The Origin of Consciousness.

[socratus]

The Origin of Consciousness.

There are many theories explaining the origin of consciousness.
Here some of them.
1) God has taken clay and has created man, and then has inhaled in it consciousness.
2) 20 billions years ago all matter (all elementary particles,
all quarks and their girlfriend antiquarks, all kinds of waves:
electromagnetic, gravitational, muons….) – all was assembled in “singular point”.
Then there was a Big Bang .
Question: when was there consciousness?
a) Before explosion,
b) At the moment of explosion,
c) After the explosion.
It is more probable, that it existed after the explosion.
Then there is a question: what particles (or waves) were carriers of consciousness?
Mesons, muons, leptons, bosons (W+, W- , Z) ,quarks, …gluons field ….. ets …?
On this question the Big Bang theory does not give an answer.
But can it be that consciousness was formed as a result of the interaction of all elementary particles, all waves, all fields?
Then, on the one hand, the reason for the origin of the Big Bang is clear:
everything was mixed, including consciousness, and when it is mixed
then it is possible to construct all and everything.
But on the other hand, it is not clear: why farmer John can think simply, clearly and logically.
3) Ancient Indian Veda approve, that origination of consciousness is connected with the existence of spiritual, conscious particles – purusha .
4) Modern physics affirms that the Quantum of light is a privileged particle as in one cases,
it behave as a particle, and in other case, acts in a way which causes a wave.
How is a particle capable of creating a wave?
The behaviour of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply.
A quantum of light has its own initial consciousness.
This consciousness is not rigid, but develops.
The development of consciousness goes “from vague wish up to a clear thought”.

[Epsilon=One]

Question: when was there consciousness?Consciousness does not occur until there is life with the occurrance of complex, analog, self-adjustment (CASA) (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149). Consciousness is physical, just as, is a component of radiant energy and its effect upon particles.

Modern physics affirms that the Quantum of light is a privileged particle as in one cases,
it behave as a particle, and in other case, acts in a way which causes a wave.
How is a particle capable of creating a wave?Particles revert to radiant energy (light) when they decay with the passage of time because of their intrinsic instability within the congeneric realm of dissipation (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=130); or, when they are subject to trauma . . . which can be cataclysmic or as subtle as a "tickle" from a Light wave.

Radiant energy morphs to mass when Pulsoids (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=98) become Ultrons (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=140) at a point of Critical Coalescence (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=204).

The behaviour of Light quanta (dualism ) is explained simply.
A quantum of light has its own initial consciousness.
This consciousness is not rigid, but develops.
The development of consciousness goes “from vague wish up to a clear thought”.Gobbledygook.

[socratus]

The theory of knowledge.
The man acts: 1) at usual under logic program,
2) sometimes on intuition (unconsciousness).
* * *
Brain of a man approximately consists of sixteen milliards neurons.
All of them form the system that manages human body.
That is why it is of no wonder that with the work of all the
sixteen milliards neutrons of brain, a man cannot catch a single impulse of
Electron, Quantum of light, his God:
(mass of electron is equal 10-31 kg., charge of electron is equal 10-19 k.)
Quantum of light, Spiritual particle, which has created us, turned out to be under control
of the material existence. However, the spiritual particle aspires to establish its supremacy
over material nature. And the possibilities to reign over material nature are limited.
The expansion of the possibilities of the development of spiritual particle is connected
with the creation of specific (vacuum) conditions. These conditions are reached
as a result of constant religious practice.
To perceive the universe, to perceive the spiritual essence, it is necessary
to the man to take possession of religious practice.
PRACTICE. THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
We pray the GOD and we do not realize that HE is inside us.
Each of us carries in him the SPIRITUAL PARTICLE
(QUANTUM OF LIGHT - AN ELECTRON).
But we do not realize that HE is inside us.
Behind the habitual forces of nature there is one force hidden - a spiritual one (h - е).
But ITS action is almost completely disguised by the other forces (mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear,
and chemical and others), therefore it remains unnoticed in an ordinary processes.
But God never operates outside of natural principles.
There are the processes in which He reveals himself.
Therefore, His disclosing is a technical question.
How can we learn it?
For this purpose it is necessary to create the following effects in our computer-brain:
A). Nonlinear effect
B). Superconducting effect
C). Holographic effect
D). Vacuum effect.
Nobody, except for us, can make this technical work.
Only we (by the constant, thin, internal practice) can create conditions for these effects.
This practice has called "a Religious practice".
In this lies an essence of Religion - to establish the communication of a Human being with his Divine origin.
* * *
Our computer-brain works on a dualistic basis.
In a usual daily life all we do is done logically, under an influence of our feelings.
On the other hand, in a religious practice it is vital to learn to perceive and to operate:
1) Without the participation of the sense organs.
2) Without the participation of the logic mental processes.
When these conditions will be created, then the opportunity to operate will be given
to a QUANTUM OF LIGHT (AN ELECTRON), to OUR DIVINE ESSENCE.
We will acquire new forces, new abilities.
Once again.
An electron's mass is 10-28gr . The size is 10-13sm. A charge is 10-19k .
With these characteristics it is hard for IT to become apparent.
Therefore it is clear, why don't we know IT in an ordinary life.
ITS cognition is achieved by a very hard, thin and laborious work.
This work demands of a person to be obsessed by it.

