Einstein used to speak so often of God that I tend to believe that he has been a disguised theologian.
-Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Albert Einstein (Diogenes Verlag, Zürich, 1979), p. 12, quoted in Jammer, p. 7

Short Comments on God

For more of Einstein's comments on God, see the Spinoza page on this site.

Knowing God's Thoughts

I want to know how God created this world. I'm not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
- From E. Salaman, "A Talk With Einstein," The Listener 54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123.

Could God Have Done It Differently?

What I am really interested in, is knowing whether God could have created the world in a different way; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.
- C. Seelig, Helle Zeit-Dunkle Zeit (Europa Verlag, Zuürich, 1956), p.72, quoted in Jammer, p. 124.

The following comments are excerpted from Calaprice. See pp. 145 - 161.

God's Punishment

Why do you write to me "God should punish the English"? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him.
- Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).

God and Goodness

Whatever there is of God and goodness in the universe, it must work itself out and express itself through us. We cannot stand aside and let God do it.
- From conversation recorded by Algernon Black, Fall 1940; Einstein Archive 54-834

God's worry

If God has created the world, his primary worry was certainly not to make its understanding easy for us.
- Letter to David Bohm, February 10, 1954; Einstein Archive 8-041

An Unperceivable Being

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world.
- Letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? July, 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

Awe of the Structure of the World

I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world, insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it.
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154

Conversation on Religion and Antisemitism

See Bucky and Weakland pp. 85 - 87. This book contains the record of various conversations between Bucky and Einstein over a thirty year period.

BUCKY:
It's ironic that your namc has been synonymous with science in the twentieth century, and yet there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding you in relation to religious questions. How do you account for this unusual circumstance, since science and religion are usually thought to be at odds?

EINSTEIN:
Well, I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand. It seems to mc that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead.

BUCKY:
So then, you consider yourself to be a religious man?

EINSTEIN:
I believe in mystery and, frankly, I sometimes face this mystery with great fear. In other words, I think that there are many things in the universe that we cannot perceive or penetrate and that also we experience some of the most beautiful things in life in only a very primitive form. Only in relation to these mysteries do I consider myself to be a religious man. But I sense these things deeply. What I cannot understand is how there could possibly be a God who would reward or punish his subjects or who could induce us to develop our will in our daily life.

BUCKY:
You don't believe in God, then?

EINSTEIN:
Ah, this is what I mean about religion and science going hand-in-hand! Each has a place, but each must be relegated to its sphere. Let's assume that we are dealing with a theoretical physicist or scientist who is very well-acquainted with the different laws of the universe, such as how the planets orbit the sun and how the satellites in turn orbit around their respective planets. Now, this man who has studied and understands these different laws-how could he possibly believe in one God who would be capable of disturbing the paths of these great orbiting masses?

No, the natural laws of science have not only been worked out theoretically but have been proven also in practice. I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their minds. In essence, my religion consists of a humble admiration for this illimitable superior spirit that reveals itself in the slight details that we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds .

BUCKY:
Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep them in check, so to speak?

EINSTEIN:
No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others. Education has a great role to play in this respect. Religion should have nothing to do with a fear of living or a fear of death, but should instead be a striving after rational knowledge.

BUCKY:
And yet, with all of these thoughts, you are still identified strongly in the public mind as definitely Jewish and this certainly is a very traditional religion.

EINSTEIN:
Actually, my first religious training of any kind was in the Catholic catechism. A fluke, of course, only because the primary school that I first went to was a Catholic one. I was, as a matter of fact, the only Jewish child in the school. This actually worked to my advantage, since it made it easier for me to isolate myself from the rest of the class and find that comfort in solitude that I so cherished.

BUCKY:
But don't you find any discrepancy between your previous somewhat anti-religious statements and your willingness to be identified publicly as a Jew?

EINSTEIN:
Not necessarily. Actually it is a very difficult thing to even define a Jew. The closest that I can come to describing it is to ask you to visualize a snail. A snail that you see at the ocean consists of the body that is snuggled inside of the house which it always carries around with it. But let's picture what would happen if we lifted the shell off of the snail. Would we not still describe the unprotected body as a snail? In just the same way, a Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.

BUCKY: ...

The photograph is the last known picture of Einstein, taken in March, 1955. The photograph was scanned from Subtle is the Lord...: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein by Abraham Pais

I cannot then believe in this concept of an anthropomorphic God who has
the powers of interfering with these natural laws. As I said before, the
most beautiful and most profound religious emotion that we can
experience is the sensation of the mystical. And this mysticality is the
power of all true science. If there is any such concept as a God, it is
a subtle spirit, not an image of a man that so many have fixed in their
minds. - Albert Einstein, in conversation
<http://einsteinandreligion.com/bucky.html> with Gustav Bucky

To assume the existence of an unperceivable being ... does not
facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable
world. - Albert Einstein, responding
<http://einsteinandreligion.com/godcomments.html> to an Iowa student who
asked, "What is God?" July 1953; Einstein Archive 59-085

A Scientific Definition for the 'Universal Intelligence' aka 'God'

Stanley McKeown wrote (August 2009) in theoretical_physics yahoo forum:

Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist

Dear Alexk23000,
I agree that science must be open minded (please find me a religion that is open minded).
But the idea of 'unknowable' gods does not further science. I use the word 'unknowable' because that is the word used by all religions, who‚ are surely the experts in their version of their gods.  Yet again we come across the confusion that the unknowable must be labelled god.
Please, please some evidence that god is singular, at least as a starting point!!!!!!! !!! Then please, some of his/her/its/ their attributes to further our discussion.
Your eager scholar,
Stan

And again, Stanley addressed Ron:

Dear n.s.p.o.paranormal,
Thank you for explaining it so simply. Although I personally am totally unsure what 'it' is.
It seems to me that the thrust of your argument is, 'The world exists so a super-intelligence created it'.
I may have got your concept wrong so....
Now please, describe some of the attributes of your concept of "a super intelligent computer controlling the universe".
a)=1.What is it's power source?
b)=2.What operating system or rules does it use to process it's output?
c)=3.What is it's output?
d)=4.When did it start?
e)=5.When will it stop?
I could go on but it's your concept, you take the initiarive. I am sure that the readers of this web site are eager to learn.
Your eager pupil, Stan

