank you Burl and say hello to your wife for me.
E.J.N. reply to Burl Hall, June 21, 2014:
Thanks, Burl. That reminds me of what Einstein said: “Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
The Isha Upanishad says that the Supreme Brahman is infinite, and the infinite proceeds from the infinite. That is similar to what the Book of Tao says, that: “All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them.” And that it is very similar to what Jesus said according to the ignored Gospel of Mary Magdalene: “All natures, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone.”
As the end of an article on The Nature of God says, “Science has yet to put its finger on it, but we’re getting closer and closer. For example, the discovery of the Higgs Boson ‘God Particle’ is promising because the latest theory is that it’s an invisible particle without which humans and all the other combined sets of atoms in the Universe would not exist.”
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 22, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., thank you for an interesting reply, which provides food for thought. That was an interesting quote by Einstein about the mystery of the eternity of life and to endeavor to comprehend a portion of the marvelous structure of reality that manifests itself in nature.
Various religious men have recorded their thoughts and I liked what you mentioned in the Book of Tao that, “All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them.” This is very similar to the fact that the universe continually creates stars even as these stars eventually find themselves collapsing into a black hole or destroys themselves due to a Quasar or a pulsar. But even in their ending phases, they emit gases, matter, and energy back into the universe millions of miles, which cause the beginning of clouds and new star formations.
Therefore, the universe is self-sustaining and it is not credible to believe in one Big Bang that initiated the universe. The question arises, where did all the atoms come from to cause a big ball to have such a large quantity of matter to initiate the beginning of our universe? If the big ball occurred in our universe are there other big balls in other parts of the universe? Or, could it be the self-sustaining growth and collapse of stars in the many galaxies that keep regenerating the life cycle of stars?
For me, I do not believe in the Big Bang because I believe that a black hole has the enormous potential of eventually exploding its bounty of matter back out into the universe, which would be another phenomenon used to expel matter and energy into the universe and thereby create clouds that become the bed for the formation of stars.
The article on the Nature of God was interesting but the relationship of God and the Higgs Boson Theory, nicknamed the ‘God Particle,’ deserves more study. It is instructive to have some idea of particle physics as described by the standard model developed in the early 1970’s:
Our entire universe is made of 12 different matter particles and four forces [source: European Organization for Nuclear Research]. Among those 12 particles, you’ll encounter six quarks and six leptons. Quarks make up protons and neutrons, while members of the lepton family include the electron and the electron neutrino, its neutrally charged counterpart. Scientists think that leptons and quarks are indivisible; that you can’t break them apart into smaller particles. Along with all those particles, the standard model also acknowledges four forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak. The missing piece is the Higgs boson.
The boson is thought of being a corresponding carrier particle associated with the four fundamental forces, which acts upon matter. The theory is that there is a Higgs field that causes particles with no inherent mass to gain mass by passing through its field. Assuming the Higgs boson exists, everything that has mass gets it by interacting with the all-powerful Higgs field, which occupies the entire universe. Like the other fields covered by the standard model, the Higgs one would need a carrier particle to affect other particles, and that particle is known as the Higgs boson.
To learn more about the Higgs boson, readers may Click here:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/large-hadron-collider1.htm
E.J.N reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 22, 2014:
I was not responding to you. I was responding to Burl.
E.J.N reply to E. J. N., June 22, 2014:
At another point, after I wrote a specific critique of your article explaining why it is biased, unfair and even harmful in its false assumptions, you responded by writing an underhanded comment, saying: “I do not like liars and cheats, people who find it difficult to honest and truthful. … You, for some unknown reason, do not believe in the truth when it is revealed to you ...”
(That was rather amusing and ironic, because the truth is that it is you who cannot admit the truth when it is revealed to you.)
Then you even claimed again that I was “dishonest,” which merely revealed your tendency toward deception and your failure to understand and acknowledge what I had revealed to you from Quranic and Christian scriptures.
Next, you claimed that I made “unfounded assertions” because I wrote (referring to the great Israeli peace activists Uri Avnery): “Ginex wants people to believe that he agrees with and admires Avnery, when the fact is that Ginex’s motives are the opposite of Avnery’s — hence the title of Ginex’s article: ‘Islam Objective Is To Dominate the World .'”
My statement was the truth, since Avnery tries to make peace with Islam while you, Nicholas Ginex, on the other hand, are fostering hate for Islam. But, in spite of the truth, you claimed I made “unfounded assertions.” And later you accused me of “conjuring up excuses” and using “infantile tactics.”
I remind you of what you have written to show that you have demonstrated a pattern of condescending, insulting, goading, misleading tactics, and then tried to plead innocence, as if you had been unfairly and unjustly picked on. However, I should say that all your blatant condescension and insults are not even the most maddening thing about your debate tactics. Your worst tactic, by far, was misrepresenting what I and other critics had written. And your most dishonest tactic was continually claiming that your article and book are correct in spite of the facts I presented that prove they are not.
Perhaps you will now realize the consequences of goading people and accusing people of being dishonest, untruthful, gullible, arrogant, silly, hateful, liars and cheats who make unfounded assertions, just because they dare to try to correct you and teach you.
It is you, sir, who need to wake up.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 22, 2014:
Dear E.J.N., sorry to find that you are still very upset with some of my replies but our readers understand that you cannot take words out of the context they were made in. I deeply am apologetic for hurting your feelings for you have provided much thought for me to consider and learn from. Let us agree to disagree and stop with polluting this forum with your sensitivity. I will be more considerate of your feelings in the future.
E.J.N reply to E. J. N., June 22, 2014:
Furthermore, I am very surprised that Mr. Voyce would say of your book that: “The treatment of Jesus and St. John’s revelations is profoundly insightful …”
After, all, as I have already revealed on this thread, your interpretation of John’s Revelation is flawed, and your claim about “the Amen” being the Egyptian god reveals a profound lack of knowledge of the meaning of Judeo-Christian scriptures — on your part and on Mr. Voyce’s part.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 22, 2014:
Dear E.J.N., It appears that you have limited your understanding about the beginning of the creation of God to what you have learned from the Bible. In my research for the books Future of God Amen and AMEN, The Beginning of the Creation of God, I have studied the beliefs of one of the greatest civilizations that have been able to record their beliefs on their temple walls.
My message to people, who thirst for knowledge based upon facts and findings, rather than myths, is to reveal to them how mankind has conceived the beginning of the creation of God (revered within the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic faiths).
A creator God was conceived many thousands of years ago by the Egyptians. It was this civilization that first developed the beliefs in a soul, a Hereafter, a Son of God, and finally, after the worship of many gods, during the reign of Ramses II, the Priesthood of Amon documented Amon as the Sole God. To give people a clear overview of how mankind conceived one-universal God, I was honored by the Chute Institute to have them publish a paper titled, Provide History of Religion and God. It may be viewed by Click here. The following is an abstract to interest our readers.
http://cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/CIER/article/download/7729/7793
Abstract
There is a need for high school, college, and university educators to introduce their students to a history of mankind’s development of religions and beliefs in God. Regarded as too sensitive a subject, students are deprived of learning how mankind has evolved ways to establish moral and righteous behavior to maintain harmony among competing groups within a growing community. Based upon facts and findings surfaced by such respected Egyptologists as James H. Breasted and E.A. Wallis Budge, this author conclusively reveals how the first formal religion of Egypt has been emulated by the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions.
Historical findings provide meaningful evidence of the spiritual nature of man, the emergence of one God Amen, the development of the concepts of truth, a soul, hereafter, Son of God, and a universal God. These findings afford greater insights in the fields of theology, humanities, psychology, and sociology studies. More importantly, a greater understanding of the nature of man can energize religious leaders and the public to effect possible solutions with the assistance of those with perceptive minds and love of humanity.
E.J.N. reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 22, 2014:
The Clute Institute did not write that. You wrote that abstract for your article, and I am amazed the The Clute Institute published it for you.
In your book you refer to the Pharaoh Akhenaten, which you call Ikhnaton, as “a most educated, intelligent, and sensitive man who is the father of the one-god concept that was finally embraced by the Egyptian Priesthood of Amon [Amun],” which you call “God Amen.”
You claim that Akhenaten “is responsible for stopping the worship of many gods and brought mankind to conceive the vision of one God.” And you even claim that it was Akhenaten’s hymns that were “emulated by the Hebrew priests to give birth to the Torah and advanced the belief in one God.”
However, that is not true, and the following two books express more factual and learned information:
Akhenaten: Egypt’s False Prophet (2005), by Nicholas Reeves, a former curator of the British Museum’s Department of Egyptian Antiquities who reveals that Akhenaten was not an idealistic founder of a new faith. Rather, he cynically used religion for political ends in a calculated attempt to reassert the king’s authority and concentrate power in his own hands. Reeves points out Akhenaten’s ultimate failures, and reveals how Akhenaten used his “religious” revolution to enhance his political power at the expense of more traditional political structures of Ancient Egypt such as the Amun Priesthood.
Akhenaten: The Heretic King (1987), by Donald B. Redford, which portrays Akhenaten more as an atheist than a monotheist. It debunks all the myths about Akhenaten being an enlightened monarch. And the Religious Studies Review says Redford’s book is “history at its best.”
Your view of history and your view of Judeo-Scriptures is flawed. You erroneously claim that “Amen-Ra” (Amun-Ra or Amon) is “the Amen” mentioned in John’s book of Revelation and throughout the Hebrew Tanakh and in other texts in the Christian canon as well. Specifically, you claim that Revelation 3:14 speaks of “Amen-Ra,” but that is not true, as I have already pointed out in comments above that reveal what John’s book of Revelation actually says and means.
In other words, you are trying to sell books that are based on a false premise.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 24, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., sorry I have not responded sooner to your assertions that my books are based on a false premise. The Chute Institute is a highly respected organization that publishes articles/papers dealing with contemporary issues in all fields in such journals as the American Journal of Business Education, of Engineering Education, of Health Sciences, Contemporary Issues in Education Research, International Business & Ecomonics Research Journal, etc.
I purchased the two books: Akhenaten: Egypt’s False Prophet by Nicholas Reeves and Akhenaten: The Heretic King by Donald B. Redford. Reading the titles alone gives an impression that these authors were biased and ignored the most important advances made in theology by a pharaoh they maligned as a heretic. Readers may also read their books to learn for themselves how these authors present Akhenaten. One of the most perceptive and gifted pharaohs of the past, a true history of Akhenaten may be read by one of the most respected Egyptologists, James H. Breasted who wrote A History of Egypt.