[Epsilon=One]

We pray the GOD and we do not realize that HE is inside us. ...we do not realize that HE is inside us. ...to establish the communication of a Human being with his Divine origin. ...You seem to be implying anthropic concepts to what you consider god. (See: My Creed (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=90).)

If so, this cannot be; as, such qualities are much further along the course of evolution than "much of that which has been created."

I assume that a definition of god would be consistent with all "that which has been created."

As for a fundamental definition of consciousness, I consider consciousness to be when any object is aware of itself through the mechanism of overwhelming neural feedback that because of its speed and complexity is unnoticed by the senses of an individual that has acquired consciousness.

Thus, a concept of consciousness requires some sort of neural system that only occurs/evolves with life; much later than the existence of non-living phenomena.

It is difficult to imagine neural phenomena (life) below the subatomic environment or at the cosmic environment with quasars and gamma-ray bursts. As god can be defined as the creator of all that exists, it is difficult to rationalize the concept of consciousness anywhere near the concept of god.

See: CASA (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=149).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

You seem to be implying anthropic concepts to what you consider god.

That is what is wrong, so, pleeeeeeeeease tell me ANY (ALL!) concept(s) that is/(are) not Anthropic, in either it's origin, or it's exposition.

(BTW, No one can do that! as ALL 'knowledge' is of anthropic origin, or did some monkey try to tell you differently, cause that would still be of "Primate origin".....get it?)

If there are no Anthropic concepts applicable to God, then we cannot know of that God, as Anthropic Concepts are ALL we DO KNOW.

Otherwise, Tell me of a Concept that did NOT arise from a Human.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

2:13 PM 19/01/2006

(SNIP) Question: when was there consciousness? (SNoP)

If we conduct the "Test of Consciousness" that is the proving of it's Nature of Origin, We therefore tell a Free Willed Lie, we prove (at least to ourselves...?...) that we (Our Consciousness) are(is) Metaphysical in nature, and therefore we must conclude that that it is NOT of Particulate origin, and that it's therefore requisite energetic origins still escapes us, as we still cannot 'see' such (energy or Life-energy) 'leaving the Body' upon death, so it's Origin/timing is therefore way more open, including to times preceding the Big bang, possibly/probably preceding anything we DO know of.

For myself, the Origin of Consciousness is God, as God would be (and is) the originator of 'Consciousness'.....

It is as it has been told of for centuries now, Spiritual, in it's nature, Spirit that is an energy that is Unseen(?) unfelt(?) unknown(?) other then by admission by/of the Believer who claims/admits experience of such.

And that God Created All Anthropic Qualities, ALL of them, except the lie...he let the devil Start that.

BTW to have an idea in your mind, knowing you could Tell a Lie, is not the same thing as telling a lie, so God could have "thought it through" and realized that he would allow us to tell lies, that DOESN'T mean God invented Lieing, just that God knew How it would/could be done, the difference between knowing something, and practising it, Knowing you could move your foot forwards, and actually moving it forwards.....There is No darkness in Him, neither are there any lies....

:cool:

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

12:11 PM 22/01/2006

Oh Yes, please note the very first lie that the Devil tells is to, either, claim God is Dead, Or to claim Himself as Equal to God. As for the 'Practise of the Lie' (The moving of the foot) that is where we see the Devil Described as the Murderer.