And again, Stanley asked Zachary:

Dear Zachery,
I appreciate that you admit that you do not know your god's APPEARANCE, MIND nor PLAN.
I would be grateful if you would elaborate on those aspects of your god that you do know, so that we, the members, might learn and discuss.
How about starting with:
f)=(Q1) inside/outside the universe
g)=(Q2) creator of the laws of physics
h)=(Q3) subject to these laws
i)=(Q4) the god hierarchy, does your god have a god or is he/she/it/they the TOP?
Please note that those who propose their god on this website should enlighten the readers with issues such as these.
Please request the wider readers as to what they would like to learn about the attributes of deities/supernatural beings..
Please note that I differentiate between the unknown and the unknowable. The unknown is that with which science grapples.
The unknowable is the realm of philosophy, superstitionand imagination. There will always be those who invent/create/perpetuate the unknowable. I suggest that the unknowable is a sterile area for science, since it will retreat from science as science decreases the unknown.
I suggest to you that the members of this website may not appreciate fruitless debate on the unknowable. Youe eager correspondent, Stan
___________________________________________________________________________________
The postings of Alex, Ron, Zachary and Brian are below the following dispensation for individual contextualised discernment.
I shall answer Stanley's questions in the oredered labelings and the bold highlightings as indicated by his own wordings (sic).

Dear Stanley,
It is no longer necessary for anyone to remain in 'the dark' as to the 'nature of God' or of 'being totally unsure of what 'it' is'.
The human evolutionary pathology has attained a nexus point, where the human sentience has developed sufficiently to use its deductive logic and its scientific reasoning to solve its own questions and insecurities regarding origins, purpose and destiny.
The necessity for any 'God-concept' to be physically realisable was known by Isaac Newton and most of the so termed 'Natural Philosophers' as the forerunners of what today is labeled 'scientist'.
Newton knew, that IF a 'scriptural God' like the one(s) found in the Christian bible COULD exist, then it would have to 'be scientific' in the sense of Leibnitz's 'Monad' or Spinoza's 'Essence' or Einstein's 'Old One'.
So you may see, that your mentally skeptical postion regarding 'unknowable spiritual things' could be labeled as following in the 'footsteps of Newton' and many pioneers of contemporary science since the renaissance of the 17th century.
However the scientific data base had to await the onset of physical knowledge and models of the 21st century to accumulate enough information to actually enable the PROCESSING of the required data, which had conglomerated since the dawn of time in the thermodynamic cosmology of the universe.

And so I, in the function of 'God's Advocate', shall present to you in the function of the 'Devil's Advocate', the "God of Science", so passionately searched for by Isaac Newton in the latter's 'Office of the Alchemist of OmniScience' (inclusive of the 'unknowable spiritual things').
What you shall do with this 'mystery solving' information will be up to you as the 'Skeptical Inquirer'.
You may take this new dispensation 'to heart' and realise just how you are an intrinsic part of this 'God' or you may dismiss 'it' and in so doing actually 'deny' the innermost part of being of yourself.

1=a) What is it's power source?
2=b) What operating system or rules does it use to process it's output?
3=c) What is it's output?
4=d) When did it start?
5=e) When will it stop?
6=f) (Q1) inside/outside the universe
7=g) (Q2) creator of the laws of physics
8=h) (Q3) subject to these laws
9=i) (Q4) the god hierarchy, does your god have a god or is he/she/it/they the TOP?

1. God's Power-Source
God's Power-Source is a form of 'eternal energy', yet 'unitarily particularised' not definable in any spacetime except in its mathematical formalism.
This mathematical logos so specifies what this concept of 'eternity' relative to its antistate of temporality implies. Those specifications then must also DEFINE the omniness of anything in relation to the God-concept.
In its most simple terms; the 'eternal energy' becomes a 'physicalisable' energy residing not in spacetimematter, but in a subplenum.
The subplenum is nontemporal, nonlocal and nonmaterial; but is defined in the mathematical principles and rules attaining to numerical systems, all based upon the binary code both algebraically and geometrically.
The geometric form of the 'Closed' Zero-Loop becomes physicalised in the 'Open' One-Loop or the Superstring and which then leads definition of a binary numeracy rootextended into the decimal in the archetypical set:
Binary-Monad BM: {0,1} → Decimal-Monad DM: {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}.

The subplenum so becomes a 2-dimensional Complex plane, with origin the Unity of the Binary-Monad BM, i.e. the eigenstate of either open-ended or closed superstring loops.
It is this UNITY within the subplenum (as itself and as a prior definition for 'God'), which then allows the nonphysicalised nature of God to define itself without the existence of space, time and/or matter.
This nonphysicality then utilizes the UNITY of ITSELF to extend its own self-definition by application of fundamental principles (see hierarchy of God in 9.).
In particular, the 6th principle of inversion allows the algebraic concept of the ratio to assume limiting functionalities (say in convergent and divergent asymptotic series and number sequences). This then allows boundary- and initial conditions for a subsequent physical reality to become established in the 'complex manifold' of the subplenum.
Division of the Unity=1 AS the Open-Geometric-Superstring by the Zero=0 AS the Closed-Geometric-Superstring so applies the Principle of Inversion WITHIN the Decimal-Monad hierarchy and DEFINES the quantum relativity between the subplenum and itself as a plenum comprised of the UNITY eigenstate.

The Unified Power-Source so is a God-Quantum which has UNLIMITED energy in the subplenum, because the 'Counting' of such subplenum units represents a 'Wholey Trinity' in being simultaneously Unity=FinityAfter=1 and Zero=FinityBefore=0 and Eternity=Infinity=∞

God's Power-Source represents an Infinite Reservoir of SourceSink Subplenum 'IMAGINATION-Energy'; defined in the UNITY-God-Quantum and in an 'IMAGE-Energy', which becomes manifested in finite partiality in selfcontained closed systems, such as a Planck-Black Body-Radiator defining the entropy-related thermodynamic expansion (and cooling) of a physically finitised universe.