E.J.N., you have insulted my intelligence and my character by writing I base my books on false premises. Let it be known, I dislike anybody accusing me of deceiving people with lies and myths. I do not like to be made a fool of and I will not try to make fools of other people. My heart and mind is set on searching for the truth and if I have offended your religious beliefs with objective reasoning, facts and findings, so be it.
Regarding your religious claims against my conclusions that Amon was the greatest Egyptian God and Egyptian beliefs have strongly influenced the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions, readers may read Breasted’s books and Click Here for The Chute Institute paper I wrote.
http://cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/CIER/article/download/7729/7793
Jon Fox reply to E. J. N., June 21, 2014:
E.J.N., you might find “Hitomi and the God Particle” of interest. Just google & snoop around.
E.J.N. reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 22, 2014:
If you really “have respect for all different cultures,” as you claim, then why did you write your Islam bashing article “Islam Objective Is To Dominate the World“?
I find your attempt to play all warm and fuzzy here and be Mr. sweetness and light rather hypocritical, considering your recent past writings here on OEN. (See my comments above about that.)
I should add that to “be free of yourself” is not to “allow yourself to extend your thoughts to the unknown by questioning your own existence.” It is rather to transcend ego, to go beyond questioning, beyond intellect, to gnosis or fully realizing the divine reality within.
It’s about spiritual rebirth, about leaving the “old self” or separate self ego fall behind as you transcend into the consciousness of the higher self, and super-consciousness. It’s about the union of the Atman with Brahman, to put it in Hindu terms, and about the spirit-soul ascending to meet with the “bride” that “comes down out of heaven,” to put it in Christian terms.
You have much to realize and much to learn, and to me it’s a shame that you think you already think you’ve got it all figured out and try to say so in the books your trying to sell. And it’s especially a shame because your books and your article on Islam are based on a false premise.
You no doubt wonder why I’m giving you a hard time, and I think it’s because your ego is in need of pruning, mainly to get rid of your tendency toward pretentiousness. Being two-faced will always come back to bite you in the ass.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 22, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., thank you for your advice. Your astute commentary is welcomed by our readers. I have already tried to apologize for hurting your feelings but it seems you have not taken seriously the last and greatest command given by a Man of God in the last Gospel of John. It is the Word of God – love one another. This Word of God, by the way, is missing in the Qur’an. I stand by my article, Islam Objective is to Dominate the World, which was written with actual suras taken from the Qur’an. Readers may visit this article to review your comments and mine by Click Here. The article does not incite hate for Muslims, but informs people why Muslims are misled with the dogma the Qur’an provides.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Islam-Objective-is-to-Domi-by-Nicholas-Ginex-Allah_Bigotry_Community_Evidence-140514-663.html
You have made your points known that I am only interested in deceiving people rather than providing them with knowledge of the truth. Let’s stick to the topic of this article and stop polluting this forum for our readers.
Comment by Bill Johnson, June 22, 2014:
As a Deist, this was a fantastic read! Thanks!
Now let me weigh in with a simplified view of it…
We all know in various religions we read things like “thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Or, “as above, so it is below.”
One of the most important teachings of the ancient mysteries that fabricated religions have destroyed is the explanation of these simple sayings.
The first thing we humans have to realize is that in all of Creation, every single detail of Creation, is nothing more than intelligently organized energy. It is all pure energy. A steel rod, a rock, or any object a human may think is solid is actually only organized pure energy. It is pure energy taking shape. (Manifest)
And it is abundantly clear that whatever it is that organizes such energies into shapes and objects must have life and intelligence.
Therefore Creation is the thought Will of our Creator. Creation is manifest, and Creator is Unmanifest.
As God thinks so shall the energies of Creation manifest into that which our intelligent Creator thinks it to be.
So yes, in every atom, is an energy of life thought-willed into Creation. So life as we know it must also be redefined outside the box many humans trap their own thinking within.
What is, is best. What is, is right. What is, is the manifest thought will of God. The good and the bad. To me there is no such thing as Satan, or sins against God. No freewill in humans because there is not one thought or one move I can do on my own outside of that which has already been thought willed into Existence. I am as God thinks me to be. Creation is how God wants it to be. Creation is God’s entertainment for eternity!
Nicholas reply to Bill Johnson, June 22, 2014:
Hello Bill, it’s nice to have you join our discussion. I like your simplified view that all matter is pure energy, be it a rock, a steel rod, or any living object. However, we must not be too simplistic. All matter, both inorganic and organic, has an internal energy that has some level of consciousness. We know that a rock cannot think in spite of its properties that were created with a certain mix of atoms. It is when matter progresses to the organic state that there exists many different levels of consciousness, or attains the ability to think. The level of intelligence depends on how the atoms have organized matter to produce certain life forms that not only react to the environment but think how to survive and improve their existence, namely human beings.
To attribute the development of inorganic and organic matter to the thought will of a creator God is an assumption. Nobody knows God for this entity is a construct of the human mind to explain creation. With all the scriptures written, it may be stated that God in unknowable, incomprehensible and mysterious. Science has just landed on the tip of the iceberg at the answer to how the universe began by identifying a force that we may define as a consciousness. A consciousness that pervades the universe and somehow provides an intelligence to create matter that can sustain life. To say, “As God thinks so shall the energies of Creation manifest into that which our intelligent Creator thinks it to be.” is attributing the process, begun with the smallest of particles, to a God that may not existed. This raises other questions: Was God created by the very particles that came into being or did God create the particles in the first place? It would appear that God cannot exist first because nobody will ever be able to explain how God appears out of nothing.
However, I agree with you that inherent in the atom is an energy or consciousness that somehow strives to develop into greater forms of matter to attain the height of its perfection – creation of life forms that can reach out and comprehend its own consciousness.
One of your conclusions I cannot agree with. You stated, “No freewill in humans because there is not one thought or one move I can do on my own outside of that which has already been thought willed into Existence. I am as God thinks me to be. Creation is how God wants it to be.”
Thoughts are created by humans and they are not preordained thoughts by God. You are not as God thinks you to be. If you want to believe God wills your thoughts that is fine. However, a practical man, I have witnessed people turning into vicious animals due to the way they were brought up and indoctrinated by others, not God. Or do you hold God responsible for the state of a vicious animal? What is, is best, is not true. Mankind has the responsibility for their own actions, with or without the knowledge or indoctrination in the belief in God.
J. Edward Tremlett comment, June 22, 2014;
And here you are, proving what I said about your book being “new age,” absolutely correct 🙂
1975 called. They want their pyramid power back.
Nicholas reply to Edward Tremlett, June 22, 2014:
Hello Edward, it’s nice to have you on board. I don’t know what you mean about “new age.” If it is a compliment then thank you. My books do not deal with a new age or new age thinking but provides a look at the past to determine how mankind has developed the concepts of a soul, Hereafter, Son of God, and one universal God. Yes, I do not stop with the facts and findings that are all verifiable by Egyptologists and the scriptures I quote with accuracy, but I also look to the future and recommend to people around the world that the scriptures of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic faiths are in dire need of improvement. The religious leaders of these faiths must learn to sit down and break bread to agree on unifying their beliefs in one God and more importantly, teach the Word of God – love one another. Is this New Age thinking or a practical course of action by religious leaders who need direction by people who are perceptive and possess a love of humanity?
Kevin Tully comment, June 22, 2014:
I don’t know but I do know from forty years of personal empirical experience working with plants that they have some inexplicable form of consciousness — they respond to care. What if Jesus was right, what if love is what rules the universe and the opposite destroys. Did Einstein and Oppenheimer recognize the violence of atom on atom in nuclear fission as the opposite? Is anything that destroys or brings in to conflict at the nuclear level the opposite. Are we incapable of understanding this because we have fixated on the combinations and not the essences?
Nicholas reply Kevin Tully, June 22, 2014:
Hello Kevin, you are absolutely correct that plants have a form of consciousness. In fact some plants are able to react to their environment such as insect-eating plants. This means they are able to sense, capture food, and assimilate it.
Jesus was right in providing the last and greatest command in the last Gospel of John. He was so emphatic that he announced that COMMAND three times – love one another. To me, this command is the Word of God and replaces all previous commands in the Bible. But few religious leaders emphasize this command because they are part of the establishment of power that is associated with the leaders of a country. To really emphasize such a command would be suicide in today’s world because if one nation continues to slaughter God-loving nations, then life on earth will be destroyed.
Regarding the atom, its only purpose is to create matter that someday will utilize its inherent consciousness. I am not a scientist but one who loves to think and hypothesize about how our universe came into existence. With my limited knowledge, I can only feel there is a consciousness that pervades the universe and somehow, is able to bring itself into being. That being, is the crown glory of being able to create thinking organisms that can reach out and hope to understand its own essence of consciousness.
E.J.N reply to J. Edward Tremlett, June 22, 2014:
Ed, in my view the problem with Ginex’s books is not that they are “new age.” They are really not about the end of this age or a new age. They are about trying to convince Jews, Christians and Muslims that God is really the Egyptian god “Amen” (meaning Amun-Ra or Amon-Ra).
Regarding the “new age” movement begun in the 1960s, granted it got really commercialized and distorted by commercial interests by the 1970s, and a lot of wackos put forth a lot of stupid ideas. However, originally it was based on very sound knowledge of the prophecies of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions about the end of this age and the beginning of a new age (or aeon or olam or yuga or dispensation or whatever else people call it).
Ginex’s mistake is in claiming that the Bible’s use of the word “Amen” refers to what he calls “God Amen” (or Amun or Amon), and in previous comments on this thread I have shown why that is a false premise.
Actually, you got Ginex’s number when on the other thread about Islam you said to him: “You are a classic example of how loudly people exhort a thing — love one another, in your case — and how little they actually do it. There’s no love, here, sir, unless it’s of filthy lucre and self-promotion.”
That was very appropriate, and right on.
Burl Hall reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 22, 2014:
Thank you Nicholas, and if my dementia allows me, I will try to say hi to Merry for you.
For conversation sake, just putting this out there for exploration. There is another connotation to the “Let there be light” line in Genesis. Very important connotation. Light in this case is awareness or consciousness. In the dark depths of the Unmanifest (Genesis 1:2) there is no awareness”… this is an infinite void in which there are no distinctions. For awareness to occur, or consciousness, if you will, there has to be something to be aware of”… therefore, the separate forms of matter take form upon the arising of consciousness.