After that, well anyone seen the news? lately....?

Oh Yes, Spirit That is the medium of my ability to feeel others.

The essence of life is Life energy, but can you feel that? if you can then you can feel it in the trees, the grass, the Monkeys, the Potatoes (Typed As seen as spelled on a Bag of them, Lately) anything that is Living would have that 'energy' and you 'should' (operative word) be harmonic (Ergo; 'able to feel it') to it, if you can feel the Force/Energy of Life, itself, within you....Yes, ...I Know, you can all feel the 'Energy of Living' as the 'activity of Living' but do you, (can you??) singularily, feel the 'force of energy' (Life-Force) that drives that?

[socratus]

Albert Einstein once remarked:
"The greatest trouble in the world is the idea of a personal God!"
* * *
"What is your flash, Khayyam?
Tent where for overnight's stop,
As a wandering shah, the spirit did a stop".
/ Omar al-Khayyam. /
* * *
The doctrine of a personal God could never be refuted by science.
Why?
Because the quantum of light is a privileged particle.

[Epsilon=One]

Albert Einstein once remarked:
"The greatest trouble in the world is the idea of a personal God!"I agree.

The doctrine of a personal God could never be refuted by science.
Why?If so, science must eschew logic.

A personal god implies choice, design, variety, discrimination, et cetera. Everywhere there is a fundamental concept there are rigid laws and order.

Logic would conclude that a personal god is far from being fundamental. The very term "personal" indicates a highly evolved manifestation.

If god created everything that would include the fundamental laws.

The fundamental laws do not reflect any "personal"/anthropoidal input.

Ergo; no personal god.

Because the quantum of light is a privileged particle.Exactly why is "the quantum of light" privileged?

What gave the privilege?

What is a light quantum?

[socratus]

The conception of personal God indissolubly connected with two theories :
1. theory of Vacuum
2. theory of Light quantum.
If we shall understand this two theories, we can understand communication
between the Absolute God and personal God.
Why? Because:
1. Vacuum in the beginning has created " light quantum ".
2.
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Socratus

[Epsilon=One]

The conception of personal God indissolubly connected with two theories :
1. theory of Vacuum
2. theory of Light quantum.
If we shall understand this two theories, we can understand communication
between the Absolute God and personal God.
Why? Because:
1. Vacuum in the beginning has created " light quantum ".
2.
On the question:
What inhale the Life in formulas and equations ?
What must be present in a body to make it alive ?
The answer is:
Soul. Quantum of Light.
Because, from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.A personal god is an oxymoron.

Whatever your convoluted reasoning and definitions may be, I cannot agree that a personal god, no matter how defined, exists beyond an individual's worldly manifestation.

Referring to light as a particle, privileged or not, is a travesty of nomenclature.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

9:00 AM 23/02/2006

If "a personal God is an Oxymoron" then the 'God' must be one reached at by concensus of Anthropic Exudence, Hence (I) vote for the Truth as Being God, you?

(I)"m :cool: you? O.K.? Getting enough Oxygen?

[Epsilon=One]

If "a personal God is an Oxymoron" then the 'God' must be one reached at by concensus of Anthropic Exudence, Hence (I) vote for the Truth as Being God, you?I have little concern with your definition of god as long as you capitalize the word; which, thus, to me, indicates personal, biased connotations. And, that you do not proselytize your mystic beliefs and are tolerant of those who do likewise.

Personal definitions and beliefs concerning the concept of god are the root causes of much evil throughout all the known history of sentient beings. This evil continues to this day as Muslims, Jews, and Christians kill each other in the name of the same god.

