A voice in the wilderness
STEP #1 IN HAVING YOUR OWN
CONVERSATION WITH GOD

Okay, time now to get on with our series of entries here in How to Have Your Own Conversation with God.

Now, some of these steps are going to seem pretty obvious to you, or rather simplistic. Please forgive me, because each of them is important. I have to start, then, at the beginning.

The first step to having your conversation with God is that you must believe there is a God. I know that sounds like, oh, Neale, come on. That’s so elementary. But is it really?

Do you really and truly or merely intellectually believe that there is a thing called God? And if you do believe that there is a thing called God, what is the nature of this thing that you believe in that you call God? Is it a larger‑than‑life human? A larger‑than‑life being of some other kind? Is it an energy? A detached totally non‑personified energy? What is this God that you believe in, if, in fact, you believe in it?

So what I want to tell you is that step 1, as elementary as it may seem, is a profound, sincere, deeply held conviction and belief that there is such a thing called God, that God exists in the universe and that God is ‑‑ if nothing else, if we can’t figure out how to describe God, at least we would say that God is the center and the source of Supreme Intelligence.

That is, that God is completely and utterly intelligent and aware and, therefore, has the ability to formulate thoughts, what you and I would consider thoughts, and to communicate. I am saying here that this is a God with whom we can communicate.

Again, please, forgive me for belaboring the point, but a lot of people who believe in God believe that God is some kind of disembodied energy, just a non‑personified energy, the energy that we call Life perhaps, but that this energy may not be “interact-able with,” if I could coin a phrase. That is, it’s not something you can interact with intellectually. You can’t have a conversation. You can use the energy, like you use electricity, but you wouldn’t have a conversation with electricity.

And it’s amazing how many people feel this way about God. I’m not making them wrong, by the way. I’m just saying that a large number of people feel that God is a disembodied energy, not unlike electricity, and you don’t have conversations with it.

So step number 1 then, obvious as it may seem, is that you hold as absolutely true that, A, God exists, and, B, God exists in the form with which two-way communication is possible.

I was asked recently over at CWGConnect.com about how we could have a personal God with whom we can communicate if God is really nothing more than raw energy. The answer I gave is that God is much more than raw energy. God is both the source and the expression of the highest consciousness, the greatest wisdom, and the grandest love in existence. God has made it clear to me that divinity will manifest itself in the life of every sentient being in the way that every sentient being is most capable of understanding and embracing the manifestation.

Thus, God will appear in the lives of some people as nothing more than raw energy. Life itself, if you please. In the lives of others, God will appear to be an Essential Essence, with personality. Divinity may therefore evidence itself as a protective Father, a nurturing Mother, a wise and gentle Friend, an Always Ready Helper in time of need, or in any other way, shape, manner, or form that suits the moment at hand.

In my own world, God is the Alpha and the Omega, the All-in-All, the Totality of All That Is. The beginning and the end of it, the here and the there of it, the before and the after of it, the up and down of it, the fast and slow of it, the dark and light of it, the left and right of it, the big and the small of it, the male and the female of it.

That’s just my thought. But you have to hold some idea that an Essence exists with whom you can experience a two-way interaction—and you can’t have any doubt about that. At least, not any continuing, persistent doubt that would more accurately be described as denial.

Now it is clear to me that acceptance of and embracing of the reality of God may be the most challenging of all the steps in the process of having one’s one conversation with God. It is certainly not a given. How one comes to this acceptance and embracing is a matter of another series of columns altogether, and is not something we are attempting to explore here. If you believe in God, you do. And if you don’t, you don’t. And that’s where we’re starting this series of entries. As stated in our last post, we’re not going to get into a debate about God’s existence here. People have been occupying themselves with such debates for millennia, may God bless ’em. Or, if you please, may Nothing bless ’em.

Please Note: The mission of The Global Conversation website is to generate an ongoing sharing of thoughts, ideas, and opinions at this internet location in an interchange that we hope will produce an ongoing and expanding conversation ultimately generating wider benefit for our world. For this reason, links that draw people away from this site will be removed from our Comments Section, a process which may delay publication of your post. If you wish to include in your Comment the point of view of someone other than yourself, please feel free to report those views in full (and even reprint them) here.
Click here to acknowledge and remove this note:
  • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

    Many here can understand the usage of God as energy like electricity. It’s the energy behind all animation & physical life, as well as non physical. It can be used and abused depending how we define such terms.

    The other location of the God definition equation is the stereotypical old loving as well as punishing white man God uP in the sky with a great set of teeth a low masculine voice. Most if not all the people who come here do not believe in such a God, but understand that this was/is a common image our culture embraced at some point & perhaps a good number of non metaphysical people still do.

    Now where is the middle ground where God is both energy & communicable entity? And perhaps much more as well.

    Let us find a definition of God that brings this all together. And from there, talk about communicating.

    Of course God showing uP as us individual in the smaller form & larger collective & larger still, the cosmic collective if we can coin such a term.

    Defining God is a good start to good communication.

    • AKA Patrick

      Check out a little book entitled “The Impersonal Life” for a thorough-going discussion and understanding of the God-Self and Its connection to Everything!
      This wonderful little book reduces the struggle. Go for it!

      • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

        Thanks for the recommendation, I’ll check the reviews on amazon for more info.

  • Spiritual_Annie

    Hmmm… Musings on God.

    First, I do believe. What I believe, and don’t, affects our ability to communicate at all, so I’ll try to define a bit of that, too.

    I do consider God to be the underlying energy, or un-breakdownable building blocks, of all creation (and I most often call it Divinity, so if I slip and use that term, please just replace it with God). I see this energy—God—as carrying consciousness and intelligence within or as part of it. Knowing God in this way allows for God to appear in whatever form we agree upon, depending on our preferences and desires, and to meet my needs.

    When I personify God, it’s usually as a matronly female, probably because my own mother was both my protector and nurturer. My ancestral history is one of German farmers, where many women in my lineage were referred to as “wise women,” or what were later called “witches” during the turning from a partnership between patriarchy and matriarchy to a strictly patriarchal society, so that informs how I personify God as well: birth-giver, midwife, teacher, healer, homemaker and nurturer. In one word, supportive.

    As a conscious-intelligent-creative energy, I accept that God is everyone and everything, everywhere, always and in all ways. For me, that means God contains knowledge and information that’s not available to me in my strictly homo sapien everyday animal form existing in a particular place and time and level of consciousness. After all, if there’s not any knowledge or information to share, there can be no conversation, in whatever form that conversation might take.

    What I don’t believe is in a judgmental, punishing, condemning male God figure who would ever turn it’s back on its own creation for any reason. I used to, because I was told that’s simply who God is, having been raised Roman Catholic with a biological father who was and did do all of that. That elderly guy-in-the-sky concept is now as mythological to me as Zeus or Odin. God may correct me when I’m mistaken or unaware, but without negativity or shame.

    So, that’s my own belief in and understanding of God.

    Love and Blessings Always,
    ~Annie

  • Jean

    It’s not wonder that people are uneasy with a god you can communicate with, as in history we have been told that God was like a very mighty man who were often very angry if you didn’t follow his rules. You could even burn in hell for ever !

  • Jethro

    When I had my experience with what I ultimately labeled God, there was not a separation in anything. Not even in the furthest part of my own imagination was there a separation of anything or anything that was not part of everything in my short, deep, deep feeling of all that was around me and beyond. Nothing was alone in that moment or separate. A caring, deep respect for all life is an understatement for that feeling, combined with the knowing that all things are living. I don’t know if I will ever give a perfect description, or get close…

    I believe that every thought and every conversation is a conversation with God. If you don’t believe your having a conversation with God, you have found another name for God… or many different names for the sake of human interaction.

  • babybleustardust

    alright. I made a post. my feelings are getting hurt 😉 I know I am supposed to be aware but daggone what the heck is up with the moderator smoderator loserator eataposterator. Check his tonsils, okay? :)

    • babybleustardust

      thank you moderator :)

  • Jean

    To be honest, even if know that God would not judge me, i would still be afraid to talk directly to him. Why ? If i am really talking to God, i would have really to listen to him and try to apply his advises, even it’s not a obligation. The problem is that i know there is a lot of darkness in my heart, and i don’t have enough courage to face it. Perhaps that’s not true, but i feel that if i had to talk to god and follow his path, i would have to leave all my earthly pleasures and live only for god’s will. I am too selfish for that.

    • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

      Your earthly pleasures & what you think is God’s path does not have to conflict at all. You just think it does.

      • Jean

        I don’t say that you have to reject earthly pleasures, but if you are controlled by your desires, for instance sex drive, you can’t feel peace in your heart and follow god’s path. Well, that’s my point of view.

        • NealeDonaldWalsch

          Jean, what is this thing you call “God’s path”? How does anyone follow “God’s path”? What IS that…? Is it the path, for instance, of no sex? Or is it the path of not being CONTROLLED by ANY desire? If that is your idea of The Path to Godliness, you may be right. Because Godliness is the state of being IN control always…as in the case of being The Creator…..as opposed to being controlled by others, or by one’s own desires.

          Yet how can we be “controlled” by our own desires? If it is something we want, then we are getting what we want, and that is the direct opposite of being “controlled,” is it not?

          • Jean

            Dear Neale,

            Thanks for your answer. What is god’s path ? From my point of view, the goal is to open our heart, feel unconditional love and serve others. Of course i don’t pretend to be an example in everyday life.
            How can we controlled by our own desires ? Well the main problem of the human being is that we have different ‘parts’ inside us which have contradictory goals. Very often i feel controlled by sex drive. I feel a lot of shame writing this, but if i want to be very honest, in this case i see myself as predator and women as prey. So i don’t see other human beings but only sexual objects.
            At the same there is a part inside me who is genuinely interested by spirituality and want to share love with others. My suffering is the huge gap between these two parts. The sensitive part of me is really shocked by the ‘animal’ part inside me. That doesn’t mean i don’t want sex anymore, but i would like sex WITH love. I know there are a lot of books and teachers who talk things like tantric sex, but so far for me sex and love and still separated.

          • Jethro

            In your post you describe things about yourself that you do not feel is very godly. You even put that part of yourself down and state a lack of understanding for it….. your conversation with god is happening as you typed that. Keep the conversation going. Continue to think about that lack of understanding until you understand. Keep the conversation going until you understand. That’s a conversation with God.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Neale, speaks frequently of “your soul’s agenda,” and the soul, he suggests, is an individuation of his god. Following his god’s path would imply following the soul’s agenda. But who cares about that immaterial soul?

            The “I” part of “me,” our self-aware consciousness, is not going to survive the death of our brains, and the soul, if it exists, will go on its merry way without us. He always speaks of the soul as something separate from the mind – body, mind, soul, right? The mind cannot survive without the body – the brain. The soul, he proposes, can, but who cares about that soul, its piece of god, or its agenda, when “we” will be food for worms? Why should we care? As far as I’m concerned Neale’s concept of soul is distasteful. It uses us, our bodies and minds, for its own purposes and then drops us like a rag doll for a new model. Of course if it actually existed, and affected our material world, we’d know it by now.

            Neale is going to have to at least come up with a theory for how our self-aware consciousness can survive death, before an honestly skeptical, rational, critically thinking person should give any credence to his god – controller or not. He is suggesting, in proposing a real conversation took place, that everything we know about physics is wrong.

          • Sam

            “distasteful. It uses us, our bodies and minds, for its own purposes and then drops us like a rag doll for a new model.”

            Just like a regular horror movie from the 50s. I think you are onto something, lol.

          • Sam

            “Yet how can we be “controlled” by our own desires? If it is something we want, then we are getting what we want, and that is the direct opposite of being “controlled,” is it not?”

            Hmm, taking notes here… “not the devil whispering in my ear…”. Got it! :)

        • babybleustardust

          Jean,

          Neale put it elegantly, but here is my take. Simply stated God gave man the animal called sex drive for a reason. In the beginning a long time ago he named the animal in the beginning. I don’t believe God needs denial of a pound of flesh to be considered holy. What really makes the car go is a Heart of Gold.

          This boils down to is God a desire? Answer yes.

    • babybleustardust

      I think the earthy or earthly pleasures are important, especially for one talking directly to God. We all do but we don’t realize it. It is easy to assume one seeking should give up and follow some trailblazing thing. I did go through that sort of and discovered oh what a mistake. God is pleasure lol not. He/She/It delights when we pleasure the Self, the Soul, the True Heart, so pleasure away and say hi to God. God is us delighting in pleasure.

    • Jethro

      What is Gods path? Whatever path you follow or make, God will be on it as well.

      • Sam

        God is a whore? Oops, now I really stepped into it :)

        • Jethro

          In the respect of being everywhere, yes. Whatever is, God is. Wherever that might be.

          • Sam

            But is God going along with everything too?

          • Jethro

            What does God not go along with?

          • Sam

            Anything?

          • Jethro

            God, or no God, God is your idea of God, even if your idea is no God.

          • Sam

            Hmm, the answer is: God is going along with everything, as being the creator of any possibility in the first place.

          • Jethro

            Well there you have it. God is going along with everything.

          • Sam

            Yep. “God is a whore”, is a cute tattoo :)

          • Jethro

            :-)

    • Sam

      Ah, you came to the right place, Jean. You are driving an old Godmobile. Nice to look at in the museum. But what you need, and what this place is trading, is something that will really get you somewhere, some: Vroom! :)

      • Spiritual_Annie

        Well put!

    • NealeDonaldWalsch

      @Jean:
      Having a conversation with God takes no “courage” at all. Take it from me. There is nothing to be afraid of here.

      You have said: “…I feel that if i had to talk to god and follow his path, i would have to leave all my earthly pleasures and live only for god’s will.” Yet Conversations with God tells us: “My Will for you is your will for you.”

      It is my understanding that God has no “will” other than the desire for all of God’s creations to express Creation Itself, for it is through and by this device that Divinity knows Itself, experientially, as The Creator.

      You do not, therefore, have to “give up” anything in order to do “God’s will.” But you may decide, of your own FREE will, to “give up” certain things because they simply no longer represent (that is, they no longer re-present, or “present again”) your grandest notion of Who You Are and Who You Choose to Be.

      If we accept the notion of CWG that the purpose of life is to recreate ourselves anew in every golden moment of Now in the next grandest version of the greatest vision ever we held about Who We Are — and if we likewise embrace the notion that Who We Are is an Individuation of Divinity — then the reconstruction or recreation of Self is not a process of self-denial, but a self-realization. You see? And no one is “too selfish” for THAT!

      (We discuss these kinds of things regularly at “Ask Neale,” which is one of the features at http://www.CWGConnect.com You may want to check that out.)

    • Jethro

      You are already having an active conversation with God. You just don’t recognize it.

  • Patrick Gannon

    “As stated in our last post, we’re not going to get into a debate about God’s existence here.”

    How is this approach, any different from the fundagelical who believes in a literal reading of the bible? Neale starts with a conclusion – that his god exists, just like the fundies do, and then he goes about describing how to talk with this thing for which there is absolutely no compelling, objective evidence – none whatsoever, again, just like the fundies do.

    How does this god communicate with us? In order for Neale’s god to have communicated with him, it would have had to manipulate neurons, axions, dendrites, hormones, and actively create electrochemical charges out of nowhere, (violating the law of conservation of energy, which unlike the law of attraction, is a real law!) that fires synapses, in order to put the thoughts into his brain that he then wrote down. If that was actually possible, we would know it. The strong nuclear forces that bind atoms together would be torn asunder in a great many atoms during this process, and we know all the things that can do that – and there are no magical forces that are required to explain anything in how those particles can be affected.

    In short, the rest of Neale’s treatise is a waste of time. Until he can demonstrate or at least suggest a way in which his god can do these magical things without being detected, then it’s all nonsense. The only exception would be if we defined this Essential Essence as our own self-aware consciousness, and learned how to better communicate with our own brains!

    • Jean

      “In short, the rest of Neale’s treatise is a waste of time”

      So Patrick, why do you come here ? You know the author did write the books ‘Conversations with god’. If you don’t believe in god, what’s the use to come here ? Isn’t a waste of time ? Just the pleasure to say you are right and he’s wrong ?

      • Patrick Gannon

        I have my reasons.

        It’s called “a global conversation. I’m conversing. What good is a real discussion without a counterpoint? Do you want a “fair and balanced” report like Fox News that is never fair and never balanced, or do you want a discussion that firmly takes the other side – the side of rational thought, intellect, logic, critical thinking, and presents it, so the reader has access to both sides of the story?

        It may well be that as he goes through his list that he will suggest things that are valuable – he often does, and I’m happy to point them out. If he suggests mindfulness, for example, that is something that has nothing to do with gods, souls, etc., but is a valuable thing we can do for our own consciousness. His insistence that there really is a god who affected the particles in his brain, is a scientific assertion, that is completely lacking in support. Everything that follows, must therefore be considered with great skepticism.

        • Sam

          “the side of rational thought, intellect, logic, critical thinking, and presents it, so the reader has access to both sides of the story”

          Oh no, Patrick has taken all the tools in the shed, having the rest of us digging with our hands. What a scoundrel :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            That’s very funny, Sam!

            No, the tools are available for those willing to avail themselves of them. I find that few here do so, however. They are encouraged by Neale to leave those tools in the shed, particularly in this series where we are going to assume the existence of something for which no objective evidence exists – just like unicorns. Having assumed its existence, we’re now going to be taught how to communicate with this being (unicorn) for which there is no evidence. Tell me where rational thought, intellect, logic and critical thinking are involved in this process…

          • Sam

            Well, God is the best part within yourself. To make this your focus, and to bring forward, can’t harm.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Ah, but think of the incredible connection when digging by hand! 😉

            And there are plenty of tools left: intuition, creativity, inspiration, subjective experiences, scientific inquiry outside “the norm,” metaphysics… (to name but a few).

          • Sam

            Just typical women, have to make it beautiful too :)

    • Jethro

      Neale himself does not intend to get into any debates concerning the existence of God. He is choosing to be inlvolved in conversations concerning communications with God. He told us in the last article….

      “this is not going to be an argument or a debate, an analysis or an investigation, about whether there is a God or not. You can quarrel about that if you want to in your comments below, but my upcoming columns are not going there. So if you don’t agree with my premise that God exists, you may want to ignore my next 7 entries.”…

      He’s just not going to consider your comments concerning gods existance. “How is this approach, any different from the fundagelical who believes in a literal reading of the bible?” If you set through an informative lecture about wormholes and the lecturer opens up for queastions, he’s not going to pay much attention to the guy yelling wormholes don’t exist. So Neales attitude towards his subject is very much a human stance held by many. Not just those who believe in God.

      • Patrick Gannon

        Any scientist talking about wormholes is going to precede his talk by laying the groundwork first. He’s going to admit what we know and what we don’t know. He’s not going to ask the audience to take his word for anything. His discussion about wormholes is going to be based on what we objectively know about the laws of physics and the workings of our natural world. His talk will be based on what is theoretically possible based on our current knowledge.

        Neale offers none of that. None. Nada. Zip. It’s like insisting that unicorns exist and then giving a speech on the care, feeding and training of unicorns. What intelligent person is going to sit through that, for any reason other than to laugh at it?

        • babybleustardust

          A good scientist assumes the audience is somewhat familiar with the terminology. He shouldn’t have to teach about existence of a proton and electron if he’s teaching about quantum jump of a stream of quarks. At some point, you’ve got to leap into a erlenmeiier flask and say there’s something out there that’s bubbling me that I don’t understand, the understanding of which will produce a precipitate of a light cobalt or a rock crystal. What will precipitate the crystallization of awareness? Nada nada thing but stop arguing with life and a temperature risen.

          • Patrick Gannon

            A good presenter, scientist or otherwise, does a quick poll, or makes inquiries ahead of time so as to confirm whether his audience is familiar with the terminology. This is not something that should be assumed, if one does not want to be disappointed by the reaction to one’s presentation.