2. God's Operating System (OS) and Processor
God's OS is then the plenum of a physically imaged universe.
The eternity of God becomes 'trapped' in the asymptotic definitions of the 'Laws of Nature', which are all based on the algorithmic nature of the string monadic sets, which, under utility of the hierarchical principalities, allow mathematical relationships and proportionalities to become defined in abstract terms of the complex unity of the subplenum, before becoming IMAGED in the physicality of the finite spacetimematter, termed the universe's cosmogony and cosmology.

3. God's Output-Input Function
God's Input is naturally the UNIT of itself as the God-Quantum.
Iow, the quantization of the physicalised universe becomes a holofractal multiplication or quanta count of God itself. The universe, being a 'count' of God-Units so differentiates itself as the plenum of 'Finity of Measurement' from the subplenum of 'Infinity of Nonmensuration'.
Alternatively expressed, the metric spacetimes within a selfcontained thermodynamic system, subject to statistical integration of multidimensional and multifaceted energy eigenstates; become nonstochastic in the Unity energy selfstate of the subplenum.
The plenum so becomes a mirror image in the subplenum; remaining however as a finitized subset of the infinite superset as that image.

God's primary Input so becomes a finitised and countable quantum energy integral definitive for the total energy content of the so termed Quantum Big Bang. The precise quantum count is a function of the inflaton-instanton, defining the 11-dimensional supermembrane boundary (itself a quantum count as a surface area integration) to encompass the thermodynamically expanding 'Planck-Nugget-Seed', which is one dimension lower to allow a hybrid toroidal overall topology for the multidimensional universe, originating from a protoversal seed.

God's secondary Input is however a function of the PROCESSING capabilities of the primary Input becoming Output and subsequent Inputs multiply the protoversal seed as phaseshifted multiverses as a function of the Output potentials of the protoversed multiverses.

The purpose for the creation from the creator is simply the SIMULTANEOUS Self-Experience of God in the distinctions of the subplenum of oneness and the plenum of spacetime separations.
To EXPERIENCE ITSELF, God must bifurcate (and then holographically multifractalize) its own Unity.
The function of the Input is to experience 'on God's behalf' in the 'Kingdom of the Separation', namely the physical universe; and then to IMAGE in IMAGINATION and LOGISTICAL MODELS and FORMALISMS and otherwise 'as a processed Output' becoming the 'reflected' Input; reemitted from the plenum of the spacetimematter into the suplenum of the 'singularity'.

The PROCESSORS from and for God so become the God-Quantums in agglomeration, defining the 'Consciousness' of godlike spacetimematter containers.
God's Consciousness then becomes a particular energy-resonance eigenstate, defined in frequency and related derivatives (see 10.) and specifically in the concept of a 3-dimensional volumar being acted upon by a form of angular acceleration, the latter being by definition independent on the radial displacement of linear metrics and the separation of idealised coordinate 'points'.
The minimised 'consciousness-units' in God's cosmology are neutrons, evolving into hydrogen atoms, followed by molecules and macro-inertia conglomerations including chemical compounds, asteroids, moons, planets, stars and galaxies; viruses, bacteria, algae, fungi, mosquitoes, fish, salamanders, lizards, dinosaurs, birds, smilodons, australopithecines, orang-utans, bonobos, dogs and cats, Stanleys and Samanthas; Sirians, interdimensional extraterrestrials like methaned Venusians and groupgalactic Magellaneans to the SUMTOTAL of the universe's consciousness as the EVOLVING Superconsciousness of God itself.

And so, should you watch an ant crawling in your garden or should you engage in watching some birds of divers variety; you are OBSERVING God-consciousness in self-evolvement.
The Gonsciousness of God within the universe is not only separated from its subplenum unity as the certainty of the unitary probability count; but is also separated in the plenum as plenar subconsciouness carriers in a kaleidoscope of multiplicity and individuation.
But ALL is God, attempting WITHIN to remember what IT is and using its 'scattered' Imagination what it could be and could become.

God's 'Masterplan' so is to multiply 'itself' without end in a 'Family of God'.
Yet, as long as the 'Family of Man' continues to refuse to 'Remember itself' in its 'Function of the Output' and continues to 'not-reflect' its god-given Input-Life back to its source; as long will the UNITIZED God-Source remain in exile relative to itself.

For the IMAGE-Function of God between the plenum and the subplenum and the holographic principle of the Decimal-Monad hierarchy demands a 'Mirror of Mirrors' within the plenum of the cosmological spacetimes.
Just as the One God reflects itself as the One Universe; so must there be A DAM (a sire and a dam) as a 'Universal Archetype' within the plenum to allow 'God's Story' to proceed.

The Image or mastertemplate for the One Universe so becomes 'Cosmic Man Vitruvius' of the hermetic alchemist Leonardo da Vinci or 'Purusha' of the Baghavad Gita or 'Adam Kadmon' of Kabbalah or the particular individuation Stanley McKeown on the theoretical_physics yahoo discussion forum.
Then as a miniature universe; anything whatsoever and all godlike conciousness carriers within the plenum who Stanley McKeown encounters in whatever manner of dreams, imaginations, physical observations, experimentations and interactions; will be enabled to USE Stanley McKeown's spacetimed mirror potential to REFLECT themselves in that for the purpose to by and through Stanley McKeown's mirror-portal to contact the Unity-Quantum-God in the subplenum.

4. God's Beginning
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John.1.1-KJV
The definition for God as Energy so is preceded by something doing the 'defining', namely the Word=Logos=Definition. The undefined, say chaotic or unstructured subplenum energy so emerges in a defined state through the action of the Logos as the 'Logic of God' and being WITH God, becomes God.