Interestingly, Campbell states that Consciousness is mortal and does die”… does this discount resurrection? Who is to say? Perhaps if the story of Jesus Christ is cosmic, then yes, resurrection occurs. But I also wonder if this isn’t simply a part of evolution. To evolve we must die to what we are, and what we think we are.
There is that “Word made flesh” thing again! Our thoughts matter? Of course its not just the surface layer thoughts, but the deeper ones we are not even aware of.
At any rate, Genesis 1:2 could be the “Unconsciousness” of Nature”.God”.Self”.Brahmin”.Yahweh, etc et al. and the Light as being the I AM of Nature ” … perhaps, even both manifest and unmanifest?
Genesis 1:2 reflects upon physicist David Bohm’s notion of the Unmanifest IMpolicate Order. The term implicate speaks to implied. It is the place where all is in potential. This “place” or “non-place” is the foundation of this moment, the Eternal Now, which contains my writing and your reading. When Genesis says, LIGHT, it is saying “Be Aware!” You do this every morning that you get up, as well as when you dream. You are doing it now. The pupils of your eyes are totally black and they take in the light and an image is conceived within the Soul. Where is this writing being conceived if not within you?
In other words, what I’m proposing is that we look at a non-time account of creation. What if Genesis 1:2 were an infinite state of potential”… where all possibilities lie?
So, what kind of world do we want? If our thoughts, our words matter; then what can we create? Why else would Jesus Christ hump so hard on his message regarding the importance of belief? “O’ Ye of little faith,” he cries!
What do we believe in our cultural conditioning and what has it gotten us is another side to this question. Do we continue believing what we believe? Is the pollution, unrest, and abuse of planet and people a reflection of our belief system? I think so.
Great conversation, thanks.
You may enjoy this little flick regarding the Genesis pattern:
Nicholas reply Burl Hall, June 22, 2014:
Hello Burl, I was impressed and delighted with your comments. Especially the video titled, Spirit Science 6 – Flower of Life. I enjoyed the view so much I had to listen to it twice. It provided a nice overview of history that went back to the ancient Egyptians; my favorite civilization that first introduced mankind to the belief in one creator god. I invite our readers to click on the video you provided in your comments to me.
In your first paragraph, you commented on the phrase from Genesis, “Let there be light” and you made an astute observation, “For awareness to occur, or consciousness, if you will, there has to be something to be aware of”… therefore, the separate forms of matter take form upon the arising of consciousness.”
The one thing I need to clarify, to keep ideas simple and easy to follow, is that “separate forms of matter form upon the rising of consciousness (awareness or the light that lets us see the universe) is not necessarily so. That is, the separate forms of matter exist with or without light and the consciousness we speak of is the observer or us human beings. There is a distinction: I hypothesize that consciousness exists in the universe and is inherent in the particles and energy forces that form matter. The consciousness we have as organic matter, or human beings, is a capability that allows a thinking process to observe, interpret, and expand our own imagination to develop theories and if successful, inventions.
You indicated that Campbell stated, “Consciousness is mortal and does die.” I disagree because consciousness occurs in two different aspects: one the consciousness that pervades the universe and the consciousness organic life attains to be able to respond to its environment and once reaching a high state of development, like human beings, is able to think, question, and solve problems.
Assuming Mr. Campbell is referring to the universal consciousness and human consciousness is interconnected, and I believe it is, he has justification to presume consciousness is mortal. But I disagree that to assign consciousness as having mortality like humans is unfair because it exists in all forms of matter to some degree. Consciousness does die, just as stars die, so do humans die and with that death there is no more consciousness but a transformation of matter to form new life and give birth to a new consciousness. The mind is a machine and with the life blood of the body is able to think. This consciousness dies when the body and mind no longer functions.
However, mankind has sought to live on even after death and the Egyptians formed the concept of the soul; a belief that extends the consciousness of thought into another realm we refer to as the Hereafter. But this is a theory willed by the mind and the inherent desire to live eternally. This is a theory that is false because just as stars die, humans die. The only thing that is true is that upon death the matter decomposes and becomes part of the universe once again to eventually be transformed to give birth to new life just as stars are reborn in the clouds of expelled matter from the dying stars.
As of now, my reply is quite long and its best I stop here to let my thoughts be digested. You have energized me to think and expand on some of your thoughts and I thank you for that. We all learn from one another and only by having a decent conversation where we can exchange ideas and eventually arrive at theories that may be palpable. Thank you again Burl.
E.J.N. comment, June 23, 2014:
The idea that consciousness pervades the universe is not new. It is ancient. I can recall I first heard it back in the 1960s when Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said: “All life emerges from, and is sustained in, consciousness. The whole universe is the expression of consciousness. The reality of the universe is one unbounded ocean of consciousness in motion.”
The Maharishi no doubt said that because he realized the divine reality within. But he was also aware that the Isha Upanishad says that the Supreme Brahman is infinite, and the infinite proceeds from the infinite.
That is similar to what the Book of Tao says, that: “All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them.”
That it is very similar to what Jesus said according to the ignored Gospel of Mary Magdalene: “All natures, all formed things, all creatures exist in and with one another and will again be resolved into their own roots, because the nature of matter is dissolved into the roots of its nature alone.”
These are facts that are included in an article now titled The Nature of God that was originally written by Joseph J. Adamson in the 1980s and finally published in early 2002. He says that at best all human beings have been able to do is provide concepts of God, because God is, after all, eternal, infinite and omnipresent, and God is impossible to fathom or understand, let alone describe.
He reminds us of what Meher Baba stated in the 1960s: “There is no creature which is not destined for the supreme goal, as there is no river which is not winding its way toward the sea. But only in the human form can consciousness be so developed that it is capable of expressing the True Self, which is the Self of All.” He says that “perhaps the best we can do is say that God is the Great Spirit-Parent, the Divine Light-Energy-Sources of our existence, the Supreme Universal Cosmic Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or “Word” the was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us.”
(Continued ….)
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 23, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., thank you for an informative and educational reply about consciousness pervades the universe. I was impressed with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, born in 1918 with the name Mahesh Prasad Varma. He taught that
“All life emerges from, and is sustained in, consciousness. The whole universe is the expression of consciousness. The reality of the universe is one unbounded ocean of consciousness in motion.”
This idea that consciousness is the essence of our universe is marvelous and science is trying to determine how does consciousness itself evolve with the particles and energy forces that it originates from. To say consciousness evolved from nothing or comes before the beginning of the energy forces and particles that produces consciousness is a question to ponder. How then did consciousness become an inherent aspect in matter to eventually evolve the atom and all the stars and galaxies that comprise the universe with inorganic and organic matter?
This is where the entity God becomes in whereby theorists claim is responsible for the consciousness that exists throughout the universe. But again, the question arises, where did God come from or is God the consciousness that pervades the universe because God could not exist without the energy and particles that are embodied with consciousness – a consciousness that seeks to evolve into greater and more complex forms of matter?
To state that Mararishi realized the divine reality within is to associate the divine, or God, with consciousness may be valid because the atom does transform itself and other atoms into many different combinations to create the many forms of inorganic and organic matter. The Book of Tao says, “All things derive their life from it [Tao], All things return to it, and it contains them.” This is true but all things upon returning to a decompose state will be reborn only after billions of years when the star that gave it life destroys itself and the matter expelled creates another cycle of matter evolving from the next star born out of the gases and matter, which were expelled into the universe.
Therefore the nature of all matter is dissolved back into the roots of its nature or beginnings of consciousness that starts a rebirth of matter. This occurs billions of years later and develops other forms of matter and life that may be completely different depending upon the proximity of a planet to its star. To associate this phenomenon to The Nature of God, as written by Joseph J. Adamson and published in 2002, is incomprehensible because nobody knows if there is a God. To say God is eternal, omnipresent, and infinite is in agreement with the theory that consciousness pervades the universe and this consciousness may be defined as God for it does evolve many different forms of matter. Is this the nature of God to create matter and life forms that possess a consciousness that reaches back out to its creator?
By associating God with the consciousness that pervades the universe great minds, such as Meher Baba, states that, “only in the human form can consciousness be so developed that it is capable of expressing the True Self, which is the Self of All.” But this is a limited view of consciousness as we have learned that it exists at different levels in matter. To express the True Self, the Self of All, is nice but what does Mr. Baba mean? What is the true self that is also the self of all? Does he mean we are all interconnected with the same consciousness? Yes, the ability to think is within all human beings but how we think and what we think are dictated by our life inputs from parents, teachers, and events we encounter.
We can agree that God is the Great Spirit, the essence of all life and form, but to be arrogant that the “Word” was in the beginning and is made flesh in all of us is simply a religious point of view because it negates all of the wonderful and beautiful life forms that were created through billions of years with the inherent forces of the atom and its subparticles.
Thank you E.J.N. for your contributions to this forum. Your comments were informative and interesting for further thought.
E.J.N. comment, June 23, 2014:
Of course, today many people speak of God as “The Universe,” which is true in a very significant way. God is in everything. It is the pure essence of every thing — from the smallest nano-particle to the atom to the galaxy to the universe itself — and it is Pure Consciousness in vibratory motion.
However, it is no wonder that there are raging conflicts about the name and nature of God, about “God’s will,” about religion and religious prophecies, and about whether God even exists or not. Most people do not really understand the real nature of God, or the true purpose of religion.
The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are ironically the most divided and in conflict over what God is, and what “God’s will” is, and that’s a shame. But we should understand that the divisions and conflicts stem from gross misunderstanding of the real nature of God. And, as Jesus of Nazareth predicted, many hypocrites now claim to do “many wonderful works in the name of the Lord,” when in fact they “work iniquity.”
That was an accurate prediction, because Jesus, like Isaiah before him, realized that people would be as the blind led by the blind who claim to know God but don’t, not realizing that human beings can only realize God from within.
It is a matter of coming into union with God within through divine revelation. Hindu texts say it happens when the “Atman” (the human spirit-soul) realizes its oneness with “Brahman” (the Creator or Causal Source). And Christian texts speak of union or oneness with “Our Father in heaven” and the “Spirit of truth, which is within.”
When one realizes that, one can understand the message of Jesus, who said “God is greater than I” (John 14:28) and “You have not heard God’s voice or seen God’s shape at any time.” (John 5:37) And even though Jesus realized his oneness with God, he knew and said he was not God, but God’s servant, and he said we all can realize the Spirit of truth is within.
The problem today is that too many people belongs to blind flocks who are divided and led astray by spiritual blind false shepherds and false prophets, as Jesus predicted.
Jesus also predicted that things would change at the end of the age (aeon) that he ushered in, when a messenger for the Spirit of truth would issue judgment, guide humanity to the truth, show the things to come, and glorify God and the Christ which is in heaven with God.