[socratus]

I named personal God Soul.
I named Soul Quantum of Light.
Why?
Because, from all particles, only and only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only the speed of a light quantum in Vacuum has
a maximal, constant, absolute quantity of c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
If quantum of light flies always rectilinearly c=1, it is a mad one.
Is he really mad?
No.
In Vacuum, in a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
But Quantum of Light has two kinds of internal impulse.
1)Under one internal impulse (Planck,s spin h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2) Under other internal impulse (Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ħ = h / 2pi)
a quantum of light rotates around of his diameter and is known as electron.
A quantum of light behaves as a wave.
Very strange particle is quantum of light.
Quantum of light stays in Vacuum and on it anybody and nothing renders influences.
It is independent and makes a decision in which of the three conditions it occurs.
1. In a condition of rest its internal impulse is equal to zero h=0.
2 .In a condition of uniform rectilinear movement its impulse h=1.
3. In a condition of rotation around of his diameter its impulse ћ =h/2π.
So it can work only with particle that have his own consciousness.
They are alive, spiritual particles.
His own consciousness is not static but can develop.
The development of consciousness scale goes " from vague wishes up to a clear thought ".
This evolution proceeds during hundred millions (billion) years.

[Epsilon=One]

…the quantum of light is a privileged particle.

…No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.

A quantum of light behaves as a particle.

Very strange particle is quantum of light. …It…makes a decision in which of the three conditions it occurs.

So it can work only with particle that have his own consciousness.

They are alive, spiritual particles.Your thoughts are very strange and quite difficult to reconcile.

How do you define what you refer to as a particle? It seems you give it properties that are usually associated with waves rather than the Pauli Exclusion Principle (PEP).

Does your particle have a “mind”? It seems that you give a fundamental concept, your particle, many advanced evolutionary qualities.

Am I missing something in your logic?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Personal definitions and beliefs concerning the concept of god are the root causes of much evil throughout all the known history of sentient beings. This evil continues to this day as Muslims, Jews, and Christians kill each other in the name of the same god. Is that the God that you have personally defined as being a Singularity, you know the non-existent-existent-infinite-singularity-that-doesn't-exist?

And How is it that YOU can Define a 'Personal God' without it too, being as YOU, too, have defined, (it) an OXYMORON? :eek:

HOW?

[Epsilon=One]

Is that the God that you have personally defined as being a Singularity, you know the non-existent-existent-infinite-singularity-that-doesn't-exist?No; if you are referring to god as something designated by organized religions.

And How is it that YOU can Define a 'Personal God[i]' [i]without it too, being as YOU, too, have defined, (it) an OXYMORON? HOW?If there is a god; that god is certainly impersonal.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

No; if you are referring to god as something designated by organized religions. No! (I) was refering to how YOU refered to (a) God

If there is a god; that god is certainly impersonal.

Well, once again, we have YOUR PERSONALLY HELD BELIEF, expressed.

Personally, (I) suspect you are simply looking into a 'mirror' within you....it is sad what you see, and especialy, what you do NOT see. (About yourself...?)

[Epsilon=One]

Well, once again, we have YOUR PERSONALLY HELD BELIEF, expressed.My belief is based on the principles of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142). If you have a better way to arrive at a belief, I would be very interested.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

My belief is based on the principles of IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142). If you have a better way to arrive at a belief, I would be very interested. So then your blaming IPSO as the reason for your self-admitted 'Oxymoronic' expression of a 'Personally held belief' in God? Right? :eek:

[Epsilon=One]

...your blaming IPSO as the reason for your self-admitted 'Oxymoronic' expression of a 'Personally held belief' in God? Right?Yes, I rely upon IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142). Do you have anything that would be more reliable?

Please, do not ascribe out of context words to my posts.

If you have an argument, rather than rely upon ad hominism, address the issue.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

Why would (I) need argue, or need an arguement....when yours' does so well, against you, that (too BTW) is whom is responsible for your asserted ad hominem, it originates/originated from YOU!

P.S. Nothing there is ascribed "out of context"...Not A thing. :cool:

[Epsilon=One]

Nothing there is ascribed "out of context"...Not A thing.So that I can correct any misunderstanding, please indicate where in a post of mine you found, in context, the following: "self-admitted 'Oxymoronic' expression of a 'Personally held belief' in God? Right?"

The self-serving "Right?" adds nothing to your argument.

Your reply side-steps the answer to my question: "Do you have anything that would be more reliable (than IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142))?"

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

#1 So that I can correct any misunderstanding, please indicate where in a post of mine you found, in context, the following: "self-admitted 'Oxymoronic' expression of a 'Personally held belief' in God? Right?"

#2 The self-serving "Right?" adds nothing to your argument.

#3 Your reply side-steps the answer to my question: "Do you have anything that would be more reliable (than IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142))?" #1 Post Number 11 in this thread.