The 'Beginning of God', before there is any physicalised energy (manifested in the quantum big bang through the inflaton-instanton), so engages 'God's Self-Awakening', i.e. it's own 'becoming conscious of itself'.
Once self-aware however, the physical cosmology can eventuate in God's bifurcation into 'Spiritual' Creator and 'Antispiritual' Creation and as Mirror-Functions of each other.
The subplenum 'pre-energy' so defines the 'Spirit' in terms of the nonseparated or superheterotic supermembrane prior to the modular duality between the heterosis becomes established.
The 26-dimensional bosonic superstring of the subplenum so defines a circularly mathematical complex continuum from which the vibratory sourcestring E_ps decouples from its winded antistate of the winding sinkstring E_ss in the plenum to recombine in the 11-dimensional supermembrane E_psE_ss. Technically, the heterosis engages the conifoldment of 16-dimensional anticlockwise vibration patterns onto 10-dimensional clockwise frequency eigenstates to define 10-dimensional hybrid superstrings.

5. God's End
God's End is God's Beginning as the alphaomega and the recircularisation of the supermembrane loops.
In terms of the subplenum, this defines the circularity of time in the nonexistence of a temporal flow of time with particular pasts, presents and futures. Only a Now-Moment and as the 'uncut' string-loop exists as the 0-binary eigenstate.
Yet, the plenum demands the concept of a 'flow of time' in a coupling to the entropy definitions of the algorithmic definitions underpinning the 'Laws of Nature'.
So the Quantum Big Bang eventuated following a 'string-epoch' and bounded in the inflaton-instanton of timeinstantenuity.
Technically, timeinstantenuity becomes the sinksource frequency f_ss=1/f_ps in modular duality becoming the inverse squareroot of the maximum entropy selfstate counter {as [df/dt]_max=f_ps² =E*/h=e*h see 10.} and as the 'Consciousness-Resonance' Eigenstate as the upper bound for the godlike consciousness carriers.
However, as the protoverse is defined in the inflaton preceding the materialising spacetimes in:
{V_deBroglie=R_Hubble.f_ps=c.f_ps/H_o=cf_psdt/dn}, and since the linearised cosmoevolution of the inertial 10-dimensional protoverse must remain asymptotic as a function of cycletime n=H_ot; the End of this cosmology must be defined before its Beginning from parameters defining the eternity of the subplenum.
The End of God so becomes a Cyclicity embedded into the formalisms for the asymptotic cosmology, defining the cosmogony ontologically.
Technically (and in Black Hole physics described elsewhere) then; the overall cosmic consciousness evolution is expected to have progressed enough every 4 trillion years or so, to trigger a 'renewed' 'consciousness explosion' of the 'eternal God' to RECHARGE the seedling protoverse in a renewal of the nuclear (read dineutron/ylemic) fuel for steller regeneration.
Every 4000 billion years or so, a new Quantum Big Bang eventuates, seeded however upon the primordial seed of the initialising inflaton-instanton from the subplenum.

6. God's Location in Within-Without Bilocality
The subplenum God is without spacetimematter and so is defined as omnipresent, omnitimed, omniscientific and omnipotent by the Logos.
The Unitary God-Quantum forms the 'Bridge' for the subplenum God to experience its own separation as an integral of the God-Quantum in the spacetimed plenum.
God remains eternally unified however; as the microquantum of the sourcesink string eigenstate (which defines the 'Bridge') is in 'eternal' selfcoupling to its sinksource string-antieigenstate, the latter defining the macroquantum.
Technically, the vibratory stringscale is of the wormhole order of 10^-22/2π (cosmic meters m*); whilst its reciprocal gives the modular duality in the halo-galactic scale of 2πx10²² m* or about 7 million lightyears.

7. God's Laws of Nature
There are two primary algorithms, which generate the fundamental constants of nature in cosmic units (*). The cosmic unitary system comes into effect by any cosmic civilisation measuring just two fundamental ratios in the proportionality constants between Energy and Mass as E/M=c² and between Energy and Frequency as E/F=h.
As the energy unit (Joule*) contains the kg-m-s mensuration, any experimental determination of Planck's Constant 'h' and Einstein's Constant 'c²', will suffice to calibrate the mass-displacement-time measurement standards for the first of the 'Natural Laws'.
This can be written as:
Energy E=hf=mc²E=hf   iff  m=0; (requiring c=fλ as universal lightspeed finestructure)
E=mc² iff f=f_ss(as the Eigenfrequency of mass)
The first algorithm generates the following configurations under utility of the fundamental principles of the hierarchy (see 9.) and in the order:

{C₁=N₁=4; C₂=N₂=6; C₃=N₃=7; C₄=I₁=1/[6x10¹⁵]; C₅=D₁² =9x10¹⁶; C₆=N₄=11; C₇=I₂=1/[15x10³²]; C₈=D₂²=14x15²⁴; C₉=I₃=1/[15x16¹⁸]; C₁₀=26x65⁶¹}.
From this set; the numerical parameters to manifest a physically finetuned cosmology derive with an integer-based lightspeed constant c=3x10⁸ (m/s)*=D₁coupled to a similarly integerized action constant h=1/[15x10³²] (Js)*=I₂.

The second algorithm is of the syntax form for a linearised subplenum superstring:
"Add the End to the Beginning and Begin the Head with the Tail!"

8. God's Subjectivity-Objectivity in regards to the Universal Laws of Nature
God is both Object and Subject relative to Reality.
Within the plenum, the God-idea becomes a subjective 'picture' as a 'negative' for the objective physical reality as a 'positive' observable and measurable entity.
Without the plenum and so within the subplenum, God is the objective 'spiritual' reality; this SPIRIT becoming rigorously definable as the quantum energy eigenstate for the minimised possible measurement within the plenum (and so as the Planck-Singularity of string-looped quantum physics).
The subjectivity within the plenum so manifests in the multiplicity of the physicalised units 'bridging' the abyss into the subplenum of the 'spiritual reality'.
This 'spiritual reality' so becomes an inertia independent form of electromagnetic monopolar radiation; activating under the acceleration of the God-quanta, namely the angular awareness function of the timedifferential of frequency (df/dt=Consciousness/UnitVolume and f_max²=e*/V*=2R_ec²/(2π²r*³)=8πR_ec⁵m_compton³/h³ and so defining the quantum Compton-Mass configuration for the God-Resonance energy eigenstate measurable under the appropriate initial- and boundary conditions in m_compton=2.505...x10^-23 kg* or about 2.25 microjoules or about 14.03 TeraElectronvolts (TeV).