            What is a “stream of quarks”? A quantum jump is a change of an electron from one quantum state to another within an atom (and not some paranormal woo thing). “A quark is an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quarks combine to form composite particles called hadrons, the most stable of which are protons and neutrons, the components of atomic nuclei.”

            I’m not going to fit in any erlenmeyer flasks, so I’m unlikely to find anything bubbling up within me that I don’t understand, nor do I get the reference to Co or rock NaCl.

            What precipitates the crystallization of awareness? Probably the “attention schema,” as proposed by Michael Graziano, in his book “Consciousness and the Social Brain.”

            I have no argument with life. It’s hard to argue with a process. One can start or stop a process, but one can’t really argue with it! The temperature is rising though. We had a warm day yesterday.

            I don’t know that a stream typically causes mold – moss perhaps. Any stream causing mold, probably has something polluting it. Love blue cheese, but will take a pass on yogurt.

            Was anything useful communicated in this exchange?

          • babybleustardust

            oh my god. smoderator posterator has eaten my entire operating system. This goddess has gone through 3 laptops in one week and one brand new. Sheesh! Alright, where were we?

            Was anything useful communicated in this exchange?

            Well, let’s see. i found out you love blue cheese. It is grand, isn’t it :)

            As far as a good presenter needing to take a poll first, agreed. I do agree polls work, and yet Neale did make the announcement ahead of time that he is addressing a specialized special audience, at least one that is willing to suspend the edge of disbelief, just like in the movies. You know that when we go to the movie theater we suspend our disbelief a little because otherwise it would not be fun to watch. We have to at least believe in the possibility that it could be true that Clint Eastwood is a rawhide with a high noon showdown or the little mermaid really lives under the sea; otherwise, it’s not fun to watch the movie. Life is like that, too. We’re just a big movie with multiple screens. I don’t know. This is a metaphor. I am a metaphor when you think about it. I am a metapor for Life. How do I live is always the question all ask themselves. What to choose to think, say and believe in in the big smorgasboard of life? It’s a big buffet, I guess. So eat blue cheese :)

            What is a stream of quarks? It is a stream of quarks. It’s real. Look it up. Scientific American. Just google “is a quark smart?” I found an article, fascinating indeed. It talks about scientist creating a blast of smashing atoms and a gold stream of quarks that created a most beautiful image. I don’t know why I said stream of quarks but it exists. Also, we don’t know everything about quarks. There is also leptons, another indivisible particle of matter that can create anything in the universe. There is a literal up and down quark and how fascinating. I must study it more. the physicist whose article I read seemed to suggest that we are on the verge of learning more not less, and you always want to assume we are done with discovery. At least, that is my impression. Science is never done, neither is God. I am never done either :)

            Alright, so you won’t fit in an erlenmeiier flask. But, mist and a stream I don’t know. . .I could put you in a Florence Flask, but you seem masculine and stubborn as heck so I thought you would fit better in erlenmeiiere. Mist can create mold unless it’s the ionic breezy kind, which is proof enough that God exists. Ahhh Whew breathe it in. I must go to the beach. Have a sunny day!

            Love to you, Pat.

            Michelle

          • Patrick Gannon

            Wish I could go to the beach!. Hopefully in a month.

            Well Michelle, I’m laughing my butt off right now, because if my girlfriend read this, she’d be digging me in the ribs. Your metaphor of the movie is excellent! As it turns out, I pop up in the middle of movies all the time… “That couldn’t happen.” “How could that be real!?” “That defies gravity.” Etc. I don’t understand. She doesn’t appreciate my helpful commentary very much! Geez. LOL.

            On the other hand, there is also the part that is not a metaphor. Both the movie, and Neale’s god are fiction, which is why it is necessary to suspend disbelief in order to proceed.

            You’re right. There is such a thing as a “stream of quarks.” I didn’t know that. I love learning something new. When you first mentioned it, I actually searched for the expression, but without quotes around it. When I searched with quotes – you were right – there it is. The first search result was a Star Trek reference, and Kirk’s body streaming off in quarks, so I was ready to laugh, but lo and behold, it’s a real phenomenon. I suspect you were thiking about me, like Kirk, dissipating into the universe in a stream of quarks!

            I absolutely agree that we are on the verge of learning more, not less. Our learning rate has been exponential and shows no sign of slowing down. I will be very surprised if any of this new knowledge supports immaterial gods, however. That is certainly not the current trend of the research results.

          • babybleustardust

            Well, what about that. You are the one who animating spirit that you are inspired this animating force to look up “are quarks smart”? Your writing always sends me to google with the damndest things and I learn a lot, so thank you.

            Have fun at the beach in a month. I hope to be there, too. I figure what I need is nothing but an ocean wave to soak in and ride baby ride ahhhh can’t wait. No wonder she digs in your ribs. I hate it when people ruin my suspension of disbelief, particularly if they’re loud in the theater. I like total silence except for popcorn you can’t hear me :) and I try to be quiet. There must be some good ones coming out soon. Jim Carrey might be in one. He’s enlightened. I might go to his coming up. I see he grew a jesus beard wow he’s hairy now :) Yeah a stream of quarks and they think the indivisible lepton and quark might house more divisions so it is speeding up the more we learn the more we get to learn. Here is to more fun googling :) A god doesn’t have to be human looking. It can be a lightstream, a quark, unseen even, so you don’t know what you’re housing when you simply eat blue cheese lol

            love to you,

            M

          • Patrick Gannon

            “No wonder she digs in your ribs. I hate it when people ruin my suspension of disbelief, particularly if they’re loud in the theater.”

            Oh, I don’t do that in the theatre – only at home. I’m not that rude. I’m usually jerking her chain for fun when I do it, and bruises heal!

          • babybleustardust

            oh she’s got you chained. That’s good. It’s good you don’t act up in the theater or else some might shush you. Now, if she’s punching you have a right to be loud :) so guess what is good with blue cheese:) cinnamon fresh baked apple pie mmmm :)

        • Jethro

          Well a lecturer “might” do that. We believe a responsible scientist would do that, but what about the crackpot that believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that wormholes exist beyond a mathematical equation, as if he/she had experienced one. There are extremist in every field of study be it God or tree gnomes or wormholes….or unicorns.

          While most of us would check the credibility of the person giving the lecture some don’t. After such an action, we’re left with people who believe in something that’s not true sharing stories with conviction about false information making even the truth sound impossible. I know, it sounds ridiculous! :-)

          • Patrick Gannon

            This is how all the conspiracy theories get started. What are we to feel a) for the person who originates the nonsense, and b) the fools who accept it.

            Where is Neale’s credibility? What evidence does he have that his personal god exists?

          • Jethro

            Any credibility of any God is in the thousands of years of stories and the people who died in the name of God, whatever that name might be. People have fought and died for their belief in a God. People are currently sacrificing there freedom and very lives for the freedom to believe in a God, a God different from the God they were raised to believe in for some. The idea of God has tied communities together and provided will and strength to overcome many things without just giving up. That’s credibility.

            Evidence… Nope! Because you gotta have faith. You know that already. It’s called “Spirit”uality for a reason. It’s the individual who sees evidence, the believer.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Not sure I follow you. Dying in the name of a non-existent god, doesn’t give the god any credibility, it just shows how easily humans can be deceived.

            Yes, gods and religion have worked to pull communities together. There is a social aspect of religion in which a community takes care of each other that has great value. What turns that value into evil, quite often is the belief in the imaginary, invisible being that lives in the sky and his vicious extortion of mere humans.

            Faith is not something that should be commended. It’s a weakness. It’s pretending to know things you don’t know. It holds back personal growth and development. It causes people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do if they were capable of rational thought. Spirituality does not have to be pretend. One can have spiritual experiences (which originate from our brains), and these are of great value to us. No faith or belief in gods, is required to be spiritual – Carl Sagan, an agnostic, comes to mind.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I’m getting a callous on the outside of my right hand from swiping it across the screen in order to get screenshots of all your golden nuggets and veins of wit and wisdom! 😀

          • Jethro

            Thanks again, your making me blush. The nature of a callous will reduce friction actually allowing the callous to heal until it softens enough to re-callous. I would suggest a lotion but then id have to suggest a screen/lens cleaner. which may dry out your skin. What I do it get callouses to keep them from forming.

          • Jethro

            What can we possibly feel for the mother who comforts her child? A mother concerned for her child’s fears of dying. after all, I did mention that. BUT…what are we to feel about the person who is tweaking the stories, such as the christian god who will show up in my life time. I think you told me that idea is only 3 or 4 hundred years old. Shame on me if I go against myself to believe it. They should have whipped the people who started those stories when they started. Even if it was the pope. After all, most of modern Christianity was a product of politics. So there had to be public displays of the wrath of God.

          • Patrick Gannon

            No, the Catholic Church (the pope) does not accept the rapture. That’s a fundagelical protestant thing. If you want to punish the people who invented the rapture, then you should punish the people who invented Yahweh.

          • Jethro

            I don’t actually wish to punish anyone. It’s the teacher/preacher that has confused the congregation over the years. I know that like everything, religions have evolved over the years probably due to competition and a need for power. If religions cannot be removed, I would suggest clearing the slate and starting over again. I really believe that Neale has a great version this far.

          • Patrick Gannon

            How do you “clear the slate”? How does Neale’s version contribute to clearing the state? All he does is add another degree of separation, another alternative, another belief, another faith system, another denomination of Christianity Lite.

            Gods and religions appear to be things we began to invent 120,000 years ago, give of take, probably as we became aware of our own mortality. To wipe the slate clean, would be to remove the System 2 thinking we evolved as part of our expanded prefrontal cortex, and that would make us primates again.

            I don’t think the object is to wipe the slate clean, but to continue to write on the slate, taking the narrative in a new direction based on truth, logic, critical thinking and compelling, objective evidence.

          • Jethro

            I belief religions were started to bring a better life to folks, but being human we used it more to give reason for judgement and punishment. You can’t clean the slate and you can’t remove religions. As a matter of fact, if you could clean the slate a new religion would pop up because its just how humans think. Science could be a religion, if it became like that of religion there would be another group of idiots out there preaching false information to make a buck. Inevitably there would be followers and before long the whole system would be confused and not know exactly what to believe about any of it. The truth would become foggy and the lies would be argued as truth.

            Neale’ version doesn’t have condemnation that I know of and it’s self-centered, which is what traditional religions are supposed to be. A tool for self learning, not a tool for judging others.

          • Patrick Gannon

            LOL. I think Neale’s religion is very judgemental when it comes to other religions (and for the most part, I share those judgements). However, he does say there is no right or wrong, no punishment or reward. (I agree – because, after all, we will be dead!).

            Science cannot be a religion, because it is not based on faith or beliefs, but on a process that has been proven to be reliable and trustworthy again and again. Certainly there are religious, and New Age woo folks trying to undermine and question that reliability, attempting to redefine science as belief, and doing just what you suggest – putting up pseudo-science garbage so that those who are too lazy and apathetic to learn the truth for themselves, or those who seek confirmation bias to support what they already believe, will denigrate and degrade the scientific process. If humanity continues to survive, I would not be surprised if we developed a caste system of low-end, ignorant worker bees, and a higher caste of intelligent, scientifically literate leaders. If you’re a fundagelical believer (legacy or new age) and you marry and have offspring with those like yourself, instead of smarter, more educated folks, your kids may end up in a second tier caste in another century.

            Attempting to undermine science and the scientific process, may work to some extent within a population of ignorant, scientifically illiterate humans, but the truth, I think, will prevail in the end, because the process yields trustworthy results and pseudo-science doesn’t. Religion is not as successful in Europe, perhaps because their education system has largely surpassed our own.

            If humanity survives, we’ll remove religion one day, I predict. We’ll look back on this time 1000 years from now, with disdain for anti-scientific ignorance. I should say, that I say this with limited confidence, because on our current path, I think it’s unlikely we’ll survive another 50 years. Our population is unsustainable. We use up a whole years’ worth of earth’s resources before Spring is finished. Aquifers are being pumped dry, climate change is drying up glaciers that provide water. The oceans are being stripped clean. Things are going to get very bad, I think. When I was born, there were 2.5 billion people on earth and it took all of earth’s history to get to that point. In my lifetime alone, population has increased to over 7 billion. This growth is not sustainable and indeed we need to remove about 4 billion people just so the earth’s resources can keep up.

            The Abrahamic religions – all of them – call for this day of reckoning, a final tumult, a catastrophic ending; and Neale’s religion says, “it doesn’t matter.” If science is to be called a religion, then let it be the one that says, “yes, our survival does matter.”

          • Patrick Gannon

            Oh My (Imaginary Invisible Being that Lives in the Sky) – I don’t see your post here, but I checked the link (how many quarter cups are in a cup) that you referenced on Facebook, and if anything gives evidence that we are developing a caste system in which people are separated by intelligence – that link confirms it beyond all doubt! The mother, should have been able to get the concept across.

          • Jethro

            I am seeing this a lot in my children’s generation. I can’t find workers to handle the work I do. No common sense or ability to figure things out. I thought it might be that I’ve been a plumber so long that I feel it’s common knowledge, but no, our children are…. stupid. I thought I had comprehension problems!

          • Patrick Gannon

            They were taught to take the test. They weren’t taught to learn. It’s not their fault for the most part. Our kids have lost some of the motivation that drove us (but this isn’t necessarily all bad, as we were motivated to want “things” and creating those “things” for everyone is depleting our planet of resources).

            I went to the graduation ceremony of a friend’s son recently from Engineering school, and a great many of the graduates were not US citizens. They will take what they learned back to their countries with them, while here in America, our leaders from the President to Pence, to Sessions to so many Congress People (mostly men), attack science from the very top, despite it having been responsible for our success in the first place. It’s not a good situation.

            I read an article about this a while back. The Marines are concerned. Kids coming out of school are not taught to reason and think. They are taught to do tasks and they do them well. The problem is that the Marines are first in and last out, and their success depends in large part on personal motivation and thinking on your feet. The new recruits were not doing well with this and so they tried to figure out who would make the best candidates and produce the best leaders.

            Interestingly enough, it turned out that the soldiers who liked to break the rules, turned out to be the smartest, quickest-thinking, most motivated, etc. They were the perfect candidates.

            I have some compassion for the gal who couldn’t figure out how many quarter cups were in a cup. I recall struggling mightily as a kid to comprehend that ‘the square root of a number squared, is that number.’ It’s breathtakingly simple, but I had some sort of mental block that persisted a couple weeks before it finally clicked. I still remember how frustrated my dad was that I couldn’t grasp it!

            I work with kids in karate class, but I don’t interface with them in other ways, so as to comment on their comprehension skills. There’s not a lot of comprehension skill in karate. “This foot here, that arm there. Don’t get hit.” Part of it may be that they don’t have to think because tools do so much for them. When I first worked a cash register, I had to know how to make change. Today the computer register tells you what the change is. If you hand someone additional money (to avoid getting small change for example) after they’ve entered the amount in the register, they have no idea how to figure out what to give you back, but they never had to, so is it their fault that they don’t know how to reason it out? I don’t know.

            It’s the age of specialization. Many things have become so complicated that it’s difficult for anyone to understand the whole thing, so you specialize on parts of it. There still have to be people, capable of reason, to pull all those parts together though. They aren’t going to have kids with little miss, ‘how many 1/4 cups in a cup.’ They are going to have kids with someone else as smart as they are. Over time, two classes may emerge. I would strongly discourage my offspring from marrying someone who can’t reason out how many 1/4 cups are in a cup. I sometimes think it’s a shame we don’t require an IQ test to a) get a driver’s license, and b) have kids.

            So many things, changing so very fast – like an out of control train headed for an incomplete bridge. All this stuff we talk about – none of it holds a candle to our real problem – overpopulation. We need to remove about 4 billion people just so the earth can renew the resources we use every year. We live in a closed system. The only thing that comes in is energy from the sun, and it is converted to usable resources at far too slow a rate to keep up with us. Unless we start hauling in resources (metals and minerals) from outer space, and come up with energy cheap enough to desalinate water, we’re screwed, and still, if we don’t reduce population we’re going to strip the oceans clean. When I was a kid, I spent high school in Hawaii. I was so fortunate to be able to skin and SCUBA dive while the reefs were full of fish. I returned for a class reunion 25 years later, and the reefs I used to dive were stripped clean of edible fish. I doubt it’s gotten any better in the last 20 years.

            We have real problems facing us, and Neale wants to talk about how to have a conversation with an imaginary, invisible being that lives in the sky. How is that going to solve our overpopulation problem? Talk about a comprehension problem! Have you seen the movie “Inferno”? I like that solution. It’s humane. I’m glad that I’m not a youngster just starting out. If I knew what I know now, I don’t see how I could have kids. I wouldn’t expect them to live out their natural lives before cataclysm shuts us down. We’re filling up our shared petri dish and when we eat up all the nutrients in the dish, we’re going to drown in our own poisons. And on that sad note – back to work!

          • Jethro

            I know the system in which we teach our children is flawed. that’s an understatement. nobody is in any hurry to fix it.

            “Neale wants to talk about how to have a conversation with an imaginary, invisible being that lives in the sky. How is that going to solve our overpopulation problem?” ……Had people paid more attention to the messages from the invisible being in the sky, which I believe is the “conscience” and “common something”, people wouldn’t be having sex with anyone and everyone who consents to it and then some, creating this population boom. The rules or commandments were good ones. If we are going to battle these problems, we need to connect with people at their core belief systems… “the God zone”. If people understand that they are “the God” that everyone has been talking about, they might show a little more respect for themselves and the people around them. Neale has told people they are God, but it’s been taken incorrectly, Much of what Neale has said has been taken differently than I personally took it and I don’t see Neale popping in to tell me my thoughts are off base. I would welcome it. Just to know if I belong here or not.

            Yes! Off to work….

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Jethro,

            I’m beginning to believe that the only solution for our children’s education is home schooling, especially now that we have DeVoss in charge of Education, and she doesn’t believe in public schools and is out to destroy them. Although, there may be help in online schooling, such as “K-12” that appears to provide free resources for home schooling online and in partnership with parents rather than leaving them on their own.

            Love and Blessings Always,
            ~Annie

          • Jethro

            Home schooling is how it was always done, why not today? I’ve heard todays school is designed to help our children work in factories… I’ve always been too rebellious to work in factories but every time I do I become a team leader. It’s all manipulation. I hate it!!

          • Patrick Gannon

            You left out the word “imaginary.” There are no messages from imaginary gods. I don’t think that having sex with anyone and everyone who consents is the primary cause of overpopulation. Such people tend to use contraception, because they are not bothered by any god’s, religions or churches who would tell them who they can and can’t have sex with.

            “Free love” is not the cause of the population explosion. The problem is mostly mathematical. Two people have two kids, and each of them has two kids, and each of them has two kids, and so on, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, etc. – next thing you know, you’ve got billions of kids. Do the math. We have to cut back to a single kid per couple until we get the population under control. Obviously the Abrahamic religions are largely going to oppose this given their maniacal obsession with sex.

            Back in the good old days, most of the kids died in childbirth or early childhood, or later through starvation, disease, accident, war, etc., so the population remained stable. We’ve overcome those early killers, but failed to put measures in place to stop the population explosion, thanks in large part to disordered, celibate virgins dressed in robes who want to control us all through shame, guilt and fear. However, it’s not just an Abrahamic problem – other religions are pumping out too many kids too. They all figure that whoever gets the most, wins – but what happens is we all lose.

            What rules and commandments were good ones? That we should stone brides to death if they were found not to be virgins on their wedding night? That if a man had sex with an animal, we should kill both the man and the animal? That if your child sassed you, they should be taken to the town gates and killed by the elders? Which rules and commandments were the good ones? There are more than ten – there are 613 of them in total.

            You have to keep in mind that this is all a business for Neale. New Age is a big business, raking in hundreds of millions every year. I have asked a question here several times about who goes on to the afterlife: body, mind, or soul. I looked it up in CwG, and Neale says the shell of the body, along with the mind and soul, all go into the afterlife. I would sure like to understand that part about the “shell of the body” somehow going into an afterlife. I’d like to understand why he speaks of “the soul’s agenda” and places emphasis on what our souls want. He doesn’t say much about what happens to the mind and the shell of the body when we die.