That prophecy, like the prophecies of Isaiah and other prophets of the world who prophesied the same thing in different ways, has been fulfilled.
(The above was gleaned from the article cited, and from the basic message of which it is a part.)
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 23, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., you have provided a very interesting statement, which deserves to be presented below:
“Of course, today many people speak of God as “The Universe,” which is true in a very significant way. God is in everything. It is the pure essence of everything — from the smallest nano-particle to the atom to the galaxy to the universe itself — and it is Pure Consciousness in vibratory motion.”
This is another definition of God, which associates God with the consciousness that pervades the universe. It has a lot of merit, but will Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religious leaders agree? I believe that the India and Hindu teachers and gurus will agree after reading some of your reply above. This could be considered “new age” thinking because people are beginning to “see” God in a more universal way.
I agree with you that “The Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are ironically the most divided and in conflict over what God is, and what “God’s will” is, and that’s a shame. But we should understand that the divisions and conflicts stem from gross misunderstanding of the real nature of God.” This is why I have recommended in my books (and I won’t name them here so I don’t offend you) that the religious leaders of these three religions must unify their belief in God and teach the Word of God – love one another.
You quoted Jesus stating a significant point, “we all can realize the Spirit of truth is within.” However, I believe the greatest COMMAND was given by Jesus in the last Gospel of John. He was so emphatic, he announced it three times – love one another. This is not only a truth but a command that is part of the consciousness within the atom that seeks to create matter and living life forms. The quality of love is inherent within the evolutionary process and is why it has instilled in all living life forms the will to reproduce.
E.J.N. you provided a prophecy that predicts of the end of age whereby “a messenger for the Spirit of Truth would issue judgment, guide humanity to the truth, show the things to come, and glorify God and the Christ which is in heaven with God.” This is written in the Bible and it is unfortunate because this prediction causes people to look to a hope rather than solving the problems that exist around the world today. There are many abominations in the Judaic, Christian and Islamic scriptures that need to be eliminated and replaced with the Word of God.
All people should not be looking for a savior to solve the ills of this world. The Spirit of Truth that lies within us should guide our consciousness to love one another if we truly desire to be part of the essence of our universe. I say to all followers of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic faiths to force your religious leaders to follow the Word of God. A good start is to have them revise their beliefs so that they all agree on the worship of one-universal God. This means the scriptures must be revised and improved upon by people who have perceptiveness and a love for humanity.
The youth of every country must put religious leaders into locked cages who insist on following archaic dogma. Right now we are witnessing Muslim extremists taking innocent lives because they do not believe in their God. But as shown in a previous OpEdNews article, Islam Objective is to Dominate the World; it is their scripture, The Qur’an that needs to be revised. Just as the Qur’an is in dire need of revision, so does Judaic and Christian scriptures.
Sorry that I had to respond with more of a religious warning then a philosophical thought. But it is true that God is associated with the consciousness that pervades the universe and we must be responsible for our own actions. Let us use our consciousness to benefit humanity by loving one another and hold our religious leaders accountable for the horrors committed by human animals.
Daniel Penisten comment, June 23, 2014:
Thought and Emotion escaped itself to become More and Better in the unknown of Nothingness.
Thought and Emotion’s Adventure Capsule was Potential.
Potential kept Thought and Emotion Mindful of What Could Be.
Potential enabled Thought and Emotion to Move.
This Beginning Three entered Nothingness.
To build Somethingness. To become, Forever, More.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 23, 2014:
Hello Daniel, thank you for providing a bit of poetry for our readers. Both thought and emotions are two wonderful ingredients of the human being. Thoughts and emotions take on multiple reactions, such as peacefulness, laughter, sadness, and pride of accomplishment. It is all due to our gift of consciousness. Sadly, a stone cannot enjoy the emotions of organic life forms so we should celebrate this gift of life and be the best we can be.
E.J.N. reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 23, 2014:
You submitted that “nobody knows if there is a God,” but in making that claim you reveal that you have not witnessed God. Therefore your knowledge of God is intellectual, gleaned from texts written by human beings. And as I’ve told you, your interpretation is faulty.
What you are unaware of is that the author of the article The Nature of God is a direct witness of God, a true servant of God and sent by God. And God is very real. Any genuine witness of God can tell you that.
You wrote that the great sage Meher Baba had a “limited view of consciousness,” but that only proves that you know nothing about him.
What you do not yet understand is that the “True Self” mentioned by Meher Baba is the higher self of human beings — not the separate-self ego, not the subconscious self, but the highest Self — what has been called the super-consciousness but has not yet been discovered by science.
It is the state of consciousness that is realized when the seventh chakra at the top of the head is opened, when the “seventh seal of revelation” is opened, when one is “carried away in spirit to the high and holy place where God inhabits eternity” — as Isaiah realized, and as John realized when he was on the isle of Patmos.
I know this not merely because the good Baba used the term “True Self.” I know this because I know that The True Self is synonymous with the Spirit of truth, which Jesus said is within us (John 14:16-20). The Spirit of truth is the True Self, waiting for you to realize through divine revelation from within.
When you do realize it, you may be fortuitous enough to be blessed with the gift that comes when you least expect it — because God’s greatest gift does not come with self-effort. It cannot be attained by any amount of intellectual study or discipline or prayer or meditation. It is a gift that is given only when you put your ego-self aside, if only for an eternal moment, and allow your consciousness to transcend.
But I’ll tell you this: It ain’t gonna happen as long as you are so invested in your egocentric idea that you have discovered God when you haven’t — yet. And it’s certainly not going to happen as long as you feel and come across as so superior.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 23, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., there you go again trying to discredit me by saying I am egocentric and that I come across as so superior. I have provided you a reply that was not tainted with any animosity towards you and yet you persist in attacking me with slurs and demeaning phrases like put your ego-self aside. I will not engage in this kind of dialogue with you because it would bring my standards down to your level.
But getting back to your response, you do have some thoughts that are worthwhile discussing. Regarding my statement, “nobody knows if there is a God” is an incorrect statement. I should have written, “Nobody knows God.” God is incomprehensible, mysterious, and unknowable. The God our prophets have revered are constructs of the mind that have developed over thousands of centuries.
Not too long ago, our perception of God has been expanded to associate God with consciousness that pervades the universe. This concept is a theory and a good one because we are beginning to understand the energy forces and particles that have formed into atoms, the basic building block of all matter. But what causes the different combinations of atoms to form different kinds of inorganic and organic matter is an underlying consciousness that is dependent of many external factors, such as the distance of a planet from its star.
The “True Self” mentioned by Meher Baba has some merit, but upon achieving the true self do you really believe one is “”carried away in spirit to the high and holy place where God inhabits eternity.“? This is a belief and is not a valid fact because all matter eventually decomposes and after billions of years is transformed into new matter under a new star and will be very different from what it formally was. Consciousness has a way of creating matter, which does die after many billions of years to be reborn in another cycle of creation. This is the God that exists in reality.
However, do not despair about the belief in God for it is a strong and wonderful belief that helps all people to understand that God’s purpose is to create matter that can learn to love; it is the inherent desire for procreation of each life form.
E.J.N., you are a very holy man and I respect that for I also believe in God. The difference is that my God is the God of all creation and I do not favor one religion over another; they all serve the purpose to teach mankind to live in harmony.
Burl Hall reply to Bill Johnson, June 24, 2014:
Great response Bill. As I read I thought about how many people speak the Word as being more verb than noun. Perhaps the Word its more than creator and creation, but as Creativity. This also speaks to the Way of Tao. And, Jesus Christ is referred to as the Way, though many thinks this means He is to be followed.
But, if He is the Way, believe or disbelieve, are we still following the Way? Its sort of like the dark and light sides of the Tao. Opposites are in unison.
A lot of writings are coming out about how ancients (we’re talking prior to civilization) had more Verb based languages. These folks further speak to the need to get back to a verb based language and argue that the noun based language we have is alienating. I’m reading Charles Eisenstein’s “The Ascent of Humanity: The Age of Separation, the Age of Reunion, and the Convergence of Crises that is Birthing the Transition.
I do think if you haven’t read this book, you may enjoy it.
E.J.N. reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 24, 2014:
At least you admitted that your previous statement that “Nobody knows if there is a God” is incorrect.
But then you play innocent again and try to play superior again! You apparently have a psychopathic tendency of being without conscience, showing no remorse for the error of your article, Islam Objective Is To Dominate the World nor for the errors and offenses in your comments in the comment thread there (which I discussed in my fourth comment on this thread). You are either unwilling or unable to understand why I hold you in contempt and have no respect for you. Even so, I am still trying to teach you what you need to know because I think you have potential. And I hope you will realize that your main problem here is that you are speaking of God but you don’t know what God is.
Instead, you believe and state that the God our prophets revered are “constructs of the mind.”
That again reveals that you have not witnessed God. God is not a “construct” of the mind. Many blessed people have witnessed the reality of God within, and having witnessed what God is, they know without any doubt whatsoever that God exists. Believe me, when you experience and feel the overwhelming ecstasy and pure love of God, see the Divine Light that is brighter than the sun, and sense the incredible “all knowingness” of God, you know that God is very, very real. And you know that God is within, above and around you all the time.
You apparently think that Isaiah and John were lying when they said they had been “carried away in spirit to the high and holy place where God inhabits eternity.”
Because you have not been blessed with that experience you claim it can’t happen. But that is like a blind man saying that the sun does not exist because he has never seen it.
Just because you have never had the experience does not mean that others have not. I happen to know it is real, and I know what Isaiah and John were talking about. I recommend a very good book to you, The Highest State of Consciousness, edited by John White. It’s an anthology including the writings of a diverse group of famous scientists, philosophers and spiritual teachers who write of the highest mystical experiences from scientific, philosophical and religious points of view. And if you don’t want to read that, read an article also titled The Highest State of Consciousness that I highly recommend.
But getting back to God, the problem that even a witness of God has is in trying to describe God. After all, Moses said God was a “voice” coming out of a “burning bush,” which was a symbolic story. But at least Moses was quite aware that God exists, as all witnesses of God are. And people should notice that Moses wrote that “God is not a man nor a son of man.” (Numbers 23:19)
(Continued ….)
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 24, 2014:
Hello E.J.N, I see you are a child of God who harbors resentment rather than follow God’s greatest and last command – love one another. I continue to respond to your contempt and low respect for me because I do not hang on to hate, which is a poison that affects the thinking and pure of mind. Again, I will not address your defamatory remarks towards me for it serves no purpose.