The design-maximum (presently unattainable) energy of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Geneva, Switzerland so would, if fully operational at maximum capacity, 'tap' the 'Envelope of God's Selfstate Energy'.
This energy level behaves PHYSICALLY like the event horizon of a Kerr-Ringed Black Hole.
But here it is the quantum eigenstate for the minimum inertia manifestation which surrounds the wormhole of the God-SourceSink energy quantum (see 10.) at 1/e*=0.002 Joules* or about 12,450 TeV as the UNITARY GOD bridging the plenum with the subplenum.

At 12,450 TeV; the experimental observer would so witness God as the physical reality IT represents.

To reduce the Beginning of the Universe to an asymptotic recession cannot solve the 'Origin of God' question; because this infinite reduction CANNOT escape the plenum.
The Nullstate of the plenum so becomes the idea of the physical energy singularity as the limit for this reductionism.
The other way around is however completely feasible and the actuality for the cosmic expansion scenarios.
Once you have 'a beginning' in the spacetimematter quanta, then a simple multiplication and summation of such spacetimematter- or God-string-quanta can become asymptotic in an Infinite Approach to UNITY or Oneness.
This then is the statistical probability count, which must always be 1 in total integration.
So having the beginning, the cosmological evolution for the universe can be ever better approximated and modelled via improving measurement apparatus and theoretical calculations.
The trouble is the singularity of infinite physical quantifications.
But because God must be a Quantum-God to be WITHIN the spacetimematter plenum; it becomes easy to postulate this Quantum-God to be precisely the minimum physical energy configuration eigenstate for the physical universe and as the boundary condition, the initial- and end condition and as the LIMIT for all measurements using spacetimematter- or plenum parameters.

Then it is also easy to take the next logical step and postulate that the Quantum-God of the plenum is also the Quantum-God of the subplenum with the caveat, that spacetimematter parameters do not exist in the subplenum and so the Quantum-God must remain physically unreal or imaginary.
They become REALISED however in the understanding that the subplenum is the VOID and the VOID is simultaneously Nothing AND Everything.
This Nothing and Everything then MANIFESTS in the plenum as the minimum- and maximum energy eigenstates (technically defined in superbrane parameters of the modular duality, which brings the theories together in a grand unification of all things able to exist - including all of the imaginary things).
The minimum selfstate of the Quantum-God is a LIMIT of time measurement and just like a smallest possible circle unwinding itself to define the lightpath for the circle's perimeter transversion.
The maximum selfstate is a little different, as it must encompass the antistate of the minimum configuration as well as the potential expansion of the plenum under the auspices of the subplenum providing Information-Energy as Data, which can then become physicalised thermodynamic-entropic energy in the plenum.
This is the Infinite Approach being allowed and the Infinite recession being disallowed in the 'Laws of Nature' defining the Quantum-God.

9.God's Hierarchy
Summararily then, the Origin of God is God itself, becoming multiplexed from its monoplexed monadic singularity selfstate.

The details engage algorithmic encodings, built on 10 universal principles, 7 of which have antistates, whilst 3 have not. The principles and algorithms generate the fundamental constants, used in proportionalities and ratios for the universe of spacetimematter to be born and to become descriptive in mathematical equations.
The 10 principalities (which are archetyped as cherubimic and demonic kingdoms in the older languages of the ancient scrolls) are:

1. Identity-AntiIdentity
2. Expansion-Contraction
3. Order-Disorder=Entropy=Chaos
4. Symmetry-Antisymmetry=Disparity=Distortion
5. Infinity=Divergence-Limit=Convergence
6. Inversion=Reciprocity-Constancy=Invariance
7. Reflection-Absorption (6&7 define Hebrews.6.18)
8. Relativity (No AntiPrinciple---Revelation17.11)
9. Quantization=Holofractalisation (No AntiPrinciple)
10.New Identity, using 1-9 to transform the Old Dual-Identity

10. God's Definition in omniscientific terms of quantum-relativistic supermembranes

Quantum Relativity links the metrics of Einsteinian Relativity to their original metaphysical cosmogenesis. Theistic- and Spiritual definitions become a consequence of magnetocharged superbranes as wormhole singularities 'before' spacetime creation as progenitors for inertia.

LOVE is a VIBRATORY RESONANCE described in a GAUGE SOURCESINK-PHOTON in its supersymmetric selfcoupling under modular duality and which can be defined in its own resonance eigenstate as:

E*=kT*=hf*=hc/λ*=m*c²=1/e* for Unity E*e*=1 and its coupling parameters.

Energy*=Heterotic Supermembrane HE(8x8)=E_psE_ss
E*=√{2πG_om_e^²/4αhce²}=[m_e/m_P]/2e√α=1/e*=1/2R_ec²=GODDOG=DOGGOD=Supersymmetry in alphanumeric abstract complexity

From: crimsontiger18 <crimsontiger18@yahoo.com>
To: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 11:05:59 AM
Subject: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist

okay let me butt in here a moment dear old buddy old pal

not every religion uses the unknowable phrase, christianity and few others actually do use that terminology. not only that, but you aren't quite using it in context either.

good example is the greeks, there gods to them were knowable, but limited in the knowing. for instance they knew what was sacred to them and what they are patrons to, what forces they represented.

back to how they use the term unknowable, doesn't mean in fact the god is unknowable in entirety, just certain aspects such as his MIND, PLAN and his APPEARANCE. (i only consider that one because the bible doesn't actually describe god or that i recall).

Ron will be able to answer a lot more on the topic than myself, i am not a christian in the same degree as he is.