            “You are a tri-part being, made of body, mind, and spirit. You will always be a tri-part being, not just while you are living on the Earth. There are those who hypothesize that upon death the body and the mind are dropped. The body and the mind are not dropped. The body changes form, leaving its most dense part behind, but retaining always its outer shell. The mind (not to be confused with the brain) goes with you, too, joining with the spirit and the body as the one energy mass of three dimensions, or facets.” (Chapter 12)

            This passage from CwG is a scientific claim. A totally unsupported scientific claim. The mind is not going anywhere without the brain, and of course the body isn’t going anywhere, either. The soul if it exists is moot in our natural world since it is immaterial and cannot affect any of the physical material here.

            Neale refers to ” the one energy mass” but something with mass is not immaterial. Something with mass has been affected by the Higgs field. Something with mass, we know about and can observe, measure and experiment with. Souls we know nothing about, because they are immaterial and have no mass – otherwise we’d know about them. The more I read it, the more it sounds like gobbledygook. It’s funny – it sounded so real and pertinent and right, when I shut off my critical thinking skills, but when I turn them on, it’s all mush.

          • Jethro

            Well of course people who are just out to get their rocks of are responsible and use condoms and birth control pills. It’s the married folks who are out of control and sleeping around, yes, that’s gotta be the problem… Dude, come on.
            Dang! imaginary invisible being in the sky. Sorry. Had you let that go I wouldn’t have even noticed and given you a hard time about it.

            Free love is playing quite a roll, but agreed, there’s been a lot of begats in the last 50 years from those who did it right. God or no god. People shouldn’t be having kids if they don’t at least plan to stay together. that’s another story. 2000 years ago, it was best to have a large family, 100 years ago it was best, families worked together, like little businesses. AND, populating the earth is the goal in parts of the Bible. If revelations was a story of things to come, why not warn of over populating. Maybe they figured God wouldn’t have quite talking to people after that! Thank the “imaginary” invisible being in the sky, that Neale opened the lines of communication again… You just cringed didn’t you?

            I only know of ten commandments and only three or four pertain to my beliefs. Over 600 commandments, I’ll google that… listen to that music from jeopardy for a split second. 613 mitzvoth…Ok, too much crap to sort through, but if I give it another thought it looks interesting. Not to marry non-Jews… whoops! been there done that, 3- times. guess I’ll be in the part of hell that’s really close to the bellows! Want worse news? not one has my personal thoughts on a God. So now I’ll be stuck in hell, near the bellows, with an itch in that part of my back that I can’t reach, or moves around if I blackmail someone into scratching it. I’m so totally screwed! for eternity! because in the short time I’ve been allowed to live, I’ve only just realized there are so many commandments!! Who goes to hell for not telling everyone?

            As a business man, I have a great respect for Neale’ endeavors, you should too. but we can be jealous, right? that’s legal. Nope, we have to be satisfied with our own crap. Fine. I’m doing good on my own and I’m happy for Neale. You have your own pond, don’t tell me your not without the money you need.

            Afterlife… Nobody has any evidence of an afterlife. None of the dead folks are talking. It must be a conspiracy or something. Afterlife is speculation. I really don’t care about afterlife claims. Nobody knows. Nobody!

          • Patrick Gannon

            In my view, anyone who has more than one kid is part of the problem, but overpopulation is the elephant in the room that we are all ignoring.

            Many couples are choosing not to get married, yet still staying together for the kids; that’s not “free love.” The institution of marriage is changing. Our life spans have more than doubled and there’s plenty of time for another partner. Those who get caught in free love often get abortions, I would imagine. Others become part of the welfare state. It’s our fault for making it difficult for them to get contraception.

            It’s funny – the Catholic Church believes aborted babies go to Hell because they aren’t baptized, and thus are stained with original sin. If they let people use contraception, there would be a lot fewer souls going to Hell. Of course they would say that the ones using contraception will go to Hell, but those people at least have the opportunity to repent and ask forgiveness (after their childbearing years are up!), and thus avoid Hell. The net is that the Church’s policy sends far more souls to Hell than it would if it wasn’t so maniacally obsessive about sex.

            Our ancestors had lots of kids, because most of them died. When you go into countries with high birth rates and vaccinate the kids, the birth rates drop because parents see that some of their kids are actually going to survive, so they stop pumping them out. This has been illustrated in a number of countries.

            Why would it be necessary for an all-knowing, all-powerful being to have to open the lines of communication again? Couldn’t he get it right the first time?

            Look up “613 levitical laws list.” Did you know it was a sin to charge interest on a loan – punishable by death? This is why Christians intentionally misinterpreted Matthew when Jesus said he had come to fulfill (carry out) the law. They claim “fulfill” means to abandon the law – a ridiculous assertion, if you read the text in context, but the “law” is all 613 items.

            Oh I respect Neale’s business acumen. I think he’s a lovable scoundrel. He may believe his own BS, but I think there’s a good chance that this whole CwG thing was carefully orchestrated and constructed. I’m not even sure I buy the all-too-convenient story of hardship and strife, living in his car, broken neck, the whole bit. It may be true, but it might also be a good way to start a narrative. Loser makes good. It’s a perennial story.

            Of course I agree that there’s no evidence for an afterlife, but you side frequently – against me – with others on this forum who insist that there is; so I never really know where you stand. You will agree with me in one post, and then agree with Annie in another….

          • Jethro

            There are many unproven things in our universe. Things without physical proof, some things are just unknown. I agree that there is no proof for many things but can agree it might exist. If we can’t prove it exists, we can’t prove it doesn’t. Yes we can give debate and ask for proof it exists, give all the arguments that it doesn’t, but can we actually prove something is not there just because the argument is good in saying it’s not? How long did people know about molecules before they were seen? Have they been seen? Wormholes, have they been seen? Just to pick on one religion, Christians exist and so does their screwed up way of believing. It’s not my call to say what forces exist or don’t because I don’t know, but I do know that some Christians are some of the most screwed up thinkers out there and I don’t believe in their screwed up idea of God. Of course, I feel that way about some other religions and some other spiritual crap. But as long as nobody is being harmed, let free will reign… even if that will is having a useless argument about whether god exists or not. Humans exists and they must have something to believe in, its hard wired into us, Even you Patrick have found your something to believe in. At the moment, I believe in humans, humanity needs something to look forward to and the zombie apocalypse doesn’t need to one of them. A little Kumbaya would serve the world well. It has become way to common for people to say they don’t care and I’ll be damned if their not proving it! I care and I’m showing it.

          • Patrick Gannon

            The argument that we need to prove a negative is very weak. Consider this claim. I claim that the moon is full of green cheese. You can’t prove it’s not. So should we accept that the moon is full of green cheese? Of course not – this is an impossibly weak argument. What we know with regard to the standard model/core theory of physics is known with an exceptionally high degree of confidence, and supported equally by evidence. That cannot be said for the proposals for gods and afterlives, can it?

            “But as long as nobody is being harmed, ” Of course many people are harmed by religion and believing in things that have no evidence, starting with their mental state. When you believe in things deeply and then are confronted with evidence that your beliefs are wrong, people experience cognitive dissonance, and this is not healthy, or good for the individual or society.

            “Even you Patrick have found your something to believe in.” I greatly prefer to “think that” rather than “believe in” but yes, we all believe things. I can say that I believe the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, but actually I think that’s true with a very high degree of confidence, because I have overwhelming evidence that it has always been so. I don’t like the word “belief” because it’s too loose and indeterminate.

            If you want to care about humanity, figure out how to solve our overpopulation crisis that is going to force us into extinction. I care too. I care about truth, and I’ll share scientific truths as applicable and as understood by myself, when appropriate, to counter outrageous claims that have no compelling, objective evidence to support them. I have the easier job, of course.

          • Jethro

            Your right, it’s weak, but that’s beside the point. I’m talking about beliefs. If a person believes the moon is full of green cheese and there is no proof that it’s not, nor any proof that it is, it’s up to the believer. Compelling evidence cannot do anything one way or the other, there is none, one would prove the other.

            As long as nobody is being harmed, I’ll stick by that one. Actions taken by one person against another for whatever reason based on their belief of an imaginary spiritual being in the sky.

            My goodness Pat, word games again. OK….many people “think that” God exists. They found their happy thought, You have found your Happy thought. I forget your dislike for the word believe.

            I have an answer that would help the wasting away of the world, remove money. Take away the ability to get rich. By a long shot that’s the short version. Let communities serve themselves again.

          • Patrick Gannon

            ” If a person believes the moon is full of green cheese and there is no proof that it’s not, nor any proof that it is, it’s up to the believer.” Sure, but it’s not necessary that the rest of us treat that believer as a rational, sane person if they believe the moon is made of green cheese, right? People are allowed to believe that Elvis is still alive, but if you put it on your resume, it probably won’t help secure employment.

            Actually there is compelling evidence that the moon is not filled with green cheese. If it was, the moon’s weight and mass would surely be different from what it is, and that would affect its orbit. The math wouldn’t work out. Newtonian laws would be violated.

            Please don’t twist my words. If you ask them, most people “believe in” God. Very few will tell you that they “think that” God exists. It’s a big semantic difference. It matters.

            You want to remove money? How would you pay for Neale’s books? You want to send us back to the Middle Ages? How do you pay your doctor, when she doesn’t want any more chickens? How do you pay for your meds? How does a PVC manufacturer obtain the raw materials to make the pipes that you need for your business? How do your clients pay you? What you’re asking to do is to go back in time, before the Templars who started the first banking system, to a time of starvation and disease and misery and serfdom, warfare and death. If our monetary system collapses, we could end up back there again. Money’s not the problem. It may simply be that the environment has changed and natural selection is working within a new environment, given that we’ve removed many of the other things that determined survivability in the past. Natural selection in this new environment may be determining who is most fit, and it sucks, but if that’s where evolution leads us, that’s where it leads us. Evolution has no morals, ethics, goals, plans or directions. It just is. (Like God, one might say!). Hey did I just hit the answer? Evolution is God?

          • Jethro

            Today we know the truth about the moon, but when the world was flat and surrounded by waterfalls, the moon was made of cheese.

            People speak in random forms, my customers are average people and I can’t get too specific or I would insult customers at every new address. I’m not as picky as you are. believe in it, think its true, for the average person it translates so close to mean the same thing its not funny. The insult is not intended. I did the ask the wife test… She believes and thinks there is no difference in the two phrases.

            The middle ages… this mentality is why we are where we are. all the basics can be provided for no charge. the possibility of not being able to have more than someone else scares the hell out of the rich. Gold and silver is just a mineral and we have converted them to paper. We don’t have to trade rocks to obtain the necessities. Trading, bartering, giving away unneeded items, it has worked in the past and just needs to be refined. We can eliminate all the riches in the world and the desirable things would still exist. Food, water, housing, clothing and the ability to manufacture. The only thing that stumps everyone is how to get something for your product, how to get that fair share, how to have more. How to become rich. Without it people would desire to be Good people again, not Powerful people.
            “a time of starvation and disease and misery and serfdom, warfare and death. If our monetary system collapses, we could end up back there again. Money’s not the problem.” No, people who desire to have more than they need is the problem. I don’t need a servant to wipe my butt for me, but servants did silly things like that for people too lazy to reach around themselves, and it was all about power which was obtained by being able to fire a person for not doing it. The only difference between a doctor and a plumber is, one of them washes his/her hands BEFORE he/she urinates. Had one of those off the wall thoughts while refilling coffee, generated by the thought that a doctor drives a high-end foreign car and I am driving a 15 year old expedition with 250,000 miles on it.

            Evolution= God in action, you might be on to something here. Provided it’s part of the human mind creating that part of evolution.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “all the basics can be provided for no charge.”

            How?

            If you give rats all the basics, they will continue to reproduce and consume everything you give them, and as they run out of space, they will turn on each other, as we are.

            How does evolution continue of there is no weeding out of the sick, weak and stupid? If you are a gal who wants to reproduce, is your best prospect the guy who sits on the couch where all his basics are provided for no charge, or the guy who gets out and hustles and makes a better life for himself and his family? Unless the gal is also a human parasite, the choice should be pretty simple.

          • Jethro

            Well, you start by allowing the children to follow there desires and interests, not the money. Be a cobbler or a blacksmith, everyone can’t be doctors and lawyers. We don’t need large factories pumping out shoes that sort of fit good enough, or a vintage churn that can’t be fixed because nobody can make that little gear anymore.

            If we are going to replace our human jobs with computerized workers and take away the ability to trade, then supply the unfortunate with the basics or give the work back to the people that built the industry, isn’t that why we developed the public schools? to make better factory workers? Good luck finding a kid who is willing to actually work these days anyway. It will most certainly come with objection, but so did eradication of slavery. We are currently feeding the parasites and providing an awesome reason to reproduce, more kids… more money. The parasites are being paid and receiving incentives to reproduce. The sad part is, some of them aren’t parasites at all. I’ve been out of work and received assistance, I was ashamed, but in need. Society has allowed people to take advantage. When I say basics, I mean clothing and food, not fashion and cuisine.

            I will note that I refer to the healthy lazy people, not the unfortunate or disabled. There is honest people in the system in dire need.

            Get rid of all the safety rules/laws and stupid takes care of itself!

            Speaking of income… time for work. digging a hole and crawling under a house at the same address, not going to be a good day!!

          • Patrick Gannon

            I’m not sure, but we seem to be in at least partial agreement. If you supply people with the basics, they will do the same thing viruses will do… breed and consume.

            It’s an impossible problem. Unless we can somehow convince or enforce, severe restrictions on birth, then only major war, calamity, disease, etc. can save us, I’m afraid. We’re always bitching, but as the song says, “These are the good old days.”

            You mention taking care of those who are truly disabled and needing help, and we have evolved altruistic traits that lead us to want to do that. In the old days, however, no matter how much we might have wanted to do that – those people died and did not reproduce. Today they do. Should we limit assistance to those who voluntarily give up their right to reproduction? That would be closer to our original evolutionary track…

            I hate crawl spaces. Better you than me, dude. For a short while I installed broadband satellite systems for residential customers (ugh), and that often entailed running cables through spider webs, insects, (fortunately no snakes or rats), but I hated it. I didn’t care much for roofs, either. I’d rather dig the hole.

          • Jethro

            We are already like a disease on this earth, sucking it dry, leaving waste that destroys the eco-system. That includes you and I. We can’t help it. We are civilized. We would do better for the planet, to go commando in our animal skin wraps and hunt monkeys with poison blow darts.

            Maybe we should just accept that people die. can you imagine people being born but not dying. That’s the ultimate goal as I understand it. Currently millions of people die daily, we call it a travesty, or say it never should’ve happened, but it’s the only thing keeping us from having to create a D-day for those who do mooch off of humanity. Honestly it does seem like an impossible problem, but it’s not. It would require a major change in how people think about wealth. People have been taught that being wealthy is the best way. Wealth being monetary, If wealth were defined as all humans having what they needed, everyone would have more than they need. Modes of transportation would change, plants would supply necessary oils, crude oil would stay in the ground. Money would not be the desired outcome, good health of all life would be sought after and a healthy planet equals healthy humans.

            Education wouldn’t cost so much and more people may seek to be scientist and discover those secrets of the past and beyond the atmosphere. Vegetables could be abundant in all climate zones. Energy sources wouldn’t exist to fill the pockets of anyone, so more efficient and earth friendly resources would be available without concern for oil investors. A person could actually leave this life without feeling as though they had not provided enough to make a difference, because making a difference for humanity would be more important and doing anything would bring about that benefit. We could be born with enough rather than spending our entire lives try to get enough.

            I would do a lot of what I do for free if I didn’t need money. I enjoy it. Everyone should have the ability to do that without concern for money. People would serve each other if only by accident if everyone were allowed to follow their dreams and do what makes them happy rather than what makes them rich.

            There are people who enjoy working with the elderly and disabled. Once again, if people could chase their desires instead of income, life would be served. every part of it.

            Being my own boss, I dug the muddy, gravel, clay ridden hole, repaired the water service, looked at the crawl space and said I’ll do it later. I laugh every time I say I’m my own boss…I have many bosses.

          • Jethro

            I would of sworn that I answered this post…
            Pat, I never intend to walk away from a conversation unfinished. I apologize if I have. If I have or do. Just tap me on my Email shoulder and remind me if needed, I will do the same in kind.

          • Jethro

            My stuff is back, hmph. I think the search engine could be playing a roll in some of our troubles. was on “google chrome” yesterday morning, “Microsoft edge” this morning, sometimes “safari”.

            Science has a lot of theory, not proven just highly possible. Its what keeps a scientist going, searching. Until proven, it’s a highly probable fantasy. Theologist, isn’t that someone who studies theories? yet we call them scientists. scientist was a name given to one who studies nature. Is pantheism a religion for science? “”Science cannot be a religion, because it is not based on faith or beliefs”” A scientists must believe there is something can be studied and have faith he/she will find the proof. Until proven, the scientist is basing everything on belief and faith. Religions wish to prove life after death lol. As soon as they find a dead person who talks to the world, the theory will become fact. The preacher who proves it will be a scientist and other preachers will be colleagues.

            Too many people on earth to be sustained, that’s a theory that cannot be proven until it fails. Yes it appears to be failing, or is humanity just not doing something that they should? Better yet, doing something they should not. We can’t call life saving science good if all that life is killing us. I think we are at a transition point. one in which we need to reorganize the rules of survival.

            God was a model for living that has turned into a model for being dead. Its utterly ridiculous!!! Neale does give a message of living rather than preparing to be dead, I’m ok with that. Bettering your life, not bettering your afterlife. ISIS terrorist do what they do to improve their afterlife… or they are sacrificing themselves to a lower population number (applause?)….

            Looks like your not who you are. I went through that a while back. Kinda sucks. The identity of everyone here is black on white. That appears to be part I’m most concerned with. Trying to figure out who or what anyone is here is foolish. Its too easy to lie. The only comfort in our communication is, we believe we know what to expect from the black and white message under the unproven posters name and possible picture. Mentality… gotta love it!

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Science has a lot of theory, not proven just highly possible.” I would not agree that it’s “just highly possible.” Gravity is not highly possible, nor is germ theory, nor general relativity, nor evolution. These things for all intents and purposes are facts. Science never claims to “prove” anything because the scientific process depends on always being open to new evidence, but a theory can be so well supported that it can be treated as fact (like evolution) for all intents and purposes. Theories such as these are NOT “highly probable fantasy.” It is pseudo-science like Big Foot, ESP, OBE, NDEs, reincarnation, UFOs and Oneness gods that are highly improbable fantasies. None of these things are scientific theories because no compelling, objective evidence exists to support them – which is exactly the opposite of real scientific theories. Please don’t dumb down science! Our idiotic political leaders are doing enough of that already!

            No, a theologist is not someone who studies theories! (You’re joking, right?). The first part of the word comes from “theist” or god. Theologists (theologians) do not have theories because there is no theory for god, as best I know, that has ever been submitted for scientific review – how could it? There’s no evidence to review. No, pantheism is not a religion for science. Pantheism says there’s this magical god force that is part of everything – we have no evidence for this magical force (and much to deny its existence), hence there is no idea that pantheism is a scientific theory.

            “””Science cannot be a religion, because it is not based on faith or beliefs”” A scientists must believe there is something can be studied and have faith he/she will find the proof. Until proven, the scientist is basing everything on belief and faith”

            No, all a scientist needs is curiosity. Many scientists specifically try to disprove the hypothesis of other scientists, as part of their job description. Individual scientists might have faith and belief, but the scientific process does not, and must not include those things. Science seeks to learn the truth about out natural world. Period. Don’t confuse scientists with the scientific process. One is a fallible human, the other is a proven process, without which you and I would not be communicating right now. The Church certainly didn’t give us the internet.