Thank you for directing our readers to the article, Islam Objective is to Dominate the World.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Islam-Objective-is-to-Domi-by-Nicholas-Ginex-Allah_Bigotry_Community_Evidence-140514-663.html
It was written to inform and educate people around the world about a religion that has gone astray from the commands of God. Only this morning my next door neighbor informed me that a Muslim father, their family and friends stoned a daughter for an illicit sexual relationship. This is due to the dogma in the Qur’an, which precipitated the development of Sharia law that implements the Qur’an.
We both encourage our readers to read the article and to add their comments as to whether or not they agree or disagree with my conclusions. Some are listed below:
– Allah is represented by a party of men referred to in plural terms as “we, our and us.”
– The Qur’an sanctions bigotry, hate, violence and the murder of nonbelievers of Allah.
– A party of men enforces the Qur’an punishments, warnings and the killing of innocent people.
– Scriptures of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions are in dire need of revision.
– Religious leaders of the major religions must unify their beliefs and teach God’s greatest command – love one another.
E.J.N., you wrote that I don’t know what God is. That is true because I am an honest and truthful man. God is many things to many people and nobody has the same conception or vision of God. He is unknowable, mysterious and incomprehensible. I believe you when you indicated that many blessed people have witnessed the reality of God within and have no doubt that God exists. This is a good thing for them, but there are also many other people that have a different perception of God and does not fit into the religion you have been schooled in.
E.J.N., I respect your belief in God and would not care to change your belief. We are all indoctrinated to believe in different kinds of gods and it is not prudent to judge which god is the true god. You and I have been exposed to the Bible and Muslims to the Qur’an. All scriptures have been written to direct mankind in achieving harmony and peace. But religious leaders, like the Islamists, have taken their religion to subdue the people who follow another religion – even though they all pray to the same God. Isn’t this insanity at its best!!
E.J.N. reply to E.J.N., June 24, 2014:
However, it seems that each person witnesses God in a way that is most appropriate for them, given their frame of reference.
That is why Jesus of Nazareth didn’t even try to explain what God is, except to say that God is “Our Father In Heaven.” He wasn’t talking about a “construct” of God. He knew God is very real. He was merely using a term that people could relate to, which at that time was perhaps the best way to depict the Holy One who is eternal, infinite, and omnipresent. Now the modern son of man gives us a modern depiction, calling God the Great Spirit-Parent, without gender but nevertheless our spiritual parent — the Divine Light Energy-Source of our existence, the Supreme Universal Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or “Word” that is made flesh in all of us. That is why when you say you “believe in God,” I tell you that witnessing God enables you to go beyond belief to profound faith based on the knowledge of what God is — knowing why Isaiah wrote that even when you are on the verge of succumbing to death you can rest assured that God is your strength, your salvation, and your redemption. Now, I must mention your apparent confusion in your statement that: “The difference is that my God is the God of all creation and I do not favor one religion over another ..”
You are apparently unaware that there is only one God, the Holy One, which brought all the major religions into existence. There are core universal truths in the texts of all those religions (and the article on The Nature of God covers that, as do other related articles on that site). God is the God of all creation, called by many names by different religions, initiated by God for all the different people all over the world. Some, like Buddhism, do not recognize the Deity, per se, but they are based on the knowledge that there is a higher divine consciousness that pervades the universe, and that human beings can realize it internally.
That, in fact, is why the teaching of Jesus and Gautama the Buddha are so similar. (Read Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, by Marcus Borg et al, or Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers, by Thich Nhat Hanh, or one of the many other books on the subject.)
You are on the right track by saying that the purpose of religions are to teach mankind to live in harmony. But I would add that it is also to produce, peace, freedom and justice as well, because without those there can be no harmony.
I seriously doubt you will take any of this to heart, however. I think you will remain contentious and cling to your assumptions, as you did on the other thread. So I doubt there is any use in continuing this discussion.
I’ve given you enough to think about, and it’s up to you to reject it or consider it and reconsider your position. It’s your choice. But don’t just keep playing games and being pretentious by playing “holier than thou.” Anyone with any wisdom can see right through that, and it’s not becoming even though for some reason you think it is.
Nicholas reply to E.J.N., June 24, 2014:
Hello E.J.N., I am responding to your last comment, which referred to Moses in the last paragraph and continued in your reply to yourself on June 24, 2014.
You indicated that Moses wrote, “God is not a man, (that he should lie), neither the son of man, (that he should repent). (23:23)” But this was Ba’laam speaking to Balak saying what the Lord has said, not Moses. Note, your reference to Numbers 23:19 was in error according to my King James Version of the Bible and I included in parenthesis what you left out. Forgive me for details, but I felt you would appreciate the correction.
Yes, Jesus had every right to refer to his Father in Heaven. You are right that today our modern depiction of God is that He is, “the Supreme Universal Consciousness, the Essence of all life and form, and the primordial vibration or “Word” that is made flesh in all of us.” This is an extension of the belief in God as given in the Bible. But what is being missed in this statement is the fact that the consciousness of God exists in all matter, both inorganic and organic. It is somewhat arrogant to believe god has only created the “Word” to create human beings in the “flesh.” God, if we desire to comprehend Him for the “modern world,” exists in all life forms that exist throughout the universe; not only made flesh for us human beings.
For me, I have been fortunate to have lived a wholesome life. Of course it was not without disappointments and sadness, but I have a good marriage, four beautiful and personal daughters, and the gift of voice and music that I have shared by entertaining folks in nursing and retirement homes.
So, for me, I do not care about living eternally in Heaven. In Heaven there are no longer any challenges to use one’s gifts and talents, for all is taken care of. I could not bare floating on a cloud for millions of years doing nothing. My life was always helping others so that I am not in need of salvation and redemption.
The “Nature of God” is not clearly understood when you write “God, the Holy One, brought all the major religions into existence.” This is a false statement because the three major religions, Judaic, Christian, and Islam, has all caused many, many holy deaths. It seems God did a very poor job. You need to be realistic that today one of the greatest threats to countries around the world is the expansion of Islam as taught by the Qur’an and implemented with Sharia law.
True, Buddhism and Hinduism are ahead in their theology by recognizing that there is a divine consciousness that pervades the universe. The teachings of all prophets, including Jesus and Buddha, are to establish harmony within a society, which as you emphasized means to produce compassion, peace, freedom and justice.
Let us agree on the many points we do agree on. I accept the beliefs of all God loving people for this is their makeup and helps to form their actions. My God is the God of all people, the creator of all there is. You have said that God is responsible for bringing all the major religions into existence. But do you include the religion of the Egyptians who worshipped a God for over two thousand years before the birth of Jesus? His name was Amon or Amen. His name is spoken today in temples and churches and hardly in mosques, which may cause the death of the speaker.
Are you honest enough to admit God introduced Himself to the Egyptians for they developed the belief in a soul, a Hereafter, a Son of God, and one-universal God? That is why I wrote Future of God Amen and AMEN, The Beginning of the Creation of God. But also, to reveal that God is not being taught properly by Muslim religious leaders I also wrote, Allah, We, Our and Us; it is available in retail stores in about two weeks. Whether you are a believer in any one religion or not, readers will learn how mankind first conceived one universal God and how that God has influenced the development of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions. Readers are welcomed to visit the website where overviews and book reviews are given for all three books. Click the link,
http://www.futureofgodamen.com
Danial Penisten comment, June 24, 2014:
“A novel idea has emerged, to which I would like our readers to share their thoughts.” I would like to try to do what you would “like”. “Consider the hypothetical idea that the unique positive and negative energy forces of an atom, which can coalesce into inorganic and organic matter, may have an inherent consciousness that tries to reveal itself.” Why do you think it “tries to reveal itself”?
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 24, 2014:
Hello Daniel, thank you for your question as it allows me to expand my thoughts. First let me say that my thoughts are original and hypothetical. Of course, I could be all wet or not plausible. But I like conversing with people who have an open mind and are willing to take a journey into other avenues of thought. One may be surprised that after a sincere discourse or interaction of ideas we may discover something worthwhile for others to pursue. I again thank you for probing me.
The question was, “why do you think it (an inherent consciousness) “tries to reveal itself”?
The energy forces and the particles associated with the creation of the atom is extraordinary to begin with. It is like a miniature solar system with one or more electrons revolving around it. Why the atom took on such a formation to begin with is for scientists to explore. But one may ask why does the atom use this basic design to later create a mix of protons, neutrons and electrons that identify many different kinds of elements? Is there a growth process taking place that atoms begin to form all kinds of matter? The Periodic Table of Elements identifies elements of matter and gases that the different mix of atoms are able to produce.
All matter, be it a rock, tree, butterfly, or a human being, is made up of atoms. Why matter should develop into different forms of life is a mystery. We may surmise there a consciousness that enables it to form many different kinds of inorganic and organic matter according to the environment it exists in. I say this because, first there must be a heat source the sun, a planet the earth, and eventually, moisture, plant life, and air that is created to produce living life forms. What makes the atoms determine it is alright to create a simple life form that makes it exist and reproduce in an environment? Here we may consider that there is a consciousness that is able to interpret its environment and find a way to will itself into existence.
The mere fact that life forms start to appear in a conducive environment is dependent on a consciousness that is able to perceive an opportunity to develop a mix of atoms that is able to take on movement. How else does matter, with a certain mix of atoms determine to form into a more complex entity that has movement? There must be some level of consciousness; a consciousness that then exists in every form of matter.
So now I return to why this consciousness tries to reveal itself. If this consciousness has the ability to produce life forms, would it be plausible that it desires to create life forms that possess a high level of consciousness? Would it be that this consciousness is able to sense that it has created life forms that are able to travel in space and thereby get a sense of accomplishment? Would this be the crowning glory of consciousness that made it all happen and can enjoy travelers in the universe?
But this is a dream of mine and not necessarily so. Still, I like to think that the consciousness in space is a connection we as human beings also like to sense. Because we want to believe this connection actually exists we may tend to define this consciousness as God; something each person can conceptualize in their own minds. This raises the question, is God made from the energy forces and particles that originated in space? But also, how did the energy forces, such as electrical, magnetic, and gravitational come into existence along with the smallest particles?
It all boggles the mind. But this is a good exercise in creative thought.
Danial Penisten comment, June 24, 2014:
In the third sentence of your interesting article, you share:
” Ultimately, we, as thinking human beings, may be the product of that source of consciousness“
Is there a difference between “inherent consciousness” and “source of consciousness”?