Zach

From: "n.s.p.o.paranormal@gmail.com" <n.s.p.o.paranormal@gmail.com>
To: theoretical_physics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 14, 2009 2:22:27 PM
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualist-Supernaturalist

I will put this on a simple way. Many of us have a gift. The Gift Transcends time and Space and all known reality. We know through physics that the Universe is a deadly place for all life especially here in the Milky Way. Now add the fact that some of us do have special abilities that defy logic for the most part and add the chances of Earth not being hurt by the same energies as the other planets in our S.S. Alone and you begin to see a spectacular string of occurrences that protect our world somehow for some reason. This shows a major intelligence. We know energy moves erratically on its own but yet in space it has a pattern, explain that with out an intelligence. You Can't and I don't expect it. For just these simple reasons it is logical to deduce that there is a central mind like a Super intelligent computer controlling the energies of the entire Universe from a central dimension. If not, it would be logical to say this world might have flown out of orbit or destroyed by a gamma burst or meteor or some thing like that by now. Look at the rest of this galaxy and then question what's really going on.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
____________________________________________________________________________________
From: "alexk232000@ ..." <alexk232000@ ...>
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:19:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_ Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualis t-Supernaturalis t

I agree with that. Dismissing Science as they did was wrong mainly because it could help prove and disprove things important to truely know as a fact for example miracles. A true miracle is unexplainable through science yet so if it could be explained then less B.S. Artists could have faked it. It also in the same way could've proven a true miracle. The church saw the one view and not the big picture and for that science and religion are progressing slowly.
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
____________ _________ _________ __
From: brian lawson
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: <theoretical_ physics@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Theoretical_ Physics] Re: The Unified Trinity of Atheist-Spiritualis t-Supernaturalis t

ok, enough, to put this as lightly as i can so that you may grasp the "scientific meaning"

there is a possibility of a "creator" be it an extradimensional entity, an all powerful being, or little green elmers from the planet FUDD, there is a possibility of our being terrafomed, another possibility of a being of extradimentional nature that has the ability to manipulate Chaos theory (My Theory), or simply an omnipotent spirit that says "cause i said so". we dont know, but to dismiss these theories out of hand is to be ignorant of the fact that there are more things out there that we dont know than that we know. life is far too complex to be happenstance, and as for the experiments that made amino acids from scratch, they still cant make a single intracellular organ, there is just too much organization of the chaos for human being to be the highest intellectual yield on our planet let alon the "known" universe, all i am saying is that it is healthy for science to be open to the discussion of the possibility a "god" if only to allow for further scrutiny, to dissmiss the possibility out of hand is to be as ignorant as the church was for its dismissal of copernicus, i would suggest you read "The Dialogue" b y copernicus for perspective on this, it is an interesting read, but modern science cannot be allowed to be the modern doppelganger of the Medieval church
___________________________________________________________________________________

Bill, the Golfer wrote in panentheism:

I got nuttin' against atheists or any other 'ists', Tony. I take ideas where I find them. But, I think you make some good points relative to this list, given the stated focus. I think most people here probably aren't interested in the fine points of atheism, or being told that there is nothing beyond science other than 'just is'. But, when the conversation keeps getting pushed in this direction and people participate rather than move on, it's what gets discussed.

For my taste, I want to understand more about what happens at the boundaries of science are - what the logical possibilities are, and of these, what is most likely. This is what I want to incorporate in my world view. The exact opposite of 'just is'.

Science currently says the universe is directional. It had a beginning, there is a process occurring, and the process seems to be one way. It doesn't seem to be static, as in Newton. It doesn't seem to be re-circulating in time, as in Nietzsche and some of the ancients. It doesn't seem to be pulsating, over and over, as in yesterday's science. It just seems to be on a one-way street.
Common sense tells me we might be generally headed in the same direction, no?

Materialism is thin gruel when combined with 'just is', in my book.
Materialism+ 'just is' = Reality, and I should stop thinking further about the possibilities. What? I do not relate well to uncaused causes, to 'just is'.
Uncaused cause is the ultimate Achilles heel of atheism for me.

So, I find myself on a different path than some of the folks here.

I don't understand hardly anything you talk about, Tony. I am really not very smart in a lot of ways. Much of your terminology is unfamiliar to me.
I'll bet people here would love it if you could write what you think in a 101a sort of way, but that would likely take the fun out of life for you. Too bad.

Bill

Hi Bill!

Neither have I anything against atheists, skeptics and agnostics -except when they argue from a position of grandstanding their worldview in contraindiction to the worldview of their perceived opponents.

The genuine atheist in in fact most qualified to enter all manners of separatist debates, should heshe be in fact truly unbiased to a large degree in herhis mental paradigm of worldconstruction.

Allow me to elucidate in describing a Unity (or unified worldview) in comparison to a separatist paradigm.

1. The Atheist or Agnostic functions intellectually from a position of PHYSICAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL MATERIAL REALITY.

2. The New Ager or Spiritualist functions intellectually from a position of EMOTIONAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL SPIRITUALISED REALITY.

3. The Fundamentalist or Supernaturality Believer functions intellectually from a position of MENTAL-MENTAL REALISM grounded in a PHYSICAL SUPERNATURAL REALITY.

Who do you think has the easiest 'time', should external and internal events change the prevailing PHYSICAL REALITY? The following are of course archetypical (or memetic) generalisations and should be taken as
such.

1. The atheist considers the eventfulness with hisher physical mentality and favours logical discourse and mental discipline to face whatever challenges might have arisen through the events.

2. The spiritualist has less mental selfdiscipline and confronts the changes emotionally, attempting to 'feel' hisher way through the challenges.

3. The supernaturalist has great trouble to mentally process the changes in herhis expectation of supernatural intervention to face the challenges, often for and on hisher behalf.

1. The atheist assumes FULL responsibility for herhis actions and thoughts.

2. The spiritualist assumes PARTIAL responsibility for hisher actions and thoughts.

3. The supernaturalist assumes LITTLE responsibility for herhis actions and thoughts; expecting herhis self-created devils or gods to either 'take the blame' or 'save the day' (through the original sinfulness,
demonic deceptions or divine revelations etc).

But there is a NON-SEPARATIST perspective; which unifies the three apparent separatist agendas.

A true atheist is a philosopher who understands the mental impossibility for any notion of the supernatural.

This true atheist so should be defined as such, or alternatively the notion of 'god', 'devil' 'spirit' etc; should become greatly expanded and defined as being contained and within the natural laws.

This was Newton's Dream and the often openly confessed worldview of the historical pioneers of the natural sciences.