            Despite the humorous exchange with Sam, I am exactly who I say I am. There is only one of me (isn’t that more than enough!!!). I’m pretty sure Sam is messing with me, and I’m happy to play along, but anyone with any searching skills can find me online and confirm my existence; and as long as they announce intentions ahead of time, I’m happy to host a visit to confirm whatever one wishes to confirm. It’s true – I did think you were Sam for a while, since it seemed like he showed up at about the same time you reappeared in a new identity.

            It doesn’t matter if people want to think I’m an AI program or some conglomeration of individuals (a lot of work and coordination just to comment on imaginary, invisible beings that live in the sky), as long as I can post my thoughts and debate or discuss them. While pretending (?) to undermine my character, Sam was pretty complimentary, so I can’t be upset, even if he was acting intentionally to try and undermine me. I think he’s just pulling my chain though – and I appreciate that kind of humor since I do it all the time.

          • Sam

            “I’m pretty sure Sam is messing with me”

            Keep it up, try to joke it away. It doesn’t change the facts. You, “the bulldog”, have no refined bone in your body. Which others, posting under your name, indeed have. And that in abundance. Totally different personalities, being on totally different levels, having a total different schooling, giving off a totally different “energy”. A disclosure that, of course, bugging you, and why you pay it this much attention. And in so doing providing yet another piece of evidence not to your favor. Not very smart. Just like when telling me about another blog you are tending, which in the same way finding you strange. And not at least what this implies, that your machine like capacity on this blog alone actually is double. No doubt, this scheme of yours is your full-time job. And here I am, right in front of your eyes, tearing it apart. Oops :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            This is fun. I’m willing to play along. What the heck, others go off topic here all the time. (I generally try to stay at least reasonably pertinent to the forum if not the topic). Normally I don’t like to get into personalities, but this is a fun change of pace.

            I would have to see samples to understand what you mean by the different persona’s when posting. Perhaps my tone changes when I’m conversing rather than debating. Perhaps there is another Patrick posting in my name. Perhaps I really am a programming genius sitting on a beach in the tropics just imagining that I’m stuck in this office after hours.

            You know, I do spend too much time here. I would make it a full time job if I could. Fortunately I’m a fast typist, I process lots of business opportunities, and it’s boring, so I reward myself with blogging, then go do some more, then come back, etc. It also means that instead of being out of here an hour and a half ago, I’m still finishing up business, and blasting off another post or two. I’ve been in a rather heated discussion with a priest! That’s a first for me. I didn’t know he was a priest, till we had debated for some time over the last several days. He’s even more arrogant than I am. Can you imagine?

          • Sam

            You can play along, or not. Making no difference for the facts. Which has been pointing out, and for everyone to see in plain sight. No person alone can change personality, “energy”, and writing style this much, with the addition of the amount. There is no doubt at all. You have others writing for you. And in a real courtroom, with the proper expertise, you would stand no chance. It’s that obvious.
            But I’m not here to stop you (unless you want me to), or did I take this issue up with you specifically. I posted a heads-up for everyone, to be aware of this game you are playing.
            You twisting and turning like a caught snake, is only amusing, of course. And I do not mind this opportunity, you are giving me, to repeat and remind people of your ongoing scheme. So, just keep it going, smart guy :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            OK, I will. What we have here is a rather outrageous claim that appears to be based on belief, given that thus far, no evidence has been provided to support the assertion. We have no observations of Patrick Programmer, no experiments, no predictions, etc. We don’t even have a well-formulated hypothesis. What we have is a subjective opinion, that like gods and afterlives, there is an imaginary, invisible Patrick Programmer (or something).

            The claim has been made that “no person alone can change personality, “energy”, and writing style this much…” What evidence is there to support this assertion? Many authors are able to do this effortlessly. We have a political editor in our local paper who can write one editorial in biting sarcasm, another in outrageous humor, and yet another in carefully, considered and thoughtful politic-speak. I’m pretty sure he’s just one person.

            I’ve read a number of Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) books, and they are often written in very different styles. Neale’s previous post was somewhat different, with the play on words and colors, though his style is normally pretty consistent. Anyway, you haven’t provided any evidence to support the claim that I or any other author is incapable of changing the personality, energy and writing style. I await said evidence. I’ve asked for examples. You’ve not provided them. You’ve made a fairly outrageous claim, and provided as much evidence for it, as Neale provides for his outrageous claims. Can you do better than him?

            I know this is all in fun, but since we’re playing the game – you made the claim, therefore have the burden of proof. So prove it. I even have an idea for you… if you can find timestamps for all the posts, perhaps a correlation could be made that indicates a change in style ‘after hours’ when I might be accompanied by my friend Jack Daniels…..

          • Sam

            Ah, you should really move on to the new column :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            I get notifications for new posts, but never get notifications for new articles. Thanks.

          • Jethro

            Evolution is being argued like sex and children’s toys, why does it matter? Some idiot finally figured out that birds are todays dinosaurs. I was born in the late 60’s and I’ve said so for years. dinosaurs were covered in feathers, not scales. “””No, a theologist is not someone who studies theories! (You’re joking, right?).””” I may have been grinning like a clam when I wrote that, lol. Your easy to mess with due to your seriousness on the subject. I need to entertain myself somehow! Look, most of everything is theory. thankfully there are a lot of facts but theories and beliefs… and curiosity is what keeps humanity going.

            Sam IS pulling your chain and I appreciate it. I respect your opinion and it was… disappointing… to have you attack me in that manner. I did not and still don’t understand why. I’ve always been myself, just like you. Jethro, Charles, Roy… I’ve also been called Chaz, Marlboro man, and Redneck. I wear a Stetson and cowboy boots on occasion these days but a few years ago it was as common as underwear. Anyway, I’m getting older, cowboy boots hurt and my Stetson takes up too much space. I was disappointed and complimented at the same time when you said I was too smart to be a plumber. But, a plumber I am, 25 years worth. with a little college. Substance abuse psychology. I’m a California state certified counselor. As a matter of fact, I’m taking a trip to Ca. going to visit the office I worked and lecture a little if allowed. wish it paid better!

          • Patrick Gannon

            Why does evolution matter? Because it explains a huge part of our natural world. All of the biological sciences are based on it. It matters because we wouldn’t be here without it!

            Jethro/Charles/Roy, I’m sorry I upset you. Three things bothered me: 1) When you went away as Jethro and came back as Charles, you did not announce yourself – you pretended to be a new person in the forum. I figured out who you were. I felt that was a little dishonest. 2) I’m a serious debater, and even in this humorous exchange with Sam, you’ll see that I’m going to stay on topic – that topic being the search for truth based on the scientific process. While there have always been little side forays into personal chit chat on this forum, when you came on board, countless chit chat posts were generated, mostly between you and the other gals on the forum, none of which had anything to do with the topic or even the forum. I found that annoying, having to wade past (no I didn’t read most of them), all that irrelevant stuff to get to what we’re here to discuss. There were countless email notifications with useless chit chat filling my inbox. That’s why I made the comment about you flirting with the girls. My girlfriend would have been torked! This is my problem, my lack of patience, but yeah, I expressed it after becoming particularly annoyed at some point. Sorry. 3) This is the one that bugs me the most. When you disappear and reappear, all your posts go with you. Now, I understand why that happened. I thought you intentionally deleted them all, and that would be very rude, in my view. I did that once, early in my blogging days, and was correctly chastised for it. Think about going in and doing the plumbing for a large multi-family dwelling. You’ve worked hard with your workers to put in all the PVC, made the corner connections, installed the fixtures, and you go home. You come back the next morning, and one of your helpers has cut out every piece of PVC that he personally installed, and removed every faucet he put in. Kind of rude, isn’t it? When people spend time considering and responding to a post, and then to have it all disappear so that one can’t understand what the post is in response to – well, that’s aggravating. This explains my attitude. I understand now that #3 was unintentional, but I hope in the future, if you change your identity, you will leave the old one in place, so that the discussion will remain intact.

            As to thinking you might be different people – aside from Sam showing up at about the same time you became Charles, I think that’s because you occasionally cut/pasted or paraphrased material without giving credit to the source. You are more conversant on topics that we discuss here than any other plumber I know – and I know a few, but I should not generalize and apologize for doing so. Can we put this behind us and move on to the more important topic of attempting to prove the existence of imaginary, invisible beings that live in the sky? :)

          • Jethro

            They need to quit looking at yesterday and fix now. Knowing our origin is great but not necessary for today. And somebody would be here without it. maybe not you and/or I but somebody, and we wouldn’t be wondering what to do about population overload.

            Apology accepted, and my apologies in return for upsets unintended. Yes we are moving on. but there are no imaginary, invisible beings that live in the sky.

          • Patrick Gannon

            Understanding yesterday, helps us understand ourselves today. Understanding where certain traits came from, why they were once beneficial, but may no longer be so… these kinds of things are very helpful in understanding how to deal with today’s issues.

            Humans have a powerful sex drive. Without it, we’d have never survived, given how difficult life was – even just a couple centuries ago. We very well, might not have been here. We apparently came close to dying out about 10-12,000 years ago. That evolution-developed sex drive helped ensure that we are here now, but that drive is going to kill us, if we don’t control it. Fortunately we also developed an intellect, and can solve the problem using contraception, but there are too many people dressed up in robes who would prefer to see the end of the world than admit that their maniacal obsession with sex is very bad for all of us.

            The best part about the disordered, celibate virgins dressed in robes is that they have voluntarily removed themselves from the gene pool – which might explain, in part, why there are so few who are willing to join their ranks these days…. Being a celibate virgin dressed in robes is not normal for humans. It’s a disordered condition, particularly in this case given the unhealthy obsession with sex, which as we all know, has resulted in centuries of child abuse.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Amen, Jethro!

          • Jethro

            Time for ICE CREAM… Amen :-)

          • Jethro

            Get on facebook, type in “how many quarter cups are in a cup”. play the video and you will see why the world is the way it is. Then come back here and explain again how we are going to explain anything to anyone. I have played games like this with fairly intelligent people and got the same reactions.

          • Jethro

            My stuff is disappearing… typical Monday:)

      • Spiritual_Annie

        You’re doing it again, y’know. I’m copying and pasting your words of down-home wisdom. Did I tell you I finally gave you your very own section in an online notebook? Yep. And it automatically adds the date and time. Maybe if I ever get that book of mine written, I’ll have to put together another with the tidbits and gargantuan truths I’ve heard here and there. You might even have your own section in it, too! “Gems from Jethro,” with full accreditation. 😀

        Love and Blessings Always,
        ~Annie.

        • Jethro

          Thank you Annie. Let me know if that happens I’ll give you the proper name. Now, every time I say something wise I write it in a letter and mail it to myself to prove it’s original!!! Actually I don’t know what wisdom you found, as my brother use to say, just noisy air moving up through my neck.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Guess you’ll just have to wait for the book to come out. Hmmm… Who do you think should play you in the blockbuster hit movie?

          • Jethro

            Neale has some acting under his belt as I understand it.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Hmmm… I thought I replied to this. And it was good, too. Something about trying to come up with a quirky response about the student suggesting the messenger play the student, but we’re all students and messengers anyway… Then something else about Neale being God expressing as Neale playing the role of God expressing as Jethro… And then some more that involved our Oneness meaning any One could take the role on and do it well.

            It was actually quite the play on words, and even humorous, if I might say so, myself. And I guess I have to, as either it didn’t post or I didn’t post it or I imagined it. Which, of course, means it’s real… somewhere.

            Love and Blessings Always,
            ~Annie

          • Jethro

            I see you’ve been visiting my brain. Its entertaining and sleep will correct it for the most part, until i start thinking somewhere between the coffee and the bathroom. But I agree, it exists and its real… somewhere. I just caught a glimpse of it!

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Ahhh… So that’s my problem. You’re not getting enough sleep, so my visits to your brain are affecting me as if I suffer from sleep deprivation. Which I do. Which means I’m getting a double whammy of the effects. Suddenly everything makes sense. Or is that the sleep deprivation talking?

    • Jethro

      Has science found a way to know that a person is thinking? I guess brain activity is measured and therefore the answer is yes, but have they found a way to know what we are thinking? Maybe, one day, if they learn to do that, they will recognize a two way conversation. There might be a recognition of reception, not just transmission. Aside from the ears and the mouth….

      • Patrick Gannon

        Actually, there are experiments in which researchers were able to determine who someone was thinking about. Yes, it’s easy to tell when a brain is thinking, as represented by increased blood flow and electrochemical activity, etc. There are experiments in which a person thinks of a word, the brain activity is converted to IP data and sent over the internet, to another person, in which the data is converted back to brain waves, and the second person is able to express the word the first person thought of.

        If you read that WaitButWhy article about Neurologics that I directed you to in another post, you can learn all about this stuff. One day, you and I may be able to have this discussion in our heads, without having to go through our fingers or mouths into written or spoken words – but it won’t be ESP, it will be basic data conversion.

        • Jethro

          It’s good reading Patrick, I gotta go but page is saved. In the meantime I’ll stay away from that berry!

    • babybleustardust

      Did you consider the laws of quarks? I mean there are four, as far as I know, forces that act or rule the law of quarkdom. Besides gravity, there are electromagnetism and the forces of weak and strong nuclear forces. When two or more gather who believe in love, they are powerful. That is true. Studies in prayer, esp and what have you show that it is not always seen but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. If I am spinning positive and I attract a bigger spin positive, at some juncture I hope to knock out a negative. Did you know they can change lead into gold in a real way like Alchemy. It’s true, so spin positive your atom. How many you got? I am kidding but not really. Magic is really somehing not explained yet with a little brain. That’s not to say it is not possible or real. Before breakfast I dream of many impossible things and they become real, like magic. I believe in you, Pat. So get magical and get real. :)

      • Patrick Gannon

        I’m not sure what you mean in asking if I considered the laws of quarks. That’s actually an odd way to refer to it. There are at least four known forces, and they are thinking there might be a fifth, that bind quarks into atoms along with electrons. We know the characteristics of these forces and what they can and can’t do. We know for example that if one is going to manipulate an atom to fire a synapse or kill a cancer cell, that something is going to to have to overcome the strong nuclear forces that bind the atom together, in order to turn it into something else that gets the job done. If that force existed, we’d know about it by now.

        Just because there may be even another force, does not mean it has any effect on us. Gravity is so weak that it could never be used as a way for you and I to communicate telepathically, for example. There are billions of neutrinos from the sun, flowing through us as I type this. We know they have no effect on our particles – none that would support psi effects, certainly. Electromagnetism is well understood. We can measure the effects, and do so in scans, for example. Our bodies generate electrical fields, but they transfer no information between us – or we’d know it. We can measure this force with a lot of precision, and its reach is very limited. It may be possible to pass information with it, by thinking thoughts that are converted to IP data that is transmitted to another person and then converted back to electromagnetic signals that represent the thought. We’ve actually done this, transmitting individual words from brain to brain. No psi required.

        “Studies in prayer, esp and what have you show that it is not always seen but this doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” Come on, Michelle, you claim to have some science background. That’s about as weak an argument as one can make. The moon might be full of green cheese. Just because we can’t prove otherwise, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Baloney. That’s a lousy argument. It’s the one used to explain why there is no evidence for the Exodus.

        I’ve read several of those prayer experiments – they all fail, and if the patient knows he or she is being prayed for, they do worse – probably because they think their case may be worse if people have to pray for them. The Templeton Foundation prayer study is probably the most famous. Pray back an amputated limb, and then we can talk about prayer.

        • babybleustardust

          I agree with everything in your first paragraph except the first sentence. Why do you presume we know everything. There is always more in a Grand Scheme called Energy. Like you say, Life is a Process. On that, you agree with the great spiritual masters like Neale. CWG says this, and it was either Buddha or someone grand like that, but you say the process has an on and off switch. Neale, and I agree with Neale, that the process is always on when it is working in sync with the High Scheme in an OverSoul. Prayer works. I am not even going to go there. I have seen it. What we pray for when we pray with love and surrender happens quickly, more quickly in greater numbers, and there is evidence but I don’t feel like arguing. Just look up Bruce Lipton for one. He’s a scientist. There are more. Course in Miracles. um so many famous ones. How about Mother Mary. Jesus. Mohammad. and Hare Krishna. Um there are more. Like me. and you. and a dog named blue. How about I know about amputated limbs but your soul might have decided something you didn’t love, just as myne did. I didn’t need a car hitting my head to toe but it did, so isness and living as grandly as we love helps surrender is love. And, surrendering love is accepting love and accepting love allows awareness to expand consciousness to include all love. So I don’t fight or argue with the car hitting me but I accept magic as a possible outcome in some way, whether it is to move another towards love or to dance again. Maybe both. Have a lovely day :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            ” Why do you presume we know everything.” I certainly did not mean to imply that, and I don’t think I said it, but we do know some things, and we know them exquisitely well. If we lost all the knowledge we have and started over, eventually we would come back to knowing these exact same things about our natural world, our standard model, the core theory. Nothing in it would change. It will surely be added to, but the parts of it that refer to what can and cannot happen in our world, is solid. There’s no room left for magical forces.

            Quantum field theory says there is always a chance, always a probability, and so we can never say never, but the probability is so low that it makes no sense to entertain it. It’s about the same probability, I’m told, as the likelihood that a pink-polka dotted tyrannosaurus rex will manifest in your living room this evening. It could happen according to QM, but don’t wait up.

          • babybleustardust

            hey I’m waiting up for that. Actually i hate polka dots 😉 so make it emerald green. Actually I loved black and white polka dots. I had a silk dress. I wore it everywhere and a half spanish looking top and that’s about it for polka dot. ZigZag is good. I would love one zigzags or starbursts, my favorite candy too. Make it all green, emerald. That way he’ll match my brand new belly button piercing with the green emerald crystal I just got yesterday. Actually it’s a zwarvoski crystal colored emerald. I love it. Anyhoo, it’s wierd that I, at the age of 54, wanna break out and show everybody my brand new belly button. I feel like I am ten again. Everybody likes it :) anyhoo, Okay back to the future topic. What was it you said that was important? Okay. It’s true that we build upon knowledge we knew. Hopefully, we don’t have to start all over again with where we’ve been. Hopefully, humanity can keep on progressing their mind of science and love and magic 😉 I like that you say it is possible with Q theory to create anything so hey You have been reading up on psychic phenomenon and acknowledge about bits and such expressing a psychic thought through the internet. Thus that is one movement of God. Telepathy. Do you believe in that? I do. I can apriori listen to anything near me and pick up on what is being thought by me or anything near me. Synchronicity happens through the internet, television or radio or billboard but since I am rehabilitating my leg and still in the hospital, the tv is on. My roommate never turns the damn thing off so I have psychically attuned me with Andy Griffith and oh so many more. The Golden Girls and here is the song playing now “Oh you ain’t woman enough to take my man. It’ll be over my dead body. ..blah blah blah” a country song.It does happen that I can be thinking something and I hone in to hear my roomie’s tv and get a message. pegasus is on now. Hey guess what. On the way to the tattoo artist shop where i got belly pierced yesterday, guess what was on. Right up your alley on the radio. The preacher was saying “if a ghost can’t be seen, does that make it not real? some heck bent scientists will say, “no. It’s not real,” but I say this to them. “Just because it is not seen does not mean it is not real.. The ghost is wise and knows what the person is thinking so he doesn’t show up always.”” That’s what the preacher said. Quantum ghost I guess. Just what I said to you yesterday.

  • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

    Neale has greatly broaden the concept of talking to the personal & impersonal Life Force behind all animated physicality & also the less physical or metaphysical.

    First by announcing that everyone can talk to the Life Force and often do & simply don’t know it. They just call it something else. Like, your own thoughts, intuition, a hunch, a spontaneous idea etc. Further, you can hear the God Life Force message in a song you hear, a billboard you may read, an overheard conversation, movie, book, article, a leaf blowing in the wind etc.

    This opens uP the mind to get away from the more stereotypical hearing of a male voice usually in a baritone register that apparently was God speaking usually like in the Bible.

