The mind of God., Particles perhaps 'neurons'?

If what I think is correct (That all energy is interconnected) then the universe / multiverse might act as a 'brain'....just the stuff in our universe would have *10^90 to the power of 10^90 connections.

*10^90 is merely an arbitary figure as it's around what's predicted for particles in our universe.

there is no god behing the universe
universe itself is god

amrit
I believe that is what fivedoughnut just said!

The AWT supposes, the Universe existence can be explained by elastic foam, composed from density gradients recursively. Nevertheless each the wave requires some inertial environment for its spreading, each the gradient requires some another environments for its formation, to be able exist at all. By such way, such model is infinitesimally recursive, albeit it doesn't mean, it needs to be infinitely large. The Universe can have closed or even cyclic topology, although it appears a quite improbable.



This post has been edited by Zephir on Oct 22 2006, 12:24 PM

Q: Is The Universe conscious and self aware?

Q: No. It only thinks it is.



But seriously folks, can we keep the God stuff separate from the Physics please?

there is no god out of the universe
we can forget about god
universe is enough

Of course, by using the causality as the criterion.

Amrit,

Who cares....I'm just musing.

Another 'picture' is of a progenitor wavicle brane (wavefront) with all dimensionally collapsed offspring 'stuck in it' .......Yes if there is a god...it's the smallest wavicle ever.....information overload and growing

Conclusion: God is a wave combo.

p.s, you repeat more than my *** after a shockingly hot phal ( no rice...served on a bed of black chillies).

Unless you know what God is, how can you say separate it?
Thats like saying leave eggs out of chicken soup.
No eggs no chicken soup

By my observations the elementary particles are small living creatures: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other animals.

In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).

Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.

Both types of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution..

Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.

From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator).

Larry Harmon the Boson of Bozon the Clown fame was a male charachter. He was a two timer his whole life, who lead a double life. He had two wives in two separate towns and concealed his two timing with the story that he was travelling to Hollywood to tape shows. His wife in Wichta belived it her whole life.

Great volvox picture! Where did you get ti? Can I use it on my Vulvox inc. webpage? Do you have others?

Considering there is no other document that passes the accepted tests of historical accuracy to the degree that the bible does (I believe Homer is second),[Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology.] I have to ask how anyone claiming to use logic to attempt to understand the creation and our existence could disregard the scriptures prior to or in the midst of their quest. [Moderator: Easy: if you trust logic more than religious authority, then you test the claims of scripture with logical consistency and by comparing with other reliable ways of knowing. Some of the Bible has historically verifiable fact (Romans occupied Palestine), and outright untruths.] It is logical to disregard myths, religious writings, faith, etc in our quest of logical analysis. But when presented with the ancient manuscripts that speak of these things, consider the level of accuracy when logical and accepted historical tests are applied, and add to this the voluminous prophecies fulfilled with detailed accuracy, what degree of intellectual dishonesty must we employ to simply disregard this evidence without first employing the same degree of logical investigation and analysis that we claim is the foundation of our reasoning? [Moderator: Citation needed with full explanation of methodology. The question is how do you know what parts of the Bible to trust, and how do you expect to communicate that to other people. Further, if X% is proven to be true and Y% is proven to be false, then do you trust the 100% - X% - Y% to be true or false? No -- that remainder may be true or false. Just like any claim from a source, because claims are not automatically facts no matter their source.]

This post has been edited by rpenner on Sep 27 2009, 02:47 PM

While some biblical accounts have been found to be historically accurate, others have been shown to be in error. Any claims to prophetic legitimacy can be ascribed to generalized prediction, or outright statement after the fact. As for authenticating supernatural events of the Bible, there are no grounds at all.

There are many contemporary accounts of extraordinary events that contain accurate descriptions of time and place, such as eyewitness accounts of the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, UFOs and alien abductions, yet the vast majority of such accounts can be explained as something other than what the witnesses claimed. The further you go back into history, the harder it is was to rationally explain such claims, thus the accuracy must also be suspect with the passage of time.

When logic is not present in myth, manuscript, or religious foundation, it is logical to disregard such sources in respect to present day reality.

The historical tests for accuracy concerning the character of Jesus could hardly compare with that of the loch ness monster. If logic concludes that we cannot confirm the character of Jesus, then neither can we confirm Caesar, Alexander, etc.... If he was here and made the claims he did, then what logical conclusion can we make, as CS Lewis stated so well?

If we are to claim logic as our basis for understanding the universe, do we not have to acknowledge that the 'beginning' simply defies our understanding? How does logic lead one to conclude that we can understand all things? Our insistence that "it cannot be God" is not logical, particularly that we all know we cannot prove the non-existence of God. We cannot begin with the premise that the 'god of scripture' is not the creator without solidly examining the evidence.

If there is an 'intelligent design', why would we expect mathematics, which describes the workings of the universe, to explain its beginning?
Paul Davies seems to contradict himself. He seems to acknowledge the existence of some "thing" behind it all, but this "thing" cannot be the god that scripture speaks of. With the overwhelming historical accuracy (the manuscripts pass the historical tests with more accuracy than any other documents know to man) - one has to provide the argument for the omission of the god of the scriptures before one can simply dismiss the evidence.