But the world had to await a greatly enhanced scientific database to become enabled to actually DEFINE such things as a 'Panentheistic God' or a 'God of Science'.

The path to the Unified Worldview (basically eliminating the supernaturalities in the dogmas of religious thought) was trodded in the renaissance, with exponents like Newton's Calculus, Darwin's Evolution,
Leibniz's Monads and Spinoza's 'Essences'.

Many would follow, but the secularisation of human civilisation then began to mirror the 'Age of Religion' in the 'Age of Reason' with the effect of denigrating the intrinsic unity between 'physical spirituality' and 'physical materialism', the one Newton and his gnostic brethren and sisters thought to espouse.

Albeit, with the advent of string theory in the 1980's and great advances in the technology to probe the cosmos on ever finer scales; the old forgotten 'way of unity' could become resurrected in the synthesis
of the archetypes of the old religions (found in scripture and scrolls of antiquity like the Hermetica, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi Codices) with the archetypes of logic and the semiotik of abstract mathematics.

The abovementioned 'physical spirituality' is the key however and its definition is found in the parameters of a new science for the 21st century.

Briefly, it is like this and I do not apologize for using the vocabulary of this 'new science' as the required language to describe the concepts hitherto unknown, but passionately sought by Newton's Dreamers.

What is called 'spirit' in scriptures and religion is a REAL PHYSICAL INTERACTION.

It CAN be measured and the boundary to its manifestation is at the 14.03 TeV energy quantum level.

Perhaps the reason the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva continues to 'break down' is found in the fact that its design is maximised at just the 14 TeV energy state, namely two protons, each of a relativistic energy, upperbounded in 7 TeV colliding with each other after approaching from opposite directions.

Btw, the agenda now is to begin at a 4TeV level (not much bigger than Fermilab at Caltech) and slowly increase the 'interaction current' to 10 TeV.

So how does the 'spirit' meet itself in the LHC?

As described elsewhere, the subatomic particle physics 'concentrates' quantum energy selfstates in minimised volumes of space.

So IF Newton's God exists WITHIN space and time and AS the Panentheist position proposes; THEN minimising this spacetime must eventually MEET GOD (and the Devil as some form of antistate).

Newton's God MUST be a quantum God, otherwise it could NOT BE part of the spacetime matrix, say as defined in the laws of physics, the c-invariance and so on.

Iow, Newton's God MUST OCCUPY SPACETIME.

And because spacetime is quantised (in loop-gravity, quantum foam, demetricated string/brane theories etc); GOD must be quantised as well and say at the LIMIT-ENERGY, where the laws of physics DEFINE the
Einstein-Rosen-Bridge, the wormhole or some similiar BOUNDARY for measurable (and distinct, say mass is different from space and/or time etc) spacetime parameters.

It suffices to say then; that GOD is found in the LIMITS of Physical Measurement and so EMERGES as the CAUSATION for the DISTINCTIVENESS between mensurative parameters and variables.

So to end here; once the new scientific paradigm has become sufficiently DEFINED and modeled - the scriptural 'Mystery of God' will be finished (as he has declared to his prophets, at the sounding of the 7th trumpet- Revelation.10.7).

And then Newton's God will have 'been born' and the three adversaries will all have to face a new kind of music.

1. The atheist will have the lighter burden; because heshe will have little trouble in accepting the quantum physics of the unified source energy.

2. The spiritualist will have the easiest burden; but shehe will have to really 'get into hardcore science' to understand the 'reason' for the 'change in the universe' and the 'end of the old worlds, heavens and hells'.

3. The supernaturalist will have the heaviest burden; because heshe will have to change herhis mindset completely in the realisation that the supernaturality cannot exist, except as hisher imagination and wishful
thinking.

4. The gnostics, in the footsteps of both Light- and Dark Lucifers and in carrying the Dreams of Pythagoras and the Newtonians - they had known the feasibility of the dream all along and they will have no burden at
all.

Bill, I have indicated some of the boundaries of human understanding you wish to explore in the above.

The universe has a purpose and the human template is right in the middle of this purpose. This has little to do with the 'specialness of the human template' (the physical DNA is PROGRAMMED by a 'spiritual'
template), but has everything to do with the 'Common dream' of mankind, since leaving the caves 26,000 years ago.

To colonise the galaxy and to meet and exchange experiences with a cosmic family.

The tyranny of the c-invariance can be overcome - but not in 4-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Another orthogonal spacial dimension is required to 'unwarp' to allow the 'new physics' to utilize the ZPE inherent within it.

Then the 'missing mass' will no longer be called 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'; it will be called 'The Matrix of the Light Energy of God' - God being an old label becoming redefined as 'That which encompasses All or
the 'Unity of All that Was, Is and ever Will Be.

I have not addressed all your points below, but shall do so another time, if appropriate.

I must take leave for a while, but would like to address April in the postscript.

April; yes, I felt your frustration and decided to support the panentheistic nature of your forum.

It is often hard to teach new tricks to old dogs; no matter how loyal and lovable the old dogs are.

I am an old dog myself and often simply do nothing but dream Newton's Dream.

You can rest assured however; that your inner longings and female intuition are on a fruitful path.

Paul Davies is a good source of information for you; so are all holistic thinkers which exhibit no antiscientific (inclusive of anti-evolutionist) agendas.

The Anthropic Principle is a 'Dead-End'; so are the 'Many-Worlds' and the populist Multiverse and String-Models.

The architecture of the universe is one grand symphony of holofractal selfsimilarity.

You, and everyone else on this forum, are a Lonely Tune, just like a Uni-Verse or a Mono-Song.

Creating Harmony in your life joins tunes to each other - these are the true Multi-Verses - as Melodies in the great orchestra of the cosmos.

Melodies become Families of Multi-Verses (Mac's Mega-Verses) and these are like galaxies interacting with each other or are like the units of life within your body - every cell is a holofractal of a galaxy in the
'Perennial Philosophy' of the 'Unifiers' and the 'Peacemakers' of the Shalom.

And then the Universe becomes an orchestra, playing symphonies; the symphonies being composed by the 'Worlds within'.