    Most would like to have a 2 way conversation like Neale does & apparently many do. Not usually to the extent of Neale but they still claim to hear God or the Life Force speak to them.

    Years back I read in a footnote in a book on, I believe it was about near death experiences with children where people talked to their soul.

    This was where in quiet meditation they were given loving wise advice from a part of themselves very deep within the chambers of their own quiet searching. As I recall, it was like talking to God or their soul. I hope to find that footnote sometime, but for now it seems to be a indicator of what I think Neale is getting at & I think they were able to access this on a regular basis. But those who experienced this kind of soul communicating was more rare than the norm as I recall.

    • Patrick Gannon

      If we talk to our souls – this implies that “we” (our self-aware consciousness) are not the same thing as that soul, doesn’t it? Why should “we” care about that soul? “We,” our self-aware consciousnesses, are tied to our brains, and cannot exist without them. This immaterial soul, if it exists, is always referred to as something separate from “us,” so why should “we” care about it? What do we get out of this soul that supposedly generated “us,” our minds and bodies, so that it could further its agenda? Neale always speaks of “the soul’s agenda.” In the bible, people are mostly puppets. In CwG, people’s self-aware consciousness appear to be puppets as well.

      Neale’s god, if it existed, could not be immaterial. It would have had to break the strong nuclear force that binds atoms together in order to manipulate the particles in his brain, so as to stimulate neurons, fire synapses, etc. in order to manifest this so-called conversation. We know beyond reasonable doubt that if there were forces that could do this, we would know about them by now. Neale is in the same place as the Catholic Church denying Galileo centuries ago.

      I see no difference in this series about talking to Neale’s god, than in a fundagelical having assumed the existence of Yahweh-Jesus, and then preaching about how to talk to him. In both cases, there is no more support for the god in question, than there is for unicorns and fairies.

      • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

        From the perspective of CwG our beingness consists of 3 parts, that also travel together with us throughout our evolutionary incarnations. They are body, mind & soul. The soul is not separate, from the mind or body.

        The soul’s agenda as I understand it, is simply to express our divinity in any of it’s infinite ways.

        As for CwG, whether God exists or not is a matter of how the individual defines God. Neale defines it as Life both physical and non physical.

        As I’ve stated in our conversations in the past. I believe in the possibility that science will discover God as energy & connected to consciousness. The means to fully do that may be very different than how we now go about it, because the state of beingness and consciousness will play an equal role in how it is perceived.

        I believe the future possibility that consciousness & technology together will enable us to see and peer into the afterlife & other dimensions. Whether that really happens remains to be seen.

        • Patrick Gannon

          “From the perspective of CwG our beingness consists of 3 parts, that also travel together with us throughout our evolutionary incarnations. They are body, mind & soul. The soul is not separate, from the mind or body.”

          Surely you aren’t suggesting that our bodies travel throughout our evolutionary incarnations? We can argue about differences or integration between soul and mind, but the physical body is clearly left behind. Given that the soul discards the body, why should we expect it to treat the mind any differently? We can’t claim to understand consciousness to the same level as the ‘standard model’ or ‘core theory’ of physics, but we’re all but certain the mind emerges from the brain.

          OK, so this soul gets to express its divinity. Hurray for the soul. What about the other two parts? As you surely must agree, the body isn’t going along for the ride, and if the soul can leave behind one of its three parts, it’s logical to assume it leaves behind the mind as well, it seems to me. So why should we care about that soul?

          “As for CwG, whether God exists or not is a matter of how the individual defines God. Neale defines it as Life both physical and non physical.”

          We can argue as much about the definition of “life” (is it somehow different when capitalized?), as we can, the definition of god. Most would agree that “life” is a process, and when the process stops, life stops. How does something non-physical support a “process”? What does “non-physical” even mean? If it’s non-physical, how does it have any impact whatsoever on our natural world? Paranormal events of any kind, miracles of any kind, all require that particles (vibrations in quantum fields) be affected in some way. How does something non-physical (immaterial) do this? Princess Elizabeth asked this of Rene Descartes centuries ago, and science finally gave us an answer – it doesn’t. Discovering the Higgs field wrote the final chapter on the standard model and removed any remaining doubt. We understand our natural world to a very high degree of precision. That does not mean that some magical world can’t exist, but we know it doesn’t impact our world, or we would be able to see the affects. And since it doesn’t impact us, who cares? It’s moot.

          I was right there with you, hoping that science would discover how these psi events happen. I participated in a couple psi experiments back in college in the 70s. I was sure we’d discover something. What science ended up demonstrating to an exceptionally high degree of confidence, is that there is no such thing. If there were magical forces affecting the particles in our natural world, we would have discovered them by now. We know what it takes to tear apart and rebuild atoms and can explain all of it using the known particles and forces. If you have an idea of how to go about proving that everything we know about physics and our natural world is completely wrong – then go for it. You’ll be famous!

          I try to stay current on research about consciousness, and it’s like young earth creationism. We never find any evidence for a six day creation, but repeatedly find evidence confirming Darwinian evolution and natural selection. In the same way, we continue on a regular basis to learn more and more that consciousness emerges from the brain, and we don’t find evidence to the contrary. The odds are pretty high at this point, that when the immaterial, non-physical soul moves on, it will leave behind both body and mind, and its presence will have never made a lick of difference, given that it has no way to affect our natural world. So why should we care about it?

          We don’t even use the word “soul” properly. In the bible, the original meaning of the word “soul” was essentially “breath of life” which again, is a “process” and every “breath of life” eventually ends when the process ends. In the OT, souls die. Nowhere in the Bible are the terms “immortal” or “everlasting” linked with the word “soul.” Instead, the Scriptures state that a soul is mortal, meaning that it dies. (Ezekiel 18:4, 20)

          Would life become something not worth living, if we came to understand that this is all we get; no second chances? Would it change the way we live this one life we do get?

          • Gross Prophet

            In a classroom where the rest have moved on to calculus, patrick is still trying to argue that 2+2 does not equal 4.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            I like the analogy! Apparently he’s completely disregarded and disrespected Neale’s stating that the next several columns aren’t about arguing for or against the existence of God. Oh, well. It’s his time and he’s free to spend it however he wishes. Free will and all that.

            Love and Blessings Always,
            ~Annie

          • Patrick Gannon

            How would you know? I thought you blocked me? Miss me?

          • Patrick Gannon

            How do you know if we really have free will?

          • Sam

            “it’s logical to assume it leaves behind the mind as well, it seems to me.”

            The soul doesn’t leave the mind behind, it expands, as in getting back to normal. For the human experience, it got temporary limited.

          • Patrick Gannon

            How does the mind continue to exist without the brain that gave rise to it? Our minds are the result of electrochemical reactions in our brains. Without those reactions, we have no mind. How can the mind continue to exist without the axons, dendrites, neurons, etc. that support it? Magic?

            How do you know your mind was temporarily limited? How can you support that? Says who, on what authority, and with what evidence?

            You know when people talk about expanding their minds, and achieving oneness in meditation, etc. what is really happening is that the System 2 (cognitive, deliberative) part of the thinking brain is shut down. It isn’t actually expanded at all; it just feels that way, or we experience it that way.

          • Sam

            “How does the mind continue to exist without the brain that gave rise to it?”

            As you know, it’s just the opposite. Intelligence/mind/soul came first. This is self-evident.

            “How do you know your mind was temporarily limited?

            From all the “tools in the shed”, and one you haven’t found yet: intuition. All coming to the same conclusion.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “As I know”? No, it’s not the least bit self-evident, otherwise babies would be born with full cognition. They can’t think like adults until their brains mature, which doesn’t finish till late teens/early twenties. Most neurologists would completely disagree with you and I trust scientists a lot more than cultish woo-meisters, so why would you think I would know that magic explains the mind?

            You’re claiming that intelligence/mind/soul created the matter that makes up the brain. If that was true, then we would know it. We would be able to see the particles being torn apart and reassembled by this magical power. Even if we couldn’t see the power, we could still see what it does to the particles. There are no such forces, because there are no such actions.

            You also seem to be linking intelligence, mind and soul into a single entity, though CwG, as I recall, is pretty clear that there is a trinity (Neale had to get that Christian stuff in there!), and the trinity is body, mind and soul. You seem to be disagreeing with Neale and claiming that there are only two components – the body, and the mind which is also the soul and intelligence. If the soul and the mind are the same thing, why don’t we remember previous lives and lives between lives, and after decades of people being regressed, where is the compelling evidence to support their claims? There should be a large stack of scientific reports confirming reincarnation by now. They were doing these experiments back in the 70s when I was in school. Here we are almost a half century later, and we’ve got squat. On the other hand, data confirming that self-aware consciousness emerges from the brain is forthcoming on a regular, and consistent basis.

            Intuition explains nothing. It’s a function of the mind, which emerges from the brain. Try to have intuition without a brain. Drive a nail through your forehead and see how much intuition you have.

          • Sam

            “No, it’s not the least bit self-evident, otherwise babies would be born with full cognition.”

            Aha, you say intelligence, the designer, and creator of everything (including babies), and ergo God, would do this specific thing differently if God/intelligence existed first. But such things as God being born as a baby in the first place you understand? Why not just materialize as a full grown man, etc.? And why stop there? I am sure there are many things a superintelligence would have done differently, according to you, and from a limited human perspective. Am I right? But just because you, personally, don’t agree with God, God’s design, or plan, doesn’t really mean anything for the question of its existence. Does it now? A “perfect working clockwork”, is self-evident the work of intelligence.

            “You’re claiming that intelligence/mind/soul created the matter that makes up the brain. If that was true, then we would know it.”

            I know it. As do many others. And nothing in the eyes of science is done explored; common knowledge.

            “body, mind and soul. You seem to be disagreeing with Neale and claiming that there are only two components – the body, and the mind which is also the soul and intelligence.”

            I first and foremost recognize one component, absolute intelligent energy; the thought. Which again can be explained as three. The body, the hard drive, and the processor. To put it like that.

            “why don’t we remember previous lives and lives between lives”

            It would have revealed the illusion too soon; you not really being a human.

            “Here we are almost a half century later, and we’ve got squat.”

            Some do, some don’t—yet.

            “Intuition explains nothing.”

            It’s a useful tool, among others and in combination. Without it, one easily gets lost, from the lacking of depth, and the understanding of the bigger picture.

            “Drive a nail through your forehead and see how much intuition you have.”

            One doesn’t need intuition between lives. Ask me why :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            I am not accepting any intelligence, designer or creator of everything (ergo God) exists, so I don’t fully understand your first point. We are an evolved species, like every other on this planet. That process explains everything there is to know about us. No gods required. No gods are required to explain our universe. You say it’s self-evident that there had to be an intelligence first, but that is not at all self-evident. I am not suggesting that if there was a god he would have done it differently. You said intelligence came first – so I asked why a baby isn’t fully cognizant before it’s brain develops. I’m not suggesting how a god might or might not have done things. All there is, is our natural world. It is what it is. It’s how we evolved. That’s all.

            I disagree with your use of the term “I know it.” I think you mean “I believe it.” because in my definition of “know” there is a very high degree of confidence that the thing is true because it is supported by compelling, objective evidence. I know the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I disagree that subjective evidence constitutes “knowing.” We “know” how easily our brains can be fooled. Our brains “fill in the blanks” because they seek patterns, and quite often the filling is wrong. We obviously aren’t going to agree on what “knowing” means, if you consider subjective experience to mean “knowing, ” while I consider that to be “believing,” because it’s highly and demonstrably, unreliable evidence.

            “I first and foremost recognize one component, absolute intelligent energy; the thought. Which again can be explained as three. The body, the hard drive, and the processor. To put it like that.”

            That’s not a bad metaphor, but note that you cannot have the thought without the hard drive and the processor. Thoughts are not generated out of thin air. Thoughts do not build hard drives and processors. Thoughts are the product of bodies – our brains – (integrated hard drive with multi-processor architecture). Without a brain, there is no thought. One day in the foreseeable future, computers may be able to have thoughts.

            Revealing the illusion too soon is a very convenient explanation – basically the same thing the religious folk say, “that’s the way god wanted it.” It explains nothing to say that we cannot remember our past lives or lives between lives because that’s how god wanted it. In short, the answer is “magic,” but we all know there’s no such thing as real magic.

            Regarding the research over the last several decades. Why has the discovery and exploration of consciousness as a product of the brain, produced result after result, discovery after discovery, confirmation after confirmation, and the ESP folks still have squat. You say they don’t have it “yet” but come on, how long do we give them? In the process of discovering and learning how the brain really works, if there were psi explanations we would have begun to stumble on them from time to time, just as a young earth creationist might find a human skeleton at the level of the dinosaurs once in a while. Alas, the path to discovery is in a single direction.

          • Sam

            “I am not accepting any intelligence, designer or creator of everything (ergo God) exists, so I don’t fully understand your first point.”

            Your point was if, and the result be full cognition. But if intelligence comes first, it means quite a lot more. Which you missed.

            “No gods required. No gods are required to explain our universe.”

            It depends on the definition. But if you, personally, don’t need it, it’s perfectly okay. And honestly, I don’t think you would understand it anyway, at this point, and the current stage you’re at.

            “You say it’s self-evident that there had to be an intelligence first, but that is not at all self-evident.”

            It’s clearly self-evident. Anyone saying otherwise is not a seeker of truth—whatever it might be—but pursuing some other agenda altogether.

            “It is what it is. It’s how we evolved. That’s all.”

            Yes, I think that is as far as your understanding goes, for now. And fine. Why not.

            “I disagree with your use of the term “I know it.” I think you mean “I believe it.”

            In the context used, it was most fittingly. Otherwise, I don’t care that much what it’s called. I am just putting into words my views and experience.

            “while I consider that to be “believing,” because it’s highly and demonstrably, unreliable evidence.”

            Not to me. And that’s what counts, as likewise for everybody. Everyone can put forward their work and thoughts, and others can make use of it, or not. Simple.

            “Thoughts are not generated out of thin air.”

            Yes, the first, and only, component is thought. To put something else first, and therefore right out of thin air too, is less likely. Intelligence first, explains the rest with ease.

            “Thoughts do not build hard drives and processors.”

            If you unknowingly were to live in a simulator, you would think the exact same thing, and, of course, be dead wrong. Earth and the physical world are likewise an illusion. Thought, is everything there is.

            “Revealing the illusion too soon is a very convenient explanation”

            If you unknowingly are living in a simulator, there must be a reason, yes? Then the timing for a revealing must be a key thing, or why else the secrecy?

            Regarding research. Scientists have already discovered matter to be 99% empty space. Go outside, and find a big heavy rock, one you barely can lift, study it for a while, break it in two if you like, and tell me how you don’t feel amazingly fooled. It’s just an illusion; a “hologram”.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Your point was if, and the result be full cognition. But if intelligence comes first, it means quite a lot more. Which you missed.”

            Sorry, still don’t understand. The first sentence is incomplete as best I can tell.

            “And honestly, I don’t think you would understand it anyway, at this point, and the current stage you’re at.”

            Thanks for the condescension. Clearly being spiritual on this forum has nothing to do with polite behavior. Are you a HEB?

            Explain how its self-evident that there had to be intelligence first. In what sense? To set off the Big Bang? We can clearly see in the evolutionary record that intelligence evolved over time, and took a giant leap once we learned to talk. Unless you believe in a literal young earth creation story, and that an intelligence plunked us down here in our current state 6000 years ago, then how can there be any doubt that intelligence evolved? Do you accept Darwinian evolution through natural selection?

            Please provide a demonstration of a thought generated out of thin air, without benefit of a brain. Write down the thought – one that is multifaceted, intricate, and specific and then ask your god to send that thought in all its details directly to my brain so that I might write it down exactly as you originated it.

            The possibility that we live in a simulation is greater, I think, than the possibility that some god created our natural world, given that there are scientific hypothesis for this, and none for gods. At present, it’s all speculation. I recently read an article suggesting that if we were in a simulation, there would be ways to figure it out. Even if it were so, it shouldn’t matter. We live in this natural world and have no choice but to obey its natural laws, and there is no room in this natural world, simulated or otherwise, for magical forces. The programmers did not create such for this simulation, or we would know it.

            At the end, you are switching languages. You move from the language of our physical reality to the language of atoms. It’s like talking about the air flow in a room by describing the individual quarks and electrons that make up oxygen, nitrogen and other trace elements. We use a different language to discuss what happens at the sub-atomic level, molecular level, cellular level and conscious level. You can’t start a discussion in one language and switch to another, which is essentially what you are doing when you start talking about matter being empty space. So what? At that level, the discussion turns to the Higgs field from which certain elementary particles get their mass.

            “If we are living in a simulation, there must be a reason, yes?”

            No, not necessarily – depending on what you mean by “reason.” I assume you mean “cause.” An AI could have generated an AI that generated an AI that generated the simulation we are in, which simply evolved over a period of time. AI computer programs evolve, in many ways, just like biological beings do.

            There was an experiment in which an artificial environment was created. Joe the computer was placed on a spot on a virtual chessboard. There were pieces scattered throughout the chess board. Joe’s job was to pick up as many of them as he could with as few moves as possible. The kicker is that Joe can only see the squares directly next to him (front/back/left/right and the one he’s on). He also instantly forgets that he has picked up a piece after he does so.

            The programmers started by trying to come up with their own best ideas of how to have Joe move throughout the chessboard picking up pieces. “Always pick up the piece in front of you then move to your left. If there’s no piece in front of you move forward…” and so forth… all sorts of techniques were tried. Then the programmers set Joe loose and told the program to decide for itself. After relatively few generations of the game, Joe “evolved” a process that far surpassed the programmer’s best efforts. The programmers did not “cause” or provide a “reason” for this behavior. It evolved. There are now programs that have developed programs that the original human developers don’t understand. They rely on the programs because through various testing methods, they have confirmed that they give correct answers, but they don’t always understand how the computer program generated the new program or how it works. Evolution is very clever. It’s blind and purposeless, but very persistent. Evolution explains how we got intelligence.

          • Sam

            “Sorry, still don’t understand. The first sentence is incomplete as best I can tell.”

            Should be easy to grasp, if you recall your own statements.

            “Thanks for the condescension. Clearly being spiritual on this forum has nothing to do with polite behavior. Are you a HEB?”

            Well, you’re not the “peace and love” type, are you? A hippie? Not even if you really tried to? It’s kind of the same thing. I am not condescending. Some things are not for everyone, as wired differently, during certain lifetimes.
            I am not an HEB, but I do have intuition.

            “Explain how its self-evident that there had to be intelligence first.”

            Because there is nothing but intelligence in the world. No matter where we look. Everything is coordinated logic. Or else you believe in magic.

            “We can clearly see in the evolutionary record that intelligence evolved over time”

            Just as intended. The plan. To have a walk through the physical world, evolving all the way back to home again, from where we started as shiny Gods.

            “Please provide a demonstration of a thought generated out of thin air, without benefit of a brain.”

            Everything is such a demonstration, yourself included. Thought, is the only building stone in the world.

            “specific and then ask your god to send that thought in all its details directly to my brain so that I might write it down exactly as you originated it.”

            Sorry, not possible. We are, after all, living in a limited world at the moment.

            “The possibility that we live in a simulation is greater, I think, than the possibility that some god created our natural world, given that there are scientific hypothesis for this, and none for gods.”

            Easy to name anyone that is able to create such a simulation for God. Especially when finding out that the simulator itself is One living being, orchestrating everything.

            “Even if it were so, it shouldn’t matter. We live in this natural world and have no choice but to obey its natural laws,”

            No choice but to obey? Sounds like God-fearing 😉 With the revealing of the simulation, together with the knowledge of the beyond, there will be a choice. To struggle on, within the simulator, or put your feet up back home, on the outside. Well, not much of a choice, though. As home being everyone’s inner drive all along; more of a: of course.

            “and there is no room in this natural world, simulated or otherwise, for magical forces. The programmers did not create such for this simulation, or we would know it.”