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 24, 2014:
Hello Daniel, I would say yes. A source connotes that there is an entity that exists. I wrote source as meaning the entire universe, which has the inherent quality of consciousness. But inherent would apply to the life forms that have the inherent consciousness derived from the atoms that make them up.
Danial Penisten comment, June 24, 2014:
In the fourth sentence of your article, you state:
“We are part of the “stuff” that makes up the universe, and we are trying to understand our beginnings that could be due to the inherent forces of the atom that surfaces as consciousness.”
Is Change involved in this process from the “inherent consciousness of an (one?) atom” to Our Consciousness?
I can “see” that there is increased consciousness due to accumulation of atoms, but is there any qualitative increase of consciousness…a more capable consciousness?
Does Our “surfacing of consciousness’ (expression of consciousness) have a different quality (as to universal or Creational Utility) than a single atom? Does the “sum” equal more than the computation of the parts?
By the way, dear Nicholas, I admire your construction of a new word in the title of your article. Or is it a new word? “Prevade” fullfills a different function than “Pervade”, in that it implies a prior position other than Creation…that Creator occupies. I assume IT still occupies this prior position. This other “place” probably serves as “anchor” or “fulcrum” from whence to increase. Anyway, I admire and adopt your new word. Thank you
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 24, 2014:
Hello Daniel, thank you for some very interesting questions. You provided:
Is Change involved in this process from the “inherent consciousness of an (one?) atom” to Our Consciousness?
The change is in the more complex life form created by the atoms. As you know, even plants have a consciousness. But what makes a human different is that we are a more complex mix of atoms with a greater capacity to think and react to our environment. Our consciousness is made up of the basic building block of the atom but fortunately we do have a greater makeup of atoms that facilitate thought.
You also provided: “I can “see” that there is increased consciousness due to accumulation of atoms, but is there any qualitative increase of consciousness…a more capable consciousness?”
To me, I would say no. A human being is made up with a set of atoms and is limited to that set. However, we know that people inherent genes from their parents that may allow for a more capable consciousness whereby the individual does excel in higher levels of problem solving. The qualitative increase can be made with what we have by hitting the books, learning from others, and exposure to many events that expand the mental resources to react accordingly. Also, poor inputs, such as indoctrination in false beliefs that cause men to kill their fellow men does not help the mind to think independently and efficiently.
You also asked, “Does Our “surfacing of consciousness’ (expression of consciousness) have a different quality (as to universal or Creational Utility) than a single atom? Does the “sum” equal more than the computation of the parts?
The answer is found in the above answers given. That is, a certain life form is born with a certain mix of atoms. Each life form has a different mix of atoms that form the thinking apparatus.
I choose the word pervade as it means to permeate, encompass, saturate, and infuse an environment. I’m glad I picked a word you like that makes sense.
Daniel, I thank you for being interested in the article and asking me questions that allow me to grow. We learn from each other and the Socratic method of learning has always been effective. Only by asking questions do we attain a higher level of understanding because each question brings us to another level of understanding.
Reply to Nicholas Ginex:
I should also respond to your answers. This seems the right thing to do. You shared: “I choose the word pervade as it means to permeate, encompass, saturate, and infuse an environment. I’m glad I picked a word you like that makes sense.” The word that pleased me was “Prevade”…in your title. I appreciate the innovation to enhance meaning. You have answered my question about difference in quality of consciousness, by sharing: ” To me, I would say no. A human being is made up with a set of atoms and is limited to that set. However, we know that people inherent genes from their parents that may allow for a more capable consciousness whereby the individual does excel in higher levels of problem solving.” I am a little confused by your answer (which is probably a good thing). You refer to “set” and also to “genes”. Now, I understand that “genes” are only a small (but essential and critical) part of the “set” of atoms of an Individual. I think I am confused by not understanding the relationship between “set of atoms in an Individual”, “genes” and molecules…that comprises the physical structure of one’s body. Ooops! I think I see the relationship better. What We are studying, progresses like this: “Atoms” form the structure of “genes”…and then…the “genes” forms the molecules that comprises the body. Would this be correct? If so, then different combinations of atoms within an Individuals “set of atoms” cause the difference in genes…that leads to qualitative differences in, at least the intellectual abilities of said Individual? The qualitative differences in Individuals and other things, is all about the formulas, combinations and patterns of the atomic structures. Would this be correct, in your opinion? I think I misunderstood you when you wrote: “A human being is made up with a set of atoms and is limited to that set.” I failed to catch the hidden meaning of your thought. Not seeing the uniqueness of the “sets”. So, I suppose that it is true that there is “qualitative differences” of consciousness as the atoms combine in their different ways.
Nicholas reply to Danial Penisten, June25, 2014:
Hello Daniel, jeepers, I meant to write “pervades” that is in my master where I write my responses. Yes, you’re right in that prevades, which is in my title by error, does imply a prior position with the prefix “pre.” You are also correct that the word “prevade” does not exist.
The problem with prevades, even though you like it, is that it assumes consciousness before the beginning of the universe. This may be why you like prevades because it assumes a God is responsible for the consciousness. Perhaps, this may also be an acceptable theory. However, it still raises the question did the energy forces and particles begin the creative process that establishes a consciousness that continues to become more complex in forming atoms that eventually started the creation of all matter in the universe or, did God exist in a void but had the consciousness to initiate the energy forces and particles?
Daniel, I see you are also a logical thinker and thank you for comprehending and clarifying my hypothesis that it is a certain mix of atoms that establish the quality of a state of consciousness. I liked your inclusion of genes being constructed by atoms and the qualitative differences become apparent due to how the thinking organism is exposed to education and experiences that augment the thinking process. You did write some good paragraphs that deserve mention; they are:
“Atoms” form the structure of “genes”…and then…the “genes” forms the molecules that comprises the body. Would this be correct? If so, then different combinations of atoms within an Individuals “set of atoms” cause the difference in genes…that leads to qualitative differences in, at least the intellectual abilities of said Individual? The qualitative differences in Individuals and other things, is all about the formulas, combinations and patterns of the atomic structures. Would this be correct, in your opinion?”
It does appear that the answer to all three questions is a “yes.” For our body and mental makeup is made from atoms that are the building blocks of all matter. What makes for qualitative differences is education and exposure to life whereby an individual becomes discerning and learns to think in more complex ways.
Yes, Daniel, I agree with your final conclusion for we humans are not all identical in both physical and mental attributes.
Daniel Penisten reply to Daniel Penisten, June 24, 2014:
I wonder what was the “role” of the first atom…besides being a prototype or pattern? What “inherent consciousness” would this first atom have? Merely “To Be” or something More than that? I suspect that it would be “reflective” of, what I assume to be the impulse to become More and Better, that is the prime motivation of Creation Source. (Creator, God,etc.) Otherwise, why would it be Created? Do you think the “inherent consciousness” of the First Atom had the same content, scope and intensity as the “Source Of Consciousness”? Is “The Source Of Consciousness”, Consciousness itself?
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2014:
Hello Daniel, before I begin a response to your very probing questions, I must say that I was highly impressed with your brief biography. It appears we are both on the same wavelength regarding politics and desire to establish a better world for mankind.
You wrote, “I wonder what was the “role” of the first atom…besides being a prototype or pattern?” It would appear to me that the “first atom” was developed in concert with many atoms because the energy forces and particles must have existed throughout space. Along with all those particles, the standard model by scientists is the interaction of four forces: gravity, electromagnetic, strong and weak. We can visualize these forces by the “miniature solar system” of a nucleus and one or more electrons that make up an atom.
The “role” of the atom appears to be one of creation. It constantly combines into many different elements and seems like a child trying to evolve or grow bigger, better, and stronger (as the comedian Jimmy Fallon would say of his show).
Daniel, your next question goes to the consciousness of the atom. You wrote, “What “inherent consciousness” would this first atom have? Merely “To Be” or something More than that?” It would seem that this atom has a purpose, which is to create more complex forms of matter.
Inherent in the atom is a consciousness that drives it to express itself in more meaningful ways. But the atom has perceptiveness to combine itself with billions of atoms to form a star with its gravitational and electromagnetic forces. It is the star, one of many other stars that formed in concert, that finally after severe gravitational compression causes intense heat and pressure that causes it to explode its matter, gases and radiant energy back out into space. The expelled matter gradually forms clouds of matter that begin to form planets and one or more stars that establish a solar system similar to our own.
Your next question is a good one because you then assume a Creation Source. You wrote, “I suspect that it would be “reflective” of, what I assume to be the impulse to become More and Better that is the prime motivation of Creation Source. (Creator, God, etc.) Otherwise why would it be Created?”
God, if we interpret what God is, is already a created entity and therefore needs no effort to become “More and Better.” So we then look at your next question, which may lead to some plausible answer. You wrote, “Do you think the “inherent consciousness” of the First Atom had the same content, scope and intensity as the “Source Of Consciousness”?
The “Source of Consciousness” according to my hypothetical reasoning, is “inherent within the atom.” Your next question was, “Is “The Source of Consciousness,” Consciousness itself?”
This is an assumption on my part. That is, the “Source of Consciousness” must also be part of the creative process because for it to have existed in a void by itself would have no purpose. The energy or “Source of Consciousness” must have been derived (created) from the energy forces and particles that first formed in space to create the “first atom.” It would seem then, that consciousness itself is something that also grows and matures just as a child grows and matures so does “our atom.”
Daniel Penisten reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 25, 2014:
Good Evening Nicholas. Thank you for continued response to my questions and speculations. I hope I didn’t say that the word “pervade” does not exist. It Truly does and represents the state where many things have a collective presence of a particular thing in them. For example, your postulations of the theory that consciousness pervades the atoms of the universe, is a good example of the syndrome of that which pervades. Is part of other than itself. You pose the question: “However, it still raises the question did the energy forces and particles begin the creative process that establishes a consciousness that continues to become more complex in forming atoms that eventually started the creation of all matter in the universe or, did God exist in a void but had the consciousness to initiate the energy forces and particles.” I will dare to answer with sincerity and honesty…even though I am very ignorant of many things. I will give this my “best shot”. (for now…at this time.) (1) There is a pre-state of Creative Power that came before Creation. It has been called “The ALLNESS” and maybe the “Absonite” (Urantia Book) (2) Out of this “ALLNESS” ( I prefer this term) the First Creative Impulse” came. (3) But before this “First Creative Impulse” came, a place that was not anything had to be prepared. Actually it was sent out of the “ALLNESS” as the “Enabling First Step for The First Impulse Of Creation To Act”. The Nothingness left the “ALLNESS” and was a place for Creation to become.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2024:
Daniel, thank you so much for extending our hypothetical discourse into other avenues of thought. This is exciting to find we are able to communicate at this level of thought. Not many people even attempt to go into the philosophical realm. Of my four daughters, only daughter number three would engage me in such speculation.