So can you see the 'master-plan' - it's just one word: ONE FAMILY of UNI-VERSES interacting.

Many details have already and will be worked out in a Panentheistic New World; where many worlds truly KNOW what they are, where they came from and where they are going.

Whynot

From:	Annie Train (annie_train@yahoo.co.uk)
Sent:	Tuesday, 18 August 2009 9:35:32 PM
To:	SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com

Where did this information come from, and how many people can actually understand it, if, indeed, it is anywhere near accurate? Like, who knows where God's power source comes from? Please!!!

From: "shadower@..." shadower@...
To: SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:18:43 AM
Subject: [SpiritualPrep2012] Re: A Scientific Definition for the 'Universal Intelligence' aka 'God'/Annie

Dear Annie!

The full message, including historical context, can be found via the
link: http://tonyb. freeyellow. com http://tonyb.%20freeyellow.%20com/

Also, the mathematical symbols, which are not copying on yahoo browsers are reproduced there.
This site, moderated by David (ddleisure) serves an important function for the preparation (and a metamorphosis for the humanoid archetype) of a 'new physical reality' which is programmed to occur in the period from April 1st, 2012 to April 6th, 2013.
The post you read is part of this preparation.
John Shadow

Dear Dee McClester!

This work is an excerpt from many books and relates to the so termed
'collective subconscious' aka the 'akashic record'.

The latter is 'authored' by a collective 'humanity' and not some
individual expression.

You can find the full message and many related aspects at the link:
http://tonyb.freeyellow.com <http://tonyb.freeyellow.com>

John Shadow

--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "DMcClester"<deemcclester@...> wrote:

Wow! This was really long and somewhat difficult to read and to
understand but I am new around here. Is this your work or an excerpt
from a book? I would like to study it more carefully.
Thanks,
DM

--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "Judith" <nana561@...> wrote:
Hello, I am kinda "not with it" all the time as far as prophesies, but, I
added the days from today until 12-20-1012, and it comes to 1221 days (not
figuring for leap years) and you state 1209 days from 12-20-2012, so are you
stating that in a few days that we are going to start this transition? And
what is that transition supposed to entail?
Thank you for further explanations.
Blessings,
Judith

Dear Judith!

You are doing well with your arithmetic. The date of the 'consciousness shift' for the human groupmind is August 30th, 2009 and so 12 days from the date August 18th, 2012.

And you said it well. The transition will 'accelerate' from that date forwards.

The actual transition has to do with a timeline which began in many substages, but originates in 8 grand cycles, beginning on Thursday, October 8th,1953 and in (timewarp) reflection on Saturday, October 8th, 28BC.

This are the times two mirror timelines become implemented; the older one manifests the physical archetype and the younger one manifests the mental archetype.

The present timeline begins its 8th and final cyclicity on Wednesday, December 8th 2004; 'turns around' on Monday, August 4th, 2008 and culminates 370+21 days from that date in the 'birth of a new human consciousness'.

You may compare this 'release' as something (a cherubim perhaps?) holding a tempest (or a gentle breeze) from moving through a blocked door or entrance.

Then after some 'human dramatics' the new archetyped human group-consciousness will become 'impregnated' with itself and give birth to a 'starhuman baby' on Friday, December 21st, 2012 and after a gestation period (with labour pains) lasting 265 days from Sunday, April 1st, 2012 to December 21st, 2012.

Following this 'birth' of a new human group-consciousness; enabling itself to 'go to the stars' with some help of certain friends; the 'newborn baby' will have to be weaned.

I shall leave you with this never before published information; given to you for the asking.

John Shadow

--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, "Judith" <nana561@...> wrote:

John, I mean no disrespect, but are you a used car salesman!! Ha!! I have
no idea what you just said, and then you talked in circles. Why do you not
just state that human form will be no more, and we will evolve into the
spirit world?
Blessings to you my brother,
Judith

Judith, your cluelessness simply mirrors your selfentrapment in the circle, you have built around yourself.

Post the 2012 nexus; there will exist two races of humanoids upon a transformed planet earth.

The old humanoid will slowly become extinct, somewhat like the Neanderthals did in their 'clash' with the Cro Magnons 25,000 years ago.

The new humanoid will have metamorphosed in the activation of hitherto dormant DNA-Intron functionality and gene expression.

The latter will become a HYBRID form between what you have termed 'spirit' and the 'matter'; whilst the former will not be able to attain this hybridisation until such self-transformation is desired and certain resonance configurations are satisfied as boundary/initial conditions.

Blessings to you, my daughter,

John

Dear Anna!

Did you ever write a song, or paint a portrait, or went to China and conversed easily with the locals?

For a song writer, the task to compose a symphony might be hard, but not insurmountable.

For a painter to exhibit his works and for the nonnative speaker the tasks are similar; work is required to refine ones natural talent and abilities.

So what you perceive to be high in complexity, might be basics 101 for someone more familiar with the language used and the symbolisms and semiotiks applied.

And do you really think, that 'God' is easy to understand?

Why has contemporary science (say 300 years old) and the older pre-science not 'found' this God and has left the 'spiritual things' to institutions rather unsure of themselves?

Religious insecurities (of the 'protectors' of the dogmas) aligned to political expediency and economical considerations do not seem to have brought peace and understanding to the 'simplicity seeking' global populance.

And yet, when the 'common seeker' approaches the 'knowing teacher'; that teacher, despite pretending to have the answers and being posted by the worldly systems of having the authority to dispense particular and pertinent knowledge; often cannot even supply a basis of understanding for the inquirer.

Having said this; your poetic prose describes the 'real God' rather beautifully.

Albeit, where is the 'effectiveness' of your elegant prosaics?

Your lovely sentiments will remain lovely sentiments; soothing for the 'scattered soul' and comforting for the ones who mourn.

But idealistic sentiments are not enough to cause transformation in historically entrenched dogmatic mindsets which are perpetuated and empowered by 'soulless' and often inhumane systems of regulation and governance.

The 'War of the Armageddon' is a mental 'war' between archetypes, which have become empowered by every individual's 'free willed creativity' to design the world the individuation wishes to 'live in'.

Iow, Jim's