            Magical programmers, indeed 😉

            “You can’t start a discussion in one language and switch to another”

            Lol, your limitations are not mine. To cross some bridges is exactly what’s in need, to broaden the view and understanding. To box yourself in, have you go nowhere.

            “No, not necessarily – depending on what you mean by “reason.”“ […] “An AI could have generated an AI” […] “which simply evolved over a period of time.”

            An AI that can’t reasoning, or give reason, is pretty dumb. Not the sort we need for making something grand beyond belief. You know, things like humans, and us having this conversation, reasoning.

            “Evolution explains how we got intelligence.”

            Evolution is a law of nature, just like the rest of them. Literally written laws, or programs if you like. Which puts intelligence first, the author. When you see it opposite, it’s because your view is from inside the simulator. Don’t be fooled.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I wouldn’t say that I’m not the peace and love type, but I would say that I’m not the Kumbaya type. I don’t think there are many beliefs that contribute to peace and love, as most tend to separate and divide people. I do try to avoid personal insults. Spiritual folk, in my experience, struggle with this. Yes, at times, I will respond to personal insults in kind. Every organism is entitled to self defense. Perhaps a little condescension is called for on my part, in response here – just how much scientific knowledge do you have?

            I guess we’ll have to disagree on the idea that intelligence is everywhere we look. I would agree that there are patterns wherever we look. I would also agree that evolution seems to take similar paths that appear in retrospect, to be intelligent; but the process of evolution itself is mindless. You’re suggesting that evolution is directed, I think. Even Francis Collins who decoded the human genome, agrees that evolution is mindless and that there is no intelligent design. He suggests that God created the language of DNA because we haven’t figured out yet how DNA evolved – thus a standard god of the gaps argument.

            I find Collins’ and similar approaches to be demeaning, cowardly, and exceptionally unsatisfactory. To continue to claim that god is the answer to those things we don’t know yet is a thought no scientist or rational human should seriously entertain, unless and until evidence makes it worthy of consideration. It’s clear from just the last couple centuries, that we are capable of understanding most aspects of our natural world, and we’ve only been at it for a very short time. It’s defeatist to claim that there must be a magical god to explain the things we don’t know yet.

            You didn’t give me the demonstration of a thought out of thin air. The thoughts appearing on this post come from my brain. They could not possibly appear here, without it. Come up with a thought. Write it down – make it explicit and somewhat involved, send the thought to your god, and have your god plant that thought in my head such that I write out the exact same thing. If you can’t do that, then how can you demonstrate that thoughts come out of thin air, rather than brains? You copped out and said it wasn’t possible. In that case, there is no reason whatsoever for me or anyone else to believe it, is there? You might as well be claiming unicorns exist. It would be irrational for me to believe that sort of outrageous claim without some sort of demonstration or evidence, right?

            So, are you defining “god” as a computer programmer? If we’re in a simulation, then what accounts for “god” is a programmer – and one must necessarily ask – where did the programmer come from?

            You apparently don’t grasp the concept of using different “languages” to refer to various levels of emergent properties, such as atoms emerging from quarks and electrons, molecules emerging from atoms, cells emerging from molecules and so forth. It makes no sense to talk about cells using the language of quantum field theory. If you don’t understand that, it’s because you lack the scientific knowledge that would make that evident to you, and if that sounds condescending, I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to say it. Discussing the wind by describing the quarks that make up the atoms that comprise oxygen, nitrogen, etc. provides no useful value or information in a discussion about wind. As long as it can be shown that each level emerges from the one below it, we can speak of each level in its own language and not miss a beat or violate any laws or understanding of physics and the operation of our natural world. If you insist otherwise – I would be interested in an example. However, I’m not sure you’re familiar with this concept in the first place, nor that I have done a sufficiently good job of explaining it.

            I think you missed my point about AI. Reason, if we are to use that term, evolved. AI doesn’t need it to start with. It can evolve reason – and of course this all depends on how that term is defined. That’s what the experiment with the chess board illustrated. If computer power continues to expand, in time there will be enough processing power available for a machine to potentially begin to illustrate self-aware consciousness – or so many scientists think.

            I wouldn’t call evolution a law of nature. It’s a process that helps explain nature. It’s a mindless process that determines what is fit for a particular environment. That’s bottom up evolution. I’m reading a book by Daniel Dennett, and he proposes that in the case of humans, evolution is also top down. With the development of language, we gained a capability to manage our own evolution and to dramatically speed it up, or so he argues.

            Let’s say we are in a simulator, and that your god is the programmer who developed it. We don’t really have any option but to live according to whatever laws of physics that programmer designed for us, in what for us, is our natural world, so the existence of lack thereof, of the programmer is a moot point. We shouldn’t live our lives giving any concern to that programmer, unless it can be shown that he or she somehow interferes in our world – and as mentioned, we have no evidence for that, and definitely should if it existed. The programmer, if he exists, gave us a certain set of laws of physics, and it’s clear that he does not violate them himself, or we’d be able to detect it. Thus even if he exists, he’s moot. When we die, does the programmer somehow take virtual copies of us and put them in his coffee cup on his work table? If we’re virtual – which is possible – then where does the soul come in? As a programmer, I’d delete the avatar. It’s done. You said at the start of this thread that when we die the soul expands – so what does that mean from the perspective of the programmer? IF “dead” THEN – [Expand Soul]; SENDTO “coffee cup”. END PROCESS. I’m going to need to see some information on the sub-process [Expand Soul].

          • Sam

            “I wouldn’t say that I’m not the peace and love type, but I would say that I’m not the Kumbaya type. I don’t think there are many beliefs that contribute to peace and love, as most tend to separate and divide people.”

            Only, perhaps, the belief of peace and love. But I get it, you are a man/woman of science, which avoid dealing with beliefs, other than to rule them out as nonsense. And I also understand, that in the eyes of science, the notion of an “intelligence first” have the potential to bring about a lot of nonsense, which, of course, can be harmful. And so you got yourself an agenda, being something else than seeking the truth.

            “I do try to avoid personal insults. Spiritual folk, in my experience, struggle with this.”

            Then you should check out religious folk. Spiritual folk is exceptionally tolerant and altogether harmless.

            “Yes, at times, I will respond to personal insults in kind.”

            Keep that thought.

            “Every organism is entitled to self defense.”

            Also being the excuse for every aggregation.

            “Perhaps a little condescension is called for on my part, in response here – just how much scientific knowledge do you have?”

            You mean my library? And that I am able to read? Or maybe more likely how much I understand? Well, time will show, Frankenstein :)

            “I guess we’ll have to disagree on the idea that intelligence is everywhere we look.”

            Well, you have your agenda.

            “Even Francis Collins who decoded the human genome, agrees that evolution is mindless and that there is no intelligent design. He suggests that God created the language of DNA because we haven’t figured out yet how DNA evolved – thus a standard god of the gaps argument.”

            You are talking like an experienced scientist yourself. You are not Patrick Gannon. But anyway. Scientists are miners, of which I love every bit. And I believe they all, more or less, and pretty soon, will be mining towards “my” corner of the table, as quite a few scientists already do. No research or science of today can overrule “my” standing, or the view one will have from this place.

            “To continue to claim that god is the answer to those things we don’t know yet is a thought no scientist or rational human should seriously entertain, unless and until evidence makes it worthy of consideration. It’s clear from just the last couple centuries, that we are capable of understanding most aspects of our natural world, and we’ve only been at it for a very short time. It’s defeatist to claim that there must be a magical god to explain the things we don’t know yet.”

            You have it upside down. God/intelligence is the self-evident foundation, of which you have to tear down if you can. But thus far, nothing. Your base is mainly tradition, the old feud between science and religion.

            “You didn’t give me the demonstration of a thought out of thin air.”

            I knew you would say that. But my claim is immortal, and be there still, whenever you decide to come around.

            “The thoughts appearing on this post come from my brain.”

            I know better. But I don’t mind you having a different view. To be fooled by the simulation is kinda the point until you figure it out. No problem at all.

            “If you can’t do that, then how can you demonstrate that thoughts come out of thin air, rather than brains?”

            Who cares? What’s the importance? You and I are immortal. Having done this many times over; figure it all out. What is the rush this time? Just so you faster can do it again? :)

            “there is no reason whatsoever for me or anyone else to believe it, is there?”

            Lol, I couldn’t care less. As this is exactly the point, you not getting it, until you, all of yourself do.

            “You might as well be claiming unicorns exist. It would be irrational for me to believe that sort of outrageous claim without some sort of demonstration or evidence, right?”

            Hmm, I wonder why there isn’t such a widespread claim regarding unicorns. Quite a mystery. Maybe you can figure it out? :)

            “So, are you defining “god” as a computer programmer?”

            Not specifically, but if it makes you understand better.

            “If we’re in a simulation, then what accounts for “god” is a programmer – and one must necessarily ask – where did the programmer come from?”

            No matter what we put first, and it must come out of the thin air, right? So, for this special and one of a kind incident, we both must believe in magic.
            I say, as you know, that intelligence came first. And damn, it didn’t go away again. What to do, what to do. A ball of intelligence, just hanging there, and nothing else around. Pretty lively, though, and full of activity, but actually getting nowhere. Somewhat frustrating.
            The one thing going for it was limitlessness in every sense. Well, within itself, that is. Something outside has no meaning. It could manipulate itself in any size and number, in endless variations and ways. So it did, a lot. Still, it was just thoughts flying around like crazy, “caught in a jar”, getting nowhere.
            There was no sense of feeling, other than a mind-boggling urge of self-search and the exploration of what it was. Intelligence spinning on intelligence, growing, working out any combinations of possibilities there ever could be. But still, just thoughts.
            What is a thought? Is it something at all? How to find out? So then, the simulation got born, as a last resort. From not going crazy. And once again from manipulating the endless of possibilities of itself.
            A variety of different thoughts got temporarily slowed down, separated, and limited, spread out in a logical play against each other, for the sake of, and for the first time to see, touch, and feel what every thought is really like. At last, there was some kind of relief. At last, some feedback, for what all those thoughts was about. And not at least the feeling of love.
            In short: Intelligence was born out of thin air, and somehow we made it. We cannot die, so this is what we do, passing time, making the best life possible, feeling alive, in a beautiful world, full of drama, always a challenge and new goals, a sense of purpose, on a slowly evolving climb until out the door. Yep, we do it again.
            I know this for you is just a fairytale. No problem, it was my pleasure :)

            “If you don’t understand that, it’s because you lack the scientific knowledge that would make that evident to you, and if that sounds condescending, I’m sorry, but I don’t know how else to say it.”

            Too bad, for you, that not all scientists, or research, agrees with you. You are, like I said before, cherry picking. But, whatever works for yea.

            “However, I’m not sure you’re familiar with this concept in the first place, nor that I have done a sufficiently good job of explaining it.”

            I am good, thank you.

            “Reason, if we are to use that term, evolved. AI doesn’t need it to start with. It can evolve reason”

            Intelligence first, nor the less.

            “I wouldn’t call evolution a law of nature. It’s a process that helps explain nature.”

            Well, it is a law, a promise, and a guarantee. As a prisoner of the simulation, you, of course, see it differently. And be my guest.

            “Let’s say we are in a simulator, and that your god is the programmer who developed it. We don’t really have any option but to live according to whatever laws of physics that programmer designed for us,

            It’s not like you wasn’t part of the creation of the simulator yourself and voluntarily jumped in. But then you, of course, committed yourself, well aware of the guarantee of the return ticket home, being evolution.

            “We shouldn’t live our lives giving any concern to that programmer, unless it can be shown that he or she somehow interferes in our world”

            I say it’s unavoidable, due to our inner drive, seeking the answers to every question. Only, let’s leave organized religion out of it.

            “When we die, does the programmer somehow take virtual copies of us and put them in his coffee cup on his work table?”

            No way. We turn into unicorns, of course, dancing on his head :)

            “If we’re virtual – which is possible – then where does the soul come in? As a programmer, I’d delete the avatar. It’s done. You said at the start of this thread that when we die the soul expands – so what does that mean from the perspective of the programmer? IF “dead” THEN – [Expand Soul]; SENDTO “coffee cup”. END PROCESS. I’m going to need to see some information on the sub-process [Expand Soul].”

            Well, like you as a 10-year-old now is long gone and deleted, so will you be, regardless age. Of course, only again from growing even more, all the way back to your state as God.

          • Patrick Gannon

            I really don’t see much in this post to debate. We’ve each stated our positions. I’ve placed my reliance in consensus science, demonstrated by compelling objective evidence from countless experiments and observations, while others place their reliance in pseudo-science that relies only on subjective data. I know too much about how unreliable the subjective brain can be, so I’m going where critical thinking directs me.

            If you come up with some sort of evidence for that little ball of intelligence floating around the void, let us know.

            I agree with your last paragraph, (well, my ten year old “me” is largely deleted, but a few memories live on – certainly the material part of me, with the exception of the enamel on my teeth, has been replaced cell by cell. However I would end the paragraph by saying, “all the way back to my state as atoms and basic elements that originated in the cosmos.”

          • Sam

            And this is, ladies and gentlemen, not Patrick Gannon “the bulldog”. But another person altogether, much more refined, gentle, and precise. A person I enjoy, and suits me way more :)
            Ok, talk later :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            You are a riot!

          • Sam

            Yep, better keep it short, Bulldog 😉

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Sam, are you taking Patrick “out to the shed?” 😉

          • Patrick Gannon

            In his dreams. And yours.

          • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

            Right, the body is left behind & shed like a butterfly emerging from it’s cocoon. A new body emerges. But our individual beingness travels through incarnations with a mind/body/soul. Death or re identification as CwG calls it continues with these 3 aspects of our identities. If I understand CwG the soul is that part or aspect of ourselves that doesn’t change but the mind & body do.

            “If it’s non-physical, how does it have any impact whatsoever on our natural world?” The best I can come up with is that it’s very obvious that that individual animated part of ourselves that appears invisible is gone out of the body of a corpse. It can be observed and noted that when a person is physically dead, it’s very different than even if in a deep coma.

            It can be argued that after we’re dead that’s it. But others argue there is more. NDE talk of this and of course critics claim it’s simply the brain working these images. So take your pick.

            As for no second chances, this is closer to Jewish thought. Jewish people may or may not believe in an afterlife. What I understand talking to a Jewish author on the subject is this. Do they believe in the afterlife? The reply to me was. “It’s more complicated than then that.” For the Jewish people then or many as I understand it, they don’t make a big deal or hoopla about the afterlife but focus more on this life as their emphasis.

            I do believe it makes a big difference on your outlook on life if you believe your life goes on after physical death or not. But I think your point is, what about this life? And if it was the only life we have and no afterlife how might that affect people. I can only answer for myself. It’s way cooler to believe in the after life than it simply ends at physical death. More fun, more positive.

            If people neglect the world in favor of a better afterlife, I get that, but it really doesn’t show the reverence toward the Life God has given us. It’s sad. But plenty of afterlife believers do care very much.

            So if it really does end after physical death & we no longer are ever again to be conscious beings,– I can truly appreciate the grandness of eternal life as a worthy goal & positive creation, be it truth or Imagination or both.

            I’m not really sure that our dialog here is that helpful to you. I do think you have a honest inquiry and your devils advocate position does not go unappreciated in your search for your own truth. I can feel your frustrations as you dialogue here with people. I’m not sure my answers will really help you further in your inquiry. But good luck! Peace be with you.

          • Patrick Gannon

            ” If I understand CwG the soul is that part or aspect of ourselves that doesn’t change but the mind & body do.” This seems to agree with my point, that the soul goes on its merry way, but it changes minds and bodies, and I don’t know about you, but for most of us, “we” are the self-aware consciousness that is our minds. If that is changing, it means that who I am now is not who I will be, and why should I care about that new mind? It won’t be me; it won’t remember anything about me.

            “The best I can come up with is that it’s very obvious that that individual animated part of ourselves that appears invisible is gone out of the body of a corpse. It can be observed and noted that when a person is physically dead, it’s very different than even if in a deep coma.”

            But the life process continues, even in a coma. When the process stops, that’s it. Nothing has gone out of the corpse, the process sustaining it simply ended. When you blow out a candle, the life of the candle does not go out, the process of rapid chemical oxidation stops. If there was an “animated” force, it would have to act on the particles in our bodies, and we would know about that. One has to explain how this immaterial, animated force acts on the particles in our body without being detected, even though we know all the things that those particles can do and there are no actions that require animated magic in order to explain them.

            I agree with your thoughts on Judaism. Back in Jesus’ day the big debate was then, as it is now – is there an afterlife? Some Jews believed you were in Sheol, dead forever, and others believed that at the end of time, Yahweh would wake you, and judge you and reward you with a renewed garden paradise, or if you fell short – simply destroy you. The concept of eternal torment didn’t start till the “good news” of Jesus!

            Noted, that even many atheists are not happy about the lack of an afterlife, but shouldn’t we seek the truth, regardless of what it is? Aren’t we just taking a happiness drug and lying to ourselves if we maintain unsupported beliefs? Can that actually be good for us? I think one gets a better appreciation for this life, when they think this is all they get.

            I do appreciate your responses, Marko. You always put at least a little thought and skull sweat into your posts.

            Do I experience intuition? How could I be human, and not do so? Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning. I instinctively understand that stepping off the roof of my house is a bad idea. I also have intuition regarding many aspects of life. We “size people up” and have intuitive feelings about them. Or are you asking if I ever predict the future; if I have premonitions? If so, then yes. We all do. We make predictions all the time, but only remember them when they actually happen. We can also make predictions based on what we know is going on.

            I don’t understand the relevance of the question in either regard. It’s a function of the brain, whether an instinctive reaction, or an awareness action, or a premonition. Without a brain, neither instinct nor awareness, nor premonition exists.

          • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

            When it comes to the soul in CwG I’m not as yet well versed in that aspect of understanding, save what I’ve already stated. So I’m very much learning in that department of CwG.

            I guess the soul is like the ice berg & the mind & body the tip of which we see. It’s all one piece but often hidden simply based on our current understanding of life.

            Where I shine a little more is where we use the mind to create or influence the day to day experience we have and how to use it for our advantage instead of being abused by it.

            In CwG book 4 cranks up the level of living more in tune with HEB’s.
            I’d recommend reading it, if only for the high concepts that can be instilled in the human experience. Anywho………..

            Bill Maher on his show stated recently that as an atheist he’d love to believe in the afterlife but couldn’t because of no evidence.

            ” If there was an “animated” force, it would have to act on the particles in our bodies, and we would know about that.”

            Yes, and I believe it does, but because we can’t yet detect it or witness it’s transformation out of the body, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists. We simply have yet found the way to do so, yet.

            When I held my dead cat a few months ago it was so obvious his spirit was gone. The vet said there is a difference when even in a coma, the life force is still there & noticeable. So something ended or simply left or both.

            “Noted, that even many atheists are not happy about the lack of an
            afterlife, but shouldn’t we seek the truth, regardless of what it is?” Oh yes, even if it’s one we don’t’ like.

            “Aren’t we just taking a happiness drug and lying to ourselves if we
            maintain unsupported beliefs? Can that actually be good for us? I
            think one gets a better appreciation for this life, when they think this
            is all they get.”

            Yes, I do see your point in that. I get it’s logic too.

            As I stated earlier, I think a belief in the afterlife is good for us or at least for me. It puts a positive spin on life that enhances health & happiness. That’s pretty powerful stuff even if we don’t go on after the body dies. That’s another logic one can take.

            So yes, life is lived far more favorably in my view as a result. If upon death that’s it, I will not know or remember that or anything, but while I’m here, I do! I’m willing to believe a divine intelligence is behind all nature, stars & planets & beyond. It’s so grand to think that way! Yet a belief in an afterlife does not have to mean we discard this life or world, in fact, it can create a greater appreciation for it in my view.

            Of course you see we can’t really take this much further can we?

            I don’t think I can satisfy your questions in a way that you are hoping they could. I get your sincere desire for the truth. It could be that you came here in this lifetime as a skeptic simply to help others be clearer about how to view life & God. In doing so you get closer to the truth you seek.