#2 It is a Question, it serves the purpose of Seeking an Answer, agreement, or dis-agreement. (Didn't you know that?)

#3 There is No 'side step', there was no answer offered. (Couldn't you tell?)

[Epsilon=One]

#1 Post Number 11 in this thread.Post Number 11 clearly states in a separate paragraph the following:

“A personal god is an oxymoron.”

It’s meaning was to convey that god is universal which is the opposite of personal. Your comment, which confusingly quoted excerpts of my post, within your text, was entirely misleading.

#2 It is a Question, it serves the purpose of Seeking an Answer, agreement, or dis-agreement. (Didn't you know that?)I was well aware of the intent of its usage as there was no proper “right” or "wrong" answer as you had constructed the prior statement.

#3 There is No 'side step', there was no answer offered. (Couldn't you tell?)Thank you for the clarification, which would seem to emphasize that you have nothing better to offer than IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142).

Can you stick to some of the salient issues that are found in posts 2 and 4 of this thread, rather than your incessant bantering that is so often misleading to those that are not carefully following the logic of an entire thread.

For example: State a few reasons that you believe that there is a god that is personally concerned with an individual's issues. Or maybe, why there is a god that is concerned with the efforts of a particular athlete, or a particular team, or . . . country. Or, how a personal god influences the consciousness of a particular individual.

Criticism is strongest when alternative argument is presented.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

My answer to you, four lines of text.

Your answer to me, eighteen lines of text.

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

so....
Post Number 11 clearly states in a separate paragraph the following:“A personal god is an oxymoron.”
It’s meaning was to convey that god is universal which is the opposite of personal. Your comment, which confusingly quoted excerpts of my post, within your text, was entirely misleading. Misleading? Me? "In a Separate paragraph" NO! T-I-T-L-E-D A-S....or did you miss that too? (YOU wrote it, Right?)

I was well aware of the intent of its usage as there was no proper “right” or "wrong" answer as you had constructed the prior statement. But there was an opportunity for agreement or dis-agreement with what I had stated, but apparently you are trying to be misleading, NOW, from that Fact....as well.

Thank you for the clarification, which would seem to emphasize that you have nothing better to offer than IPSO. The only emphasis is in your assumptiveness, as (I) stated (I) offered NO RESPONCE which you seem to take as license to "make one up" for me. Backhanded form of an ad hominem! (NOT Surprising)

Can you stick to some of the salient issues that are found in posts 2 and 4 of this thread, rather than your incessant bantering that is so often misleading to those that are not carefully following the logic of an entire thread. And, Oh Look! ANOTHER AD HOMINEM! (From YOU)

For example: State a few reasons that you believe that there is a god that is personally concerned with an individual's issues. Or maybe, why there is a god that is concerned with the efforts of a particular athlete, or a particular team, or . . . country. Or, how a personal god influences the consciousness of a particular individual. Why should I bother telling somene who believes that 'there is NO living God' anything
about beliefs in that God? after all why waste the (my) time?

[Epsilon=One]

Why should I bother telling somene who believes that 'there is NO living God' anything about beliefs in that God? after all why waste the (my) time?As usual you have completely misconstrued my position . . . and as usual with misquotes.

Never have I stated 'there is NO living God'; I have stated that there is no personal god; and, I have stated that there is no god with any anthropoidal qualities.

The remainder of your last post I will let stand as it best makes my arguments concerning logic.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

As usual you have completely misconstrued my position . . . and as usual with misquotes.
Never have I stated 'there is NO living God'; I have stated that there is no personal god; and, I have stated that there is no god with any anthropoidal qualities.
The remainder of your last post I will let stand as it best makes my arguments concerning logic. You have stated you believe God to be the infinite which you have said is Non-existent, except as a Singularity, which doesn't exist, you have also stated your (Personal) God has no feeling, of this world, no Knowledge, and NO Involvement.....recall? you worship rocks!

So there is NO Mis-quotation, but, you, with (perhaps) a BAD/POOR memory of your own Writings.

As for you will "let stand your (my) last post", Condescending little Bugger, aren't you.