You provided some ideas worth expounding on and I will repeat them for our readers:
“(1) There is a pre-state of Creative Power that came before Creation. It has been called “The ALLNESS” and maybe the “Absonite” (Urantia Book) (2) Out of this “ALLNESS” ( I prefer this term) the First Creative Impulse” came. (3) But before this “First Creative Impulse” came, a place that was not anything had to be prepared. Actually it was sent out of the “ALLNESS” as the “Enabling First Step for The First Impulse Of Creation To Act”. The Nothingness left the “ALLNESS” and was a place for Creation to become.”
Before I begin an answer, it is well to introduce the word “absonite” because it was also new to me. It has been widely conjectured that “absonite” is a fabricated word by combining “absolute” and “finite,” but this may not an absolutely correct interpretation. A definition of absonite is:
“The absonite level of reality is characterized by things and beings without beginnings or endings and by the transcendence of time and space. Absoniters are not created; they are eventuated—they simply are. The Deity level of Ultimacy connotes a function in relation to absonite realities. No matter in what part of the master universe, whenever time and space are transcended, such an absonite phenomenon is an act of the Ultimacy of Deity.” (p.2, §12)
So “absonite” literally means “without beginnings or endings and by the transcendence of time and space.”
Daniel, your first statement (1) was that Allness is a prestate that came before Creation and out of Allness the First Creative Impulse came (2). Then in (3), you wrote that Nothingness left the Allness, which allowed Creation to become.
I may have digested your words into a too simplistic way, but it is my nature to keep things simple. First, it is incomprehensible to me that “Allness” literally means without beginnings or endings in space-time. If there is no beginning and no ending then there cannot be an “Allness” because this state implies nothing exists. That is, Allness is a misapplication because it implies the existence of something. But without beginnings and endings we have nothing. Therefore this is a mental exercise that makes no sense. In your next set of questions, starting with (4) we investigate Nothingness is a place for Something to Become.
Daniel reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2014:
(4) The Nothingness was a place for Somethingness to Become. (5) The non-stage was set for the “First Creative Impulse” to enter it. (6) The “First Creative Impulse” was motivated by the need of the ALLNESS to become More than ITSELF. The “ALLNESS” was in a mysterious oppositional locked state of stasis and very much needed to become a dynamic thing. A Wonderful Thing of Motion and Growth. The ALLNESS needed to Become More. (7) The motion of the “First Creative Impulse” was enabled by four things, in keeping with the “Law Of Three”. (Nothing Can Happen Unless Three or More Things Unite To Make It Happen) These Four Things were and are: A. Two Emotions – Fear and Need. The Fear of failure to become More and Better and of total negation into the Nothingness that had been released. The Need to become More and Better. B. Thought – To come up with a plan for solution of the dilemma. C. Potential – To provide safety from the horror of the Nothingness and provide “footing” (traction) for action to take place. Potential made it possible for Somethingness to occupy Nothingness. (8) Under tremendous tension, the “First Creative Impulse” did the first act and “stepped” into the Nothingness. The First Act Of Creation was done. (9) The Third Emotion immediately followed. Relief washed through the ALLNESS and the First Creative Impulse. the “Plan’s First Step was working.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, July 26, 2014:
Daniel, I am proceeding with your step (4) where you wrote “The Nothingness was a place for Something to Become.” You went on to write that the “First Creative Impulse” enters into the Nothingness, which was motivated by the ALLNESS.
But then, the First Creative impulse was enabled by four things: Fear, Need, Thought, and Potential. But there is no reason for these four things to exist when in fact there is no matter to be fearful of, therefore no need to become better, without matter there is no thought, and certainly there is no horror of the Nothingness that the “First Creative Impulse” came from.
At this point, I am sorry that I am inclined to believe that this is a lot of mumble jumble of a very imaginative person and this becomes more apparent as I read the other steps (8) through (15). The writer of the Absonite Story (it is tenable to believe it is not a theory) was written by William S. Sadler, Jr. Briefly, this is the story of the evolution of the universes of outer space. It is also the story of the continued growth of the grand universe and of the sometime unification of this universe with the outer space creations under the sovereignty of God the Ultimate.
The reasons why steps (7) through (8) are not plausible is that it too early tries to define human attributes like fear, need, thought, relief, joy, and potential as part of the First Creative Impulse. In step (11), you wrote that Divine Power and Divine Energy were the Divine Allies of Potential and became the “Essence of Creation.” However, we know today that human attributes occur only after billion upon billions of years after the atom has expressed itself in many kinds of matter, which finally created human beings, as well as other alien life, throughout the universe.
Daniel, it appears that Mr. Sadler’s book, published as the Urantia Book, appears to reflect or have influenced some of your thoughts. His book tries to define mankind’s place in the universe, the relationship of God with people, the life of Jesus, and his impact on our world.
In step 15, the statement was made that “Creation began from “all things” of the Nothingness that penetrated Somethingness, the conscious stamp of the Creator whereupon the Personality of All Personalities was manifested.” You must forgive me, but this does not make any sense to me. Are we referring to the personality of God? Who knows God as to assume He has a personality we can relate to?
Daniel Penisten reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26. 2014:
As to idea # (14): ” Vibrations were further reduced and the First Part Of The First Atom was made.” I think that First Part Of The First Atom was an Electron. I think this because Electrons seem to be lighter and more Energetic than the other components of an Atom. Thus the Electron came first because it is closer to energy and movement than the other components. The Electron is the first Atomic component to hold a near physical form, while still clearly bearing the “mark” of its Power and Energy Origins…in preparation for the eventual organization and construction of The First Universe Of The Finite Realm…material realm.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 20124:
Daniel, in reference to step 14, you wrote, “I think that First Part Of The First Atom was an Electron.” This may be incorrect because the electron is held in an orbit around the atom’s nucleus by a gravitational force. That is, the electron is captured by the nucleus, which may have more than one electron at different levels revolving around the atom’s center. The electron is a very important part of the atom, otherwise it could not function as a miniature solar system that can combine and transform itself into different kinds of elements.
Daniel Penisten reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2014:
Note: Pattern for the Finite Universes was in the Infinite Realm Of The Eternal Spirit. The Eternal “Central Universe” in the center of which lies the “Isle OF Paradise”, in the center of which is the Gateway into the Nothingness, that Creator (As “Baby God”) tremblingly but courageously took, is the Spiritual Universe Pattern. It is written that this “Central Universe” is called “Havona”. We Narbarians enjoy thinking of Havona as a bright, pulsing Heavenly Realm that is rich in shifting color and bejeweled with Rainbow Stars. It is a blessing to be able to think this way, so far out on the edge of the Seventh Universe; called “Nebadon”.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2014:
Hello Daniel, we need to introduce our readers to the term “Havona.” This word is used in Mr. Sadler’s book, titled The Urantia Book.
Havona: People generally misunderstand the terms Heaven and Paradise.
Heaven is in the 7th dimension and is where Father lives. Paradise is in the 6th dimension and is the point where the Son begins the rule of his universe. Within the realm of Paradise there is another place called Havona, The Son’s Seat of Power.
Havona has for most of universal history, been an empty place that served little purpose as the Son preferred to move amongst his people in their own environs. Father, however, has revitalized Havona, adding to it structures and the things that will make it the real seat of power for the new universal government. Currently it can accommodate about five thousand people.
Daniel, you wrote that the ‘Central Universe’ is called “Havona.” This universe postulates that this center is the Gateway to Nothingness wherein lies the Isle of Paradise. This does not make any sense because Nothingness cannot provide an Isle of Paradise. On Page 357 – §3 of The Urantia Book, we find that Urantia belongs to a local universe whose sovereign is the God-man of Nebadon, Jesus of Nazareth and Michael of Salvington. And all of Michael’s plans for this local universe were fully approved by the Paradise Trinity before he ever embarked upon the supreme adventure of space.
One must be careful to become a full-adherent of The Urantia Book by becoming a Narbarian. I like the illusion of a bright, pulsing Heavenly Realm rich in shifting color and bejeweled with Rainbow Stars. Although it is a “blessing” to think of this as a reality that exists on the edge of the Seventh Universe called “Nebadon, it is for me simply a “story” that does not exist.
Why am I skeptical of the Urantia belief? We know that stars are born in a cloud of dust and know they also burn out or are destroyed by the phenomena of pulsars, quasars and black holes. The mind is a wonderful source of imagining just about anything, even if it’s false. But that is why we have so much strife and differences even in the way we conceive God. The Scriptures of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions have lots of good stuff that provides how mankind may live according to a set of moral rules. But they also have abominations and warnings that induce not only fear but incite people to commit murder of those who differ with a particular religious belief.
I spend time communicating with people because there is much to learn about the truth of the birth of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic religions. We are led today by the establishment that ”hides” the truth about how mankind first came to conceive in one-universal God. I am not a smart ass, but one with average intelligence who was fortunate enough to have received an education and read the right books that enlightened me to connect the dots about our religious and spiritual past. I encourage those of you who are thirsting for knowledge that is based upon facts and findings, not myths, lies and assumptions, to CLICK BELOW.
http://www.futureofgodamen.com
Daniel Penisten comment to Nicholas Ginex, June 25, 2014:
Good Wednesday, Nicholas Ginex. I have a few more questions for you. If you believe that an atom has some form of consciousness, do you think that a Hydrogen Atom would have some different quality of consciousness than, say, an Iron Atom? Also, do you think that some form of consciousness is part of the components of an atom, such as the neutron, proton and electron? If so, do you think that the form of consciousness, within each of these atomic components, combines to “make” the overall form of consciousness of the whole atom? What do you believe is most likely. That the consciousness of an atom is: (1) “held” within the atom? (2) comes into the atom (as some sort of flow) from a “sympathetic” outside source? (3) or both?
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 26, 2014:
Hello Daniel, you brought up some very worthwhile questions to pursue an answer. Let’s look at your first question. “If you believe that an atom has some form of consciousness, do you think that a Hydrogen Atom would have some different quality of consciousness than, say, an Iron Atom?”
This is difficult to answer because the consciousness we perceive as human beings may be different at the atomic level. That is, the consciousness to create into other complex forms of matter is one of growth and not until organic matter evolves from inorganic matter do we start to understand the level of consciousness we are normally used to think of. So my answer would be that an iron atom would not have greater consciousness than a hydrogen atom. They both have a consciousness that somehow have caused their creation and indeed the creation of many different types of elements.