            As for the intuition question. The purpose in asking is that intuition is the springboard for psychic experiences. It’s all very subjective and inconsistent much of the time simply because of the subjectivity of it, the spontaneity of it arising in certain cases of danger & emergencies. Just as in the spontaneous connecting I told you about way back about my deceased cat visiting me. Note I was in a certain creative artistic space that I feel allowed myself to open to that possibility.

            But far to many people have given me paranormal experiences that are hard to deny simply because there is no reason to be gained by doing so.

            I was with a group of friends recently & was surprise when my friend Marie asked another friend (we were took ball room dance lessons for about 3 1/2 years together) Dave about the perfect waltz dance she experienced with him. He remembered. I was quite curious upon hearing this. She then said. That her father at the time recently died and it was as if his spirit went into Dave to give her a last father daughter dance. He said he felt that at that moment & yes something other than him was present.

            So you can pooh pooh this. But man I’ve heard this and many others from people some whom are very spiritual & others much less so.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Yes, and I believe it does, but because we can’t yet detect it or witness it’s transformation out of the body, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exists. We simply have yet found the way to do so, yet.”

            But we have found the way to do so – via particle accelerators and colliders. While its possible that there are forces that exist that we don’t know about yet (and surely particles we haven’t discovered yet), nevertheless we understand all the elementary pieces that make up the particles in our natural world. If there were magical forces working on them, we’d know it by now, because we’d see our particles being manipulated by something we couldn’t see or explain. That just doesn’t happen. The explanation for why that is, is really the story of the core theory of physics. If these magical forces exist and somehow control our physical material, then it means, essentially, that every single physics experiment ever conducted gave us incorrect results. That’s pretty unlikely, wouldn’t you agree?

            With regard to your cat; I understand, I had to put my dog down after 14 years a few months ago, and I sat with him, not as his soul left his body, but as his life process came to a halt. I can see how one might personify the life process as a soul thing, but it comes down to the cessation of the life process. The heart stops beating, the blood stops flowing, the brain stops processing, and the whole life process grinds to a halt, as though a spirit had left the body. I can see how it could look that way to someone who wanted and believed it to be so.

            The strongest argument I know of for an afterlife, or the pretense of one, because I’m sure that’s what it really is, is the one you make. It makes us feel better. It gives us hope that we won’t simply become food for worms, but that we will go on in some way. Unfortunately there just isn’t any evidence that this will happen. Whether this “happy drug” belief is better for us, than facing the truth, is worthy of discussion, given that we know cognitive dissonance isn’t very good for us.

            I think our consciousness is more powerful than we know yet, and exercising it properly can lead to greater intuition, flow, timelessness, selflessness, insight, reflection, etc., but all of that comes from within us, not from some outside magical force. Did you ever look up that book, “Stealing Fire”?

            Thanks for taking the time to respond, Marko. Good comments. I think it’s great that you agree that we should seek truth. The only way to do that is to challenge our beliefs.

            I’m not sure we answered the question about the soul. The body clearly stays behind, and the evidence is very strong that the mind also stays behind, so it’s hard to get excited about whether or not some soul accomplished its agenda by riding us hard and putting us away wet, to borrow a phrase.

          • babybleustardust

            What a cool story, Marko. i love the story about the dance, the waltz dance between Dave and Marie. I once had a waltz that was so special. I felt the presence of Christ dancing through my body. He is fun. It’s real. Pat, susend your mind. Christ is Jesus is real to me. Also, when my baby beagle died, I felt his warmth at my feet, as if he were still alive. He used to sleep on my feet. Love is boundless, no boundaries, indeed :)

          • babybleustardust

            A soul can house many brains. When one dies a physical brain, that animating force can be applied to another in another life cycle. So we canj’t explain it with modern quark physics yet. That doesn’t mean it’s not real. A grain of a mustard seed is necessary, it seems. At least a little, but I do like that you say this life, the way we live in this life, how we encounter others matters, so a God would say, so he doesn’t believe in a white robed thing, he at least lives well as he encounters love. So, you might squeak by, barely ) Just be nice as you would have others be nice and you don’t gotta worry about a thing to prove. Smell the rose and eat blue cheese :) That’s life 😉

          • Patrick Gannon

            Please explain “animating force.” If this force existed, we would know about it. Science has determined that life is not an “animating force,” it’s a process.

            The rules of the game have changed. Once upon a time, it was thought that an “animating force” did exist. Descartes, for example supported this idea. However even back then, Princess Elizabeth asked him how this immaterial force could move us around, and Descartes had no compelling answer for her then, and today we know there is no such force. Scientists had to provide the evidence for their claim that life was a process, not an animating force. They have done that to the n’th degree. The burden of proof has shifted. We know the laws of physics, which have never failed us, don’t have any need for this magical, animating force, in order to explain anything that goes on in our natural world. We also know that if it existed and had any impact on the things that make up our natural world, we would know that. We’d see the effects, even if we couldn’t see the force itself. There’s nothing that needs explaining.

            “A soul can have many brains.” You mentioned that the “animating force” from one physical brain could be applied to another. Aside from having the burden of proof for that claim, you didn’t say anything about the self-aware consciousness, the “me” or “I” that emerged from that brain. That part clearly does not get applied to the new brain, right? All that is applied is the “animating force” or soul, right? It seems you agree that the mind remains behind – which again raises the question, why should my mind give a hoot about the welfare of a slave master soul? When the life process in my brain ends, it’s going to callously leave mind and body behind and go inhabit some other new mind. Why should my mind, here and now, care? “I” won’t be there.

            Have you ever had blue cheese with cold pears? Oh yeah…

          • babybleustardust

            Yes, life is a process, yet it is much more than a physical body living as merely a physical expression as a process, meaning ligament fires synapse from physical brain to femur, humerous and all of that. We are urges. We are feeling. We are a certain hue. We are Energy on many levels. What makes a nose a nose or an eye an eye. Every eye is different, and all carry a unique imprint or energy constant from living vessel to another vessel. How we mix is unique as we combine energy. Energy is invisible and runs through all things, but as I move through a room with a yellow vase, a blue lamp and a green table, what I do on my table is paint. What another might do is spill milk and eat baby carrots. Another might rap his fist and say “Where did this bill come from?” but all may or may not share in the love light of the mix of blue lamp and a green table beside a yellow vase, though the items are identical. It depends on the intention of one painting, one cooing at the table always an angel, one hammering a fist? could be angelic if he devotes his life to sharing his wealth with his family, yet all glean something from sharing the love as all three unique expressions share in the light of the blue lamp, green table, yellow vase. Everything is energy. Everything mixes. It’s our own approach to the energy we move through day to day that creates a soul’s life, so I don’t know. I’m rambling. Take it or leave it. We are magic energy moving in love or fear but appearances aren’t everything. We didn’t know about quarks not too long ago and now we find out there likely is more on that horizon to discover, and this is coming from a physicist in scientific american. We are capable of holding much more energy, light energy that travels faster than the speed of light and beyond, moreso than we know. We are space and water, and all of that is magic to one approaching all surroundings encountered with Love Sweet Love, so animating a physical vessel requires what I call umph. How’s that for scientific definition of animating force. A body is just a body but with umph it is oh so much grander with umph and faith. It’s what makes that car go, so to speak. I think it was duke ellington who was talking to a blues buddy who said “what makes that car go?” the buddy said, “well, this pedal creates a reaction in the engine and this fires that and that fires this and then the famous musician said, “No man. What really makes that car go?” That’s like Life and the Soul. What makes it go man is umph. How’s that for a scientific explanation :)

          • babybleustardust

            Patrick, you say that there is nothing left of the mind after death or body. I just read something interesting from The Only Thing that Matters. It speaks of a metaphor. A log burning creates smoke and light and ash. Log is gone but a residue remains. Energy is your mind. Whatever the mind is, you’re using it, and if it’s not created nor destroyed, I guess it’s going to keep on existing, complaining the whole time, or maybe I’ll put in a word for you since I believe and you claim not to believe in a mind everlasting. We’ll see what happens to you in the afterlife. It matters what one believes going into the afterlife, so you don’t believe in the mind’s existence. Wow I guess this means Patrick is going to be quiet for a change :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            We’re all going to be quiet in the afterlife – the same way we were quiet for billions of years before we came into existence at our birth.

            Let’s look at your metaphor. The brain is the log and the mind is the smoke. When the log is all burned up (i.e., when the brain dies), then what is left is whatever we did while we were alive, just as whatever is left of the log is based on what it did while the process of burning was active. No more thought can be generated without the brain, just as no more smoke or ash can be generated without the log. What remains is whatever we or the log produced while we were able to contribute to a process; a life process in our case, and an oxidizing chemical reaction process in the case of the log. Stop the process of either or both, and nothing further is generated. Your log metaphor is spot on. The smoke and ashes become part of our natural world, from whence they came, and our thoughts and actions do the same, albeit in a different way.

            The output of the log remains fully within our natural world, as do the products or output of the brain. To suggest otherwise is to take on a huge burden of proof, given that there is no evidence to support anything but a natural world explanation.

          • Patrick Gannon

            “Wow I guess this means Patrick is going to be quiet for a change.”

            When you say “Patrick” (feel free to call me Pat), do you refer to the self-aware consciousness that is essentially the voice in my head? You are suggesting that in the afterlife, this self-aware consciousness that is how I define myself will continue to exist, but “I” will be “quiet,” as a personal choice, right? In other words, I’ll still be generating thoughts? Without a brain, right?. How exactly?

            You suggested earlier that I should be nice to my soul. This means the two of them are separate, does it not? Pat should be nice to his soul… Except that the relationship is more like that of pets and the soul is the master. The dog says, “I’m taking my owner for a walk,” but it’s really the master, i.e., the soul’s agenda, that is taking the dog, i.e. the “I” for a walk, so we don’t matter, and like the pet, we’ll eventually be exchanged for new pets by our soul. That seems to be how this all works if I try to talk it out. Except that after our souls dump us for new models, “we” will continue to have thoughts without brains.

            So what we have is two separate things surviving. My body is clearly going to the worms or back into the basic elements it is constructed of. My soul is going on its merry way, looking for another “I,” another self-aware consciousness to inhabit. What happens to “me,” to “Patrick”? What happens to my self-aware consciousness when the soul moves on to another? How is that self aware consciousness supported without the brain? How does the smoke continue to be generated without the log? And why should I give a hoot about my soul master and its new pet?

          • babybleustardust

            The “patrick” that is going to be quiet in the afterlife is the “little mind patrick.” The Patrick that might wake up in the afterlife, after eons of boredom, I guess, might be a loud “I.” You might recall the Soul is comprised of mind,body and soul and many more, so capital P Patrick has Big Mind, Big Body, Big Soul somwhere. If you leave it asleep, I don’t know. I don’t know what your Soul might say in th afterlife. Maybe he’ll/she’ll send you a smoke signal or put another log on th fire.

          • Patrick Gannon

            The way I understand it, “I,” Patrick don’t have the soul. The soul has me. And you’re going to have to propose some mechanism by which “I” am going to continue to exist without a brain to generate that consciousness. Magic, is not a sufficient explanation.

            Wait a sec, i’m reading this again…. so not only do “I,” my self-aware consciousness, have thoughts and things to say, but my soul also has thoughts and things to say. So my soul has a self-aware consciousness of its own?

          • babybleustardust

            In my scheme, your soul works with a soul of souls, or OverSoul. So, yeah. They have a soul conference call it quark style conference call and they’re working with all kinds of minds and bodies from old and new and dear god. It’s complicated. All I know is your mind is aware it has a body named patrick who is scientific headstrong and likes to blog and eat blue cheese and loves evidence. So maybe you will get some concrete wierdness to prove to your mind that your soul is quark like and streams with the big God Mind over all Souls and Minds of God :) Hey do you know how to stop email hackers? I am being told by friends that my email is seriously hacked. What should I do? It’s getting out of hand. I get emails back but I just now got an email saying hey did you know your email is seriously hacked?? So, how do I stop a hacker. Change my password? Will that stop them from being able to hack my email? Thanks :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Re god and souls – not much to respond to there. Re email hackers, I just live with it. From time to time someone uses my email address to send spam, etc. It happens to almost everyone eventually. Don’t worry about it; just assure your friends that you didn’t send it, when they ask. Most of us are used to this.

            The most important thing is to not open any email attachment or click on a link unless you are absolutely sure it is from someone you know. When I get an email from a person and it’s even the tiniest bit suspicious, I email them and ask if they sent it. More often than not, the answer is “no” and I saved myself from a virus or worse, by not clicking the link or opening the attachment.

          • babybleustardust

            I wouldn’t worry but some of the emails attach my name to them and they are suggestive and I also am experiencing some sort of terrible virus that ate the whole operating system of windows 10 on my new computer. I spent hours and hours trying to tweak it going into device manager and on phone with dell who wants to charge me three hundred to speak to them. They are nice though and heck I’ll fix it somehow. Thanks :) I never open attachments from anyone unless it’s a known love :)

          • babybleustardust

            Yes, your soul has a consciousness. It’s the big grand scheme, the one all in all in all in sync with the Grand OverSoul. So, you have one but you doubt its existence, yet it still exists. We thought the atom was done with proton and neutron and then along came quantum jump and then quarks and leptons and God knows what else, so we learn as we go. The soul knows what you need and when. Magic is Living Word, Living Bit on a computer, digit and 1’s and 0’s. Those can go quantum. I don’t know everything but I’ve seen enough of magic to know God is a green thing called a green man and a man in a moon eating blue cheese, okay :) and pears wow that sounds grand. I will have to try that one :)

          • babybleustardust

            hey Patrick,

            I just thought of this. You write, “When the log is all burned up (i.e. when the brain dies), then what is left is whatever we did while we were alive, just as whatever is left of the log is based on what it did while the process of burning was active. No more thought can be generated without the brain, just as no more smoke or log can be generated without the log. What remains is whatever we or the log produced as we contributed to a process; a life process . . ”

            Okay. here it is. If a poet dies, his poetry is contributing to the ongoing history, heritage, and the ongoing creative act of creating new poetry itself because the word lives. A new mind lingers over the sweet cadences and turns with the tide of the swinging low gutterals exchanging with soft palatteables. In other words, there is a mind that lives and breathes and brings the dead poet’s words back to life. In fact, there are many minds as there are audiences who read those words. There is a mind that knows literature well and reads them, analyzing the form and whatnot. There is a mind that is a sunday pleasure kind of reader who desires not to study the word but to linger and appreciate the sounds in a lighter way. And, I imagine there are more, but you get the idea. The poet, though the log perse, his physical body is gone on, his words are being used by living mind and space, not only by the physical vessels walking the earth, but also the mind that has gone on to an afterlife. You don’t believe that part but I do. When I read Autobiography of Yogananda whatever it’s called I link to his mind and he is aware I am linking to his mind. A connection is born. It’s true what Shelley wrote. In fact so many poets have uttered this. Probably Shakespere. In essence they say, “My beloved, though I am gone, my words will spread over the earth like seed to sprout forth new birth, new life. .I am making this up as I go,” but you got the idea. bye :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            I agree with all of that except the idea that the mind goes on to the afterlife. That is a scientific hypothesis, for which there is absolutely no compelling, objective evidence that I know of.

      • babybleustardust

        Hi Patrick,

        You write “If we talk to our souls–this implies that “we” (our self-aware consciousness) are not the same thing as that soul, doesn’t’t it?”

        The truth, at least this is my highest truth, is that the mind with a little “m” is aware of a physical body, just as the big Mind with a capital “M” is aware, yet the big Mind is aware of all little minds and big Minds (Minds that know themselves to be One with God in Body, Mind, Soul). The little soul is not separate from God’s big Soul and Mind, nor is the little body separate from God’s big Body, but it can express that way by choosing fear of love. Conversations between the little mind, little soul, little body occur with God’s big Mind, big Body, big Soul and these steer us on many levels towards expressing our Highest expression of our Grandest Truth–we are One. Jesus said, and I agree “I and my Father are One.” Thus, the soul or mind and body can have a dialogue or not. It can also speak as “monologue” if you will when it acts, speaks, and thinks it is One in All Love. The body can have a mind of itself that’s in disagreement with the High Mind, and in so doing it breaks off a dynamic and fluid communication with God. For instance, some souls might choose to get cancer at a body level, but not always is it the best thing. That’s just one example of how one can turn away from a supra-consciousness where everything is working in sync.

        Your little soul is not merely tied to your little brain. It is probable that you have many lives from past, present, and future where your soul connects with many bodies/brains, and it’s a web. You exist as a Mind of a body always. God knows every fiber of our being and every hair, so you are more than you know or think with a little mind.

        Love and Peace,
        Michelle

        • Patrick Gannon

          Thanks, but there are already too many pieces, what with body, mind and soul, and now you want to add big and little minds and big and little souls. It’s starting to sound like quarks constructing atoms. All of it is based on the presumption that your god is real, which of course is something for which we have absolutely no compelling, objective evidence, right?

          You still seem to be describing separate things – bodies, minds and souls. Big or little, my mind is who I am and you suggest that it is the soul that chooses cancer for the body, so again I ask – what good is this soul? Why should I care about it? My mind will not survive death, and even if it did, I don’t think I’d want to hang around with a soul that chose cancer for my body without my consent or even any inclusion in the decision to do so. The soul is like the idea of heaven. The more I think about it, the less I like it, and the happier I am that there’s no evidence for it.

          • babybleustardust

            Quarks are smart. Who’s to say a quark can never construct an atom. They’re not separate (mind body, soul) yet they’re distinct. It’s a divine dichotomy. They can work together fluidly or not. They can act–think, say, do– separately or not.

            You should care about your soul because you’re kind of stuck with it. You might as well be nice to it. Truthfully, it sometimes makes decisions for your betterment, of course, with or without your awareness. You might as well try squooching up to it, say hi and be nice. :)

            Love to you,
            Michelle

          • Patrick Gannon

            Quarks are smart? I know you are kidding, but No quarks are not smart! Quarks have limited degrees of freedom or states, and none of them are dumb/smart or happy/sad states. They are spin and electric charge states. If there were any other states or degrees of freedom, we’d have discovered them by now. Photons don’t turn on a happy state as they whiz through space anxiously waiting to contribute to a cancer when they hit your skin.

            With regard to the body/mind/soul trinity, the Catholic Church has been trying to explain God/Son/Holy Ghost in the same way, for centuries, and I’m certainly not convinced that any of them even exist. Before trying to explain this integration, one needs to start by proving the components all exist, and there is no proof whatsoever that souls exist. At least we know that the body exists, the mind may be illusory – that is yet to be determined, but the soul is a pipe dream, given that there isn’t a shred of evidence to support its existence; and if it does exist, it has absolutely no effect on our natural world – or we would know it by now.

            How can I be “nice” to something that I have absolutely no way to interact with? Screw my soul, if it exists – why should “I” be nice to it? After “I” die, this imaginary soul is going to grab ahold of another “I” that won’t be “me,” to continue to advance its agenda, and “I” will be left behind with my body to feed worms. I’m nice to myself – I eat well, exercise body and mind, and in return everything (so far) continues to work. I’m unaware of any assistance from a soul, because if that soul actually had the ability to make decisions for my betterment; i.e. manipulate the particles in my brain, we would know it.

        • Spiritual_Annie

          Michelle,

          I like how you’re able to see and express that what we understand (and are) here and now in this particular place and time and dimension is a small but similar reflection of what exists in Ultimate Reality. We are Triune beings on a small scale, but also on the largest of scales.

          It makes me think of Russian nesting dolls, but in reverse. Our gargantuan bodies (much less dense ones, I believe) and minds and souls—our true natures—are made smaller so that we can enter a smaller reality. But we can (and I believe do) tap into those gargantuan parts of ourselves, including the most ginormous of all: God.

          Love and Blessings Always,
          ~Annie

          • Jethro

            Absolutely no part of who we are is small, we only see it that way. How big could you be if you viewed yourself as big as the biggest person you know? You are! We see ourselves as the smallest part usually, as small as any other? You are! we are each other. always have been, always will be. It’s why they call it humanity….