BTW a 'Universal' God is Just as Much a Personal God, as is the most oblique explaination of a 'God' based upon a Highly Personalized position, because BOTH are Subjective attestament, ERGO Your Own PERSONAL Belief.....after all It would be that Universal God that personalized ALL of us, ergo could just as easily Present Himself more personally, to you! then to anyone else! (to the best of your Knowledge, at that point)

And you FALSELY Accuse me of Mis-quoting you, PROVE IT! Or retract it and Apologize!

[Epsilon=One]

You have stated you believe God to be the infinite which you have said is Non-existent, except as a Singularity, which doesn't exist, you have also stated your (Personal) God has no feeling, of this world, no Knowledge, and NO Involvement.....recall? I have stated god (no capital) can be thought of as a singularity (no capital); and, that Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) (capitalized and italicized) is a singularity; and, by definition, there is only one singularity. I have never stated that I, or anyone else, has a “(Personal) God”; and, I do not use the word “feeling” with regard to a singularity. I have stated that “god” is a poor word to use because it has so many connotations to different persons; and, I have stated that my understanding of god is as a singularity that has no anthropoidal qualities.

As is often the situation, your statements are, imprecise, twisted towards your understanding, and misleading.

you worship rocks!To be clear; this is your opinion. I have never stated that I worship rocks. I do not like the word “worship” much better than the word “god” as it has many misunderstood connotations. There is much evil in the world today that is founded upon the worship of a false god.

I prefer to say that I respect the human condition, Nature, and IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142).

And you FALSELY Accuse me of Mis-quoting you, PROVE IT! Or retract it and Apologize!Please see my first paragraph, above. You are the mis-quoter; thus, the proof is your responsibility.

[socratus]

Secret of theology hided in the anthropology.
/Leibniz/

[Epsilon=One]

Secret of theology hided in the anthropology.
/Leibniz/What do you think Leibniz meant?

From your quote, I suspect he is saying something like: religion is an invention of anthropoids.

[socratus]

But the secret of anthropology hided in the theory of light quanta.
Socratus.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I have stated god (no capital) can be thought of as a singularity (no capital); and, that Infinity (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=109) (capitalized and italicized) is a singularity; and, by definition, there is only one singularity. I have never stated that I, or anyone else, has a “(Personal) God”; and, I do not use the word “feeling” with regard to a singularity. I have stated that “god” is a poor word to use because it has so many connotations to different persons; and, I have stated that my understanding of god is as a singularity that has no anthropoidal qualities.
As is often the situation, your statements are, imprecise, twisted towards your understanding, and misleading. That last line is YOU, clearly, as for the rest, this is what I had typed out for you.....

---------------
© Mr. Robin Parsons Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

9:57 AM 3/4/2006

Take a Deep breath....

You don't worship rocks? But when I had enquired about a Living God, in that thread on Anthropism, whether life came from in-animate matter or from a Living thing, you chose the In-animate.....So your God is A Rock....

(literally, not the Figurative sense of it, that the rest of 'us' use when refering to the Truth as 'the Rock' as a metaphore of it's solidity, and reliability, and TRUSTWORTHYNESS.....AKA able to have Faith in, even BLIND FAITH.)

After that you fault me as Mis-quoting you cause I used a Large/Capital "G" and you used a Small/lowercase "g" This is MY hienous Crime? My 'Misquotation' of you that condemns all else of what (I) have said? (typed actually) all else of what is relevant discourse? and renders everything (I) have done as Invalid? and reason for your condemnation of me??

WOW!


BTW whatever you produce, as expression of yourself is yours Personally, no matter what arises out of you, it is #1) Anthropic in origin nature expression, and as of a Singular Anthropoid, (Ergo) #2) A PERSONALLY held Belief(s)/opinion(s)

(Ergo/Sum) << AKA L-O-G-I-C
---------------

To be clear; this is your opinion. I have never stated that I worship rocks. I do not like the word “worship” much better than the word “god” as it has many misunderstood connotations. There is much evil in the world today that is founded upon the worship of a false god.

I prefer to say that I respect the human condition, Nature, and IPSO (http://www.physicsmathforums.com/showthread.php?t=142). O.K. So you actually worship nothing, or the senseless Physical presence that is matter, or you do NOT "worship"

Please see my first paragraph, above. You are the mis-quoter; thus, the proof is your responsibility. No! you are the accuser and the PROVING is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY!

Or didn't you, at this age of yours, know that, just yet?