However, it not until the same stuff of atoms that creates organic life does consciousness, as we know it, starts to express itself. I pointed out in a previous reply that a flower or a plant has consciousness. From Wikipedia.org I was able to learn the following that is instructive for our readers.
“Carnivorous plants are plants that derive some or most of their nutrients (but not energy) from trapping and consuming animals or protozoans, typically insects and other arthropods. Carnivorous plants have adapted to grow in places where the soil is thin or poor in nutrients, especially nitrogen, such as acidic bogs and rock outcroppings. Charles Darwin wrote Insectivorous Plants, the first well-known treatise on carnivorous plants, in 1875.
True carnivory is thought to have evolved independently six times in five different orders of flowering plants, and these are now represented by more than a dozen genera. These include about 630 species that attract and trap prey, produce digestive enzymes, and absorb the resulting available nutrients. Additionally, over 300 protocarnivorous plant species in several genera show some but not all of these characteristics.”
There is a difference in inorganic and organic matter in that organic matter does have some level of consciousness that allows it to interact with its environment. That is, the structure of the matter must have the ability of having a fluid interaction within its own body. A rock does not possess the fluid capability of organic matter and therefore consciousness is not able to express itself as plants, humans, and other animals are able to do so.
Daniel, you provided two other interesting questions:
“Also, do you think that some form of consciousness is part of the components of an atom, such as the neutron, proton and electron?
If so, do you think that the form of consciousness, within each of these atomic components, combines to “make” the overall form of consciousness of the whole atom?”
The answer to the second question would seem to be “yes.” The atom, to become a building block of many kinds of elements must have a nucleus and one or more electrons. This unique system has a creative consciousness but to reach the level of consciousness that can express itself and interact with the environment requires the atom to finally create organic matter, plants, insects and animals.
Daniel, you posed one more question, which was:
“What do you believe is most likely. That the consciousness of an atom is: (1) “held” within the atom?
(2) comes into the atom (as some sort of flow) from a “sympathetic” outside source?
(3) or both?”
The answer I would give is that consciousness is inherent within the atom. The energy forces and particles that were able to congeal or work together must be given credit for being able to establish or create the atom. Such a feat, in my mind, could not have come from an outside source. What really remains a key investigative effort is how did the four energy forces and particles originate in the first place? They are the ingredients that make up the atom – the building block of all matter.
Daniel Penisten reply to Nicholas Ginex, June 27, 2014:
My reference to the Urantia Book, Narbarism, Havona, THE ALLNESS, etc. was an attempt to reveal how I hold the idea that Creator’s Personality, Intelligence, Emotion, Power and Energy is the Source of all Created Matter. Is the designer and Creator of all atomic structure found in the Finite Realm, or the Universes of Matter. I rarely get the chance to lay out all of this from my perspectives and took the opportunity to do so. This may have been a mistake on my part and I apologize for over “widening” the discussion; though I believe that this will eventually become necessary, if you pursue this quest. I will stop this now and merely follow with interest your Evolution in this subject of the “Consciousness Of Atoms”. Thank you very much, Nicholas Ginex, for all the patience and energy you have expended in communicating with me about this matter. I sincerely Hope that you discover wonderful Truths, as a result of this project, and become ever More Happy that you undertook it.
Nicholas reply to Daniel Penisten, June 27, 2014:
Hello Daniel, no apology was necessary for expanding your views about sharing the idea of the Creator’s Personality, Intelligence, Emotion, Power and Energy as being the Source of all Created Matter. This idea was in keeping with the topic “Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?” because the idea of God underlies any phenomenon that is impossible to understand without facts and logic.
We are all groomed to think with the information we have absorbed in our lifetime. Many people accept the inputs whether or not they are valid and others do not bother to question the validity of the inputs. It is my nature to question ideas that I learn about if such ideas just do not seem right. However, there is a lot of credibility I give to creative and philosophical thought; for it is the thought process that has given us some of the greatest ideas and inventions that have improved our lives.
Again, I thank you for “widening” our discussion for your questions have energized and made this topic, I believe, into a very interesting and informative one. You are truly a wonderful man who is open to ideas and your participation on this forum has given me reason to have more faith in humans.
David Brittain comment, June 27, 2014:
Why would atoms made up of whirling energy feel the need to evolve? Surely it is non-physical lifeforce that is driven by that need to enable it to fully experience physical existence by drawing to it and using those atoms. The question is: Did aware intelligence exist before physical matter was created from energy, or is intelligence the product of physical matter?
Nicholas reply to David Brittain, June 27, 2014:
Hello David, great to have you interject a question that deserves all of us to probe for an answer. The question was, “Did aware intelligence exist before physical matter was created from energy, or is intelligence the product of physical matter?”
My thoughts on the existence of an intelligence before the creation of physical matter is empty because I cannot perceive an intelligence coming into existence or being without matter. The reason I lean towards the creation of matter by energy forces and particles that make up the atom is because there is empirical evidence that the atom does exist and is the building block of many of the elements listed in the Table of Periodic Elements.
But you provided another good question, “Why would atoms made up of whirling energy feel the need to evolve?” We know that the atom somehow finds ways to combine and create many elements that eventually are found in matter. We could ask another question, which is, can it be a Creator that determines the direction of growth of the many elements and ultimately matter? This is difficult since nobody knows anything about the Creator, which is unknowable, mysterious, and incomprehensible. From the Bible, we learn that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form, and void; and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters, and God said, “Let there be light. (Genesis 1:1-3)”
There are creations by God, which is heaven and earth, water, and finally “light.” But what is missing is that “light” had to come first, which is provided by a star. That star was created only after billions of years of atoms combining as matter under great gravitational forces, which finally ignited to produce light, heat and energy for life to exist on some planets. There is much ambiguity in the first lines of Genesis from a scientific view. Water could not exist without the energy from the “light” of the star, which provides the heat to create moisture that eventually creates the waters, plant, and organic life.
Because of the above logic, it appears that the atom derived its abilities from energy forces and particles and not from God who, according to the Bible can create heaven, earth, water and life without the billions upon billions of years it took for the atom to mature into matter. If it were God that created the atom with a consciousness to create matter, why would God create man billions of years later with the perception that a Son of Man would be created to save humanity, especially when we have learned that it is highly possible that alien life exists in the universe? That is why would God focus His attention only on humans?
The above thoughts tend to have me lean towards the atom having an inherent consciousness to be a builder. The building process, after billions of years, finally produces both inorganic and organic matter, which possesses the consciousness to express itself in living matter.
Sorry if I appear to give a too long-winded answer, but again, this is all hypothetical for other thinking minds to resolve. But thank you for allowing me to express myself with the limited knowledge I now possess. Perhaps, with more discussion, we may derive coherent answers to whether the atom has an inherent consciousness or is driven by some outside intelligence we call God.
Burl Hall reply to David Brittain, June 27, 2014:
Great question, David. I sometimes wonder if it’s not an interdependent kind of thing. How would we know about physical matter without consciousness and vice versa? Perhaps they depend on each other? In most myths, from the Bible to Native America, you start off with a void (Genesis 1:2). I can rattle off several creation stories that say basically the same thing from Native America to India to Africa. From that awareness seems to come through, some kind of Consciousness reflected in Genesis as “Let there be light.” In the Kogis version, Aluna, who like the Biblical Tehom (the Waters of Genesis), just simply desired to create.
At any rate, the basic myth across the world (I’ve written a book, Sophia’s Web that should be published fairly soon “the writing is not as rough as this off the cuff comment) that pretty much tells the same story.
As I think of this, who are we who question if not that which we are trying to find the answers about? When Jesus Christ said in Thomas (I believe), he said, “Know thyself.” Who is it we wish to know if not the Self, or Yahweh, or our Nature?
But is it a catch 22? Can the eye see itself without a mirror? Is this the purpose of this world?
Just questions to ask.” Not meaning to be dogmatic or anything here.
Nicholas reply to Burl Hall, June 27, 2014:
Hello Burl, your reply to David Brittain presented some good questions that I will also like to comment on. I believe your statement that “consciousness is an interdependent kind of thing with matter” does have merit. However, the consciousness we perceive must be very different for different types of matter where inorganic matter has consciousness that does have a greater ability to interact with its environment.
You indicated, “Perhaps they depend on each other.” I do not believe consciousness exists by itself without matter. It appears, at least to me, that consciousness is inherent in the atom and hence, matter. The thing is that this consciousness is like a cancer that grows and multiplies into many different forms of matter, which as we have learned has created many elements here on earth.
It is wonderful that many creation stories start out with a void, but to think an awareness or consciousness begins the start of a creative process out of nothing is not easy to accept. Scientists are beginning to learn that there are energy forces and particles that somehow combined to create the protons, neutrons and electrons that formed a miniature solar system of its own, which we call the atom. The process by which it happened is still unknown but that process has developed a methodology to repeat itself and combine into many different combinations. To consider God is working at this level of creation is somewhat imprudent when God could skip this groundwork at the subatomic and particle levels and simply create the heaven and earth in a short period of time rather than billions of years.
Burl, you brought up a good question, “Who is it we wish to know if not the Self, or Yahweh, or our Nature?” We learn about ourselves only after a sound education in the arts, sciences, and teachings we acquire from teachers and parents. We are living in an age where it is a luxury to assimilate knowledge and have the time to sit and think about many avenues of thought that may go beyond our own existence.
You questioned, “Can the eye see itself without a mirror? Is this the purpose of this world?” Yes, the eye, through the mind can “see” without a mirror but only after the brain has been fed good data or knowledge. Unfortunately, the growth of mankind has been stunted by the dogma of many religions whereby people believe it is the last word of God or of great men. Scripture was written thousands of years ago and I would be first to say that there are works of literature that far excel what’s in scriptures. We have only to look at the dogma of the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic scriptures and we will find abominations are written against those who question or do not believe the theology taught.
A prime example of many abominations that incite hate and the killing of our brothers and sisters is the Islamic religion as taught from the Qur’an and implemented with Sharia law. In fairness, I have also critiqued the Bible and included their abominations in the books I have written. The thrust of my books is to inform people how mankind first conceived the one-universal God. Those of you who are interested in the development of the Judaic, Christian and Islamic religions, please click on CLICK HERE and it will take you to overviews and book reviews of the books shown on the first page. Thank you.
http://www.futureofgodamen.com