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Jethro,

            For me, this is one of those”Divine dichotomies.” We have to go inward (which is what I was implying with the nesting dolls) in order to reach the vastness of who we are that obviously doesn’t fit inside our physical being, but if we look out to the physical universe we can feel like the tiniest of creatures in the vastness of the universe (or multiverse).

            Love and Blessings Always,
            ~Annie

          • Jethro

            Quite amazing, all of it, isn’t it? and all we have to do is give it a moment of thought.

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Yes, we are quite amaze-ing, aren’t we, all of us expressing as God. Awe-full, as well.

          • Gross Prophet

            ‘God awe-full’. Made me smile.

          • babybleustardust

            Thank you, Annie. Yes, we are a reflection of the totality, yet we are the Totality itself when we remember all love as each is remembered by the Mind of God at zero, the dawn of love.

            I love Russian nesting dolls. I have a Russian nesting egg. When we imagine life being conceived as far inner as it is conceived outer, then we have realized the true Soul.

            Love to you,
            Michelle

  • http://markoworld.com/ Marko

    On this day of your life
    I believe God wants you to know…

    …that the mind and the soul must work together
    if you are to experience true bliss.

    Try not to spend too much time exclusively in your mind.
    It is a magnificent tool, but it has a limited perspective.
    Try not to spend too much time exclusively in your soul.
    It has a much wider perspective, but you cannot negotiate
    physical life from only that place. If you could, you
    would not have been given a mind.

    Here is the trick: balance.
    Spend some time each day nourishing and exercising
    the mind and the soul. You know how to do both.

    So do it!

    Love, your Friend …

    • Patrick Gannon

      Hi Marko, this is pertinent to our discussion. Once again, we’re told in this quote, that the mind and the soul are two different things, given the suggestion that they should work together. Your quote does not indicate whether it is just the soul or the mind as well, that survives death. We know that 1/3 of the trinity, the body, certainly does not and we are highly confident that the mind is dependent on the body – the brain, so it looks like it’s just the soul that moves on – and once again – why should we care? If both soul and mind move on, what happens to the mind (given it has no brain to support it!), and given that the soul grabs another mind and body and starts over again… What does the mind do, or is it over and done with?

      I fail to understand the role played by the soul given that I know of no way to interact with it, or it with our natural world.

      True bliss – what is that? If we were in a state of bliss all the time, would it continue forever to be blissful, or is bliss something short term and recognized as such by how fleeting it is? Clearly we’d never accomplish anything if we existed in a state of bliss all the time. There would be no drive, no motivation, no exploration or discovery. I think bliss is overrated. If bliss is really what we want, and if we believe we will experience this forever when we die – then why don’t more of us kill ourselves? Nobody seems to be in any sort of hurry to experience it on a permanent basis, which tells me that people are (rightly) skeptical about this afterlife thing – even if they don’t say so. People in movements like CwG should have very high suicide rates. If one buys into it, that means no punishment, nothing is bad, nothing is wrong, no shame, no guilt, nobody is going to turn you on a spit – but rather you will remember and rejoice in ONEness again. So why not go there now? Why doesn’t this movement have higher than average suicide rates, if people really believe this? (Or does it, and we aren’t aware of it!)

      Back when I last thought about this suicide idea as a CwG evangelist, I simply assumed that “I,” the self aware, conscious part of me, would be going into this afterlife Neale and other New Age authors have described in somewhat similar terms. As time went on and Neale frequently referred to “the soul’s agenda” and in repeatedly noting that it was separate from body and mind, the more I began to wonder if he thinks it’s just the soul that moves on, and the mind, being part of the brain, necessarily remains behind. That makes scientific sense, given that the soul if it exists, is moot in this world, but the mind is of this world. But if this is true, then why should we care about the soul? I’m not going to reread CwG right now to try and recall this, but if someone has chapter/page where this is discussed, I’ll look it up.

      This state of bliss, interestingly enough, does come from shutting our mind off – the System 2, or more advanced, cognitive, deliberative thinking system, when shut down, puts us into a state that we describe as bliss or oneness. It’s something that’s happening internally in our brains, and the process is pretty well documented. You don’t leave your mind and go to your soul, you put part of your mind on “pause.” We can see this in fMRI scans, as the two thinking systems use different parts of the brain to operate. We see brain activity die down when in a deep meditative state. We experience this feeling as bliss or oneness, or something similar, but it’s a function of the brain, and if the brain is damaged in the right way – you may lose the ability to experience it again.

      I have no idea how one spends time in or with their soul. The passage suggests that we were given minds, by Neale’s god, but that’s not what the facts say. The facts say that we evolved minds. I’m reading a book by Daniel Dennett about consciousness right now, that is all about how we evolved our minds, and the role played by language. If we had not learned to talk, we would surely still be swinging in trees.

      I guess, one way I could put this, that would work for me, is to say that the mind is what I use when I’m sitting here typing responses to you, and the soul is another word, for putting that mind, and in particular the System 2 mind, to rest, through meditation, exercise/sports, art/music, group and individual flow, etc. The “soul” then becomes a synonym for “passive brain” more or less. It’s not a thing, it’s a state. A particular state of mental rest. That works. LOL. I think I just came up with a functional definition for a soul that actually makes sense!

      • babybleustardust

        There you go. God would love the soul being called art/music, meditation and flow :)

        I think the idea about bliss and why CWG’ers aren’t racing to commit suicide is one can experience this in physicality. We don’t need to die in order to get heaven.

  • Sam

    Yep, my response, even posted twice, both “detected as spam”. And the saga continues…

    • Sam

      Third time’s the charm, it might be. One hour, and holding…

      • Spiritual_Annie

        Sam, I posted it for you from the email notification that I got, but then noticed it had appeared later in the thread, so I deleted it.

        • Sam

          Thank you for helping out :)

  • NealeDonaldWalsch

    Hi, Sam. I went into the “back end” of the Disqus platform for this site, found your comment marked “spam”, and am going to DEFEAT the MACHINE by posting it MYSELF here!!! Let’s see if Disqus calls ME “spam”!!!
    ==================================

    from Sam…

    “I am not accepting any intelligence, designer or creator of everything (ergo God) exists, so I don’t fully understand your first point.”

    Your point was if, and the result be full cognition. But if intelligence comes first, it means quite a lot more. Which you missed.

    “No gods required. No gods are required to explain our universe.”

    It depends on the definition. But if you, personally, don’t need it, it’s perfectly okay. And honestly, I don’t think you would understand it anyway, at this point, and the current stage you’re at.

    “You say it’s self-evident that there had to be an intelligence first, but that is not at all self-evident.”

    It’s clearly self-evident. Anyone saying otherwise is not a seeker of truth—whatever it might be—but pursuing some other agenda altogether.

    “It is what it is. It’s how we evolved. That’s all.”

    Yes, I think that is as far as your understanding goes, for now. And fine. Why not.

    “I disagree with your use of the term “I know it.” I think you mean “I believe it.”

    In the context used, it was most fittingly. Otherwise, I don’t care that much what it’s called. I am just putting into words my views and experience.

    “while I consider that to be “believing,” because it’s highly and demonstrably, unreliable evidence.”

    Not to me. And that’s what counts, as likewise for everybody. Everyone can put forward their work and thoughts, and others can make use of it, or not. Simple.

    “Thoughts are not generated out of thin air.”

    Yes, the first, and only, component is thought. To put something else first, and therefore out of thin air too, is less likely. Intelligence first, explains the rest with ease.

    “Thoughts do not build hard drives and processors.”

    If you unknowingly were to live in a simulator, you would think the exact same thing, and, of course, be dead wrong. Earth and the physical world are likewise an illusion. Thought, is everything there is.

    “Revealing the illusion too soon is a very convenient explanation”

    If you unknowingly are living in a simulator, there must be a reason, yes? Then the timing for a revealing must be a key thing, or why else the secrecy?

    Regarding research. Scientists have already discovered matter to be 99% empty space. Go outside, and find a big heavy rock, one you barely can lift, study it for a while, break it in two if you like, and tell me how you don’t feel amazingly fooled. It’s just an illusion; a “hologram”.

  • Spiritual_Annie

    Found this interesting quote while flipping through my news app and following a link. It was made in the context of NDE’s, OBE’s and other phenomena that don’t fit into the materialistic, particle-oriented scientific view (which I believe would also include having our own conversations with God).

    “Some materialistically inclined scientists and philosophers refuse to acknowledge these phenomena because they are not consistent with their exclusive conception of the world. Rejection of post-materialist investigation of nature or refusal to publish strong science findings supporting a post-materialist framework are antithetical to the true spirit of scientific inquiry, which is that empirical data must always be adequately dealt with. Data which do not fit favored theories and beliefs cannot be dismissed a priori. Such dismissal is the realm of ideology, not science.” – Dr. Gary Schwartz, professor of psychology, medicine, neurology, psychiatry and surgery at the University of Arizona

    Love and Blessings Always,
    ~Annie

    • Sam

      Hi, Annie
      Can I ask how you get the quoting to stand out like that?

      • Spiritual_Annie

        You can ask 😉

        Do you know anything about HTML? If not, it might take some ‘splainin. I don’t mind, I just need to know what you might already understand.

        • Sam

          Well, try the short version first :)

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Shortest version: BLOCKQUOTE 😂

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Oh, OK. A little longer version.

            All HTML commands are contained in brackets… the angular kind, like . To start a command, surround it with those brackets, then type the text you want to look that way. Then, you have to end the command by doing ALMOST the same thing. Type the opening bracket immediately followed by the “slash” symbol… / … noting that’s not a backslash like in web addresses… followed by the command, followed by the closing bracket.

            So, it would be: to start it, then type the text, then end it with

            I’d type it out in sequence, but WordPress would read them as commands and actually do it.

          • Sam

            Now we are talking true magic, me becoming cool! No way! :)

            Testing:

            Cool

          • Spiritual_Annie

            Wanna be even cooler? Instead of using BLOCKQUOTE, you can also use other commands:

            I for italics
            B for bold
            U for underline

            And… they can be used in combination, too. If, in the middle of a long quote you want to emphasize something, use italics.

            There are many who say that our discussions here are fruitless unless there is contention and disagreement. This view is mainly held by literalists and adherents to a strictly materialistic viewpoint. But I’m of the opinion that discussions don’t need to be debates. We can, instead, learn to listen attentively, consider carefully, and respond respectfully.

    • Patrick Gannon

      What data which does not fit favored theories and beliefs has been dismissed a priori? This sounds an awful lot like a whine. Any of these psi guys can challenge the common wisdom by submitting papers to scientific journals, with compelling, objective evidence. If they had that evidence, they would do so.

      I also monitor news apps including those having to do with psi and consciousness, and from time to time they come out with an article talking about all the evidence out there; and when you track down the sources, you find that all of it is old data, all of it is “in the noise” (i.e. it’s not compelling, the results are too insignificant), and there is nothing new now that procedures have tightened up. They can’t produce results, so there are no new results. If there were, I’m sure they would be publicized.

      Materialistically inclined scientists are that way, because that’s what the data shows. A great many of them, probably wish it were not so. There are a lot of religious scientists, and it must be difficult for them, because their religious and spiritual beliefs are seldom if ever supported by research, observations, experimentation, etc. If they were, we would surely hear about it.

      As for Schwartz, Wikipedia does not treat him well: “Schwartz’s methods have prompted criticism from skeptics such as University of Oregon professor Ray Hyman, who says Professor Schwartz’s research deviates from the accepted norms of scientific methodology, and criticizes Schwartz for research errors such as inappropriate statistical tests and using subjects predisposed to believe in psychic abilities.[11] Skeptic Robert Todd Carroll maintains that Schwartz’s evaluation of mediums is subjective and a product of “wishful thinking.”[8][12] When retired stage magician and famous skeptic James Randi asked the University of Arizona to submit Schwartz’s research data to an independent panel for evaluation as part of his One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, Schwartz declined because he thought that the panel, which he believed would be picked by Randi, would be biased. The University of Arizona’s then-president Peter Likins, decided that Schwartz’s statements were matters of “freedom of expression.”[non-primary source needed][13]

      Schwartz has also been accused by psychic Laurie Campbell and Allison DuBois of exploiting their psychic abilities for his own publicity.[non-primary source needed][14]”

  • Sam

    “Patrick Gannon” is a project. Not only one person, but several.

    Have a look at this wording, supposedly Patrick:

    “At the end, you are switching languages. You move from the language of our physical reality to the language of atoms. It’s like talking about the air flow in a room by describing the individual quarks and electrons that make up oxygen, nitrogen and other trace elements. We use a different language to discuss what happens at the sub-atomic level, molecular level, cellular level and conscious level.“

    This is someone actually lecturing (we this, and we that), and not like the rest of us, arguing/debating/sharing. And how it’s read, someone that really follows strict guidelines, someone highly educated, having done nothing else their entire lives. Nothing of the sort that would fit a brute salesman, just out jogging listen to books. Supposedly with a photographic memory, yet never put to any real use.

    No, “Patrick Gannon”, one of few with a full name (sticking out like a sore thumb), to appear all legit (that backfired), is actually several persons writing under the same name. Patrick, the madman, that can’t wrap his head around Neale’s concept, “just this thing dumping bodies for the new model”, then to suddenly explain very complicated things quite exquisitely, now having some other brain entirely.

    And the capacity, that no one can match, by far. Pretty revealing on its own.

    Case “Patrick Gannon” explained. And as far as I know, it can continue as such. Only for us to have in mind, that we are dealing with several people under the same name. A Frankenstein.

    • Patrick Gannon

      I am several people? Really? I’m easy enough to find online. This is a riot, because on a Catholic blog, I was accused of being a program, an artificial intelligence. If I was a programmer who could create an AI that could fool a Catholic blog (well, that may not be so hard to do!), then I wouldn’t be here – I’d be sitting on a beach in the tropics, sipping rum punch and spending my money!

      I’m honored and pleased that you think I’m lecturing you like the scientists from whom these ideas originate. If only I were so gifted as to be able to formulate those concepts in the first place! Yes, I used the term “we” to include the scientific and scholarly community that understands these things, and I guess I used the term “we” because I’m starting to understand them myself, given the research and reading. I read a book a month – usually on a scholarly subject. I’m sorry if I’m actually learning things and starting to sound like a scholar myself. What I’m discovering that is heartbreaking is that we Americans are pathetically ignorant when it comes to science. We’re scientifically illiterate to a large degree – and it was science that made us so successful in the first place! We now have an administration supported by a religious right that is doing all it can to remove science from any influence and to return us to the dark ages. In my career, (data communications and networking), I have always had to take complicated subjects (multiprotocol label switching, for example) and put them in terms that CEOs, CIOs and CTOs could understand. You seem to be telling me that I’m doing a good job of that – so thank you for the compliment!

      How is describing a concept (higher levels emerging from lower levels), any different from describing a concept of, let’s say, reincarnation? The primary difference of course, is that one of the two has evidence, while the other does not. The funny thing is that I used to support reincarnation with enthusiasm, albeit without any evidence!

      That was quite humorous, Sam. Ridiculous of course, but quite humorous. You find it odd that I use my full name, I find it odd that others do not. On Facebook, for example, we all debate using our full names (unless you create a fake persona), but on forums like this, people make up fake names, I guess so they can say whatever they want without having to take personal responsibility for it. I take responsibility for my words. They are my own. I will use quotes when I quote someone else. The words you quoted, were my own summary of concepts covered in much more detail in a book about the current state science, called “The Big Picture” by Sean Carroll, and I encourage you to read it, and tell me if I got it right.

      • Sam

        Just 3 days to figure out a response and the best defense. Congratulations. No emotions, just playing it cool, just like a guilty person, after talking it over with a lawyer, being all prepared. And because you are part, in the use, of some advanced software, as my conclusion as well (which not at least explains the capacity), you of course play this card first, exaggerating, acting all innocent and surprised. Very classic of you, “Patrick”.
        But the more information you give, like the one from the Catholic blog, the more you dig your own grave. Because there is really something different with you, that most people recognize, which your own misdirections do not explain.
        You are this ordinary guy, like, that totally changes character, trading up, which no copy/pasting or acting like a parrot can explain. The change is total. I know when I’m talking with another person.
        And also let’s not forget, this being pretty much the same claim you made regarding Jethro, as being too clever for his profession, and that he even could be several of us. Where on earth did you get such an idea? Well, now we know. You were actually revealing your own game.
        You are not one person, “Patrick Gannon”, but several, being a project, involving software. The only thing making sense. But no one is stopping you. So, play on, Frankenstein :)

        • Patrick Gannon

          Again – hilarious. Sorry for not responding right away. I tend to stay away from the computer on the weekends. Virtual Patrick1 has to cut the grass, while Virtual Patrick2 washes the truck, and Virtual Patrick3 barbeques on the grill, and Virtual Patrick 4 washes his girlfriend’s car, etc. I had to program a lot of virtual copies of myself this past weekend, and I still didn’t have time to come in here and read your post. I am so sorry. Please forgive my lapse. I hope my delayed response wasn’t too painful for you.

          Um, what “emotions” was I supposed to display aside from humor? Accusing me of being far more clever than I am, is difficult to get upset at!

          Interesting point about the change of persona. I sensed the same thing about Jethro for a while – that’s true. I don’t see that anymore; I came to see that regardless of the persona, that some things are consistent like use of grammar. When he went away as Jethro, came back as Charles(?) I think it was, I thought maybe he was also you for a while – but your writing styles are different, and what you focus on as subject matter is different. You have a clever sense of humor, which I enjoy, even when it’s at my expense.

          You say my persona changes. Interesting. Does anyone else notice that? I probably change a bit depending on who I am talking to. Can you tell me more about how I change my writing style? You’re right that I don’t cut/paste material unless I quote and source it, but I do attempt at times to paraphrase an entire topic or chapter into a paragraph. Perhaps when I do that, the style changes…. I have to write business proposals, and the language I use there is going to be different from the language in a typical email requesting information from a client. I think you’re accusing me (?) of having diversity. Hard to be upset about that!

          The Catholic blog is “CatholicSay.” Please feel free to join in the fun. I use my real name there too. Let’s see, I forget, is that Virtual Patrick 6 or 7? The fun there comes when someone takes it upon themselves to convert me back to the faith. It’s only a matter of time before I’m asking them…”OK, and which Hell am I going to?”

          I am really loving this idea though, and trying to figure out how I can use it to my financial advantage. If you have suggestions, please share them. I’ll give you a cut.

          • Sam

            Ah, the good old Patrick Gannon. Unrefined. The “blue collar” average guy. Mowing the lawn. Barbequing. Shooting the breeze. And perfectly cool. This is really Patrick Gannon. Hurray! Your energy, to put it like that, is as smooth as barbed wire. And nothing wrong with that, at all. But you are not the one writing when things getting advanced, and the wording nothing but refined. You couldn’t pull that off even for a million bucks :) Get over it :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            Sorry to disappoint you. . I am grateful for the compliment, regarding refined wording. That’s cool. People who read a lot, tend to have better writing skills. How do I demonstrate that it is me doing the writing? I could use a million bucks! Perhaps you could come visit and watch me type out responses, but make sure you bring that bag of cash.

          • Sam

            There is nothing you can do, Pat. The cat is out of the bag. The more you talk, the more you “incriminate” yourself. Damn :)

          • Patrick Gannon

            All right. You got me. I confess. I’m actually a world renowned scientist and part-time AI programmer, hijacking Patrick Gannon’s identity so that I can come to religious forums to promote, not my soul’s agenda, but my own agenda. Let’s play a game. You tell me when I’m Patrick the scientist, and when I’m Pat the regular guy, so I can work on my prose.

          • Sam

            Lol. Just let it go, Pat. We know :)

    • Spiritual_Annie

      Go, Sam, go!

  • Patrick Gannon

    I thought I responded to this. Maybe I have had a post go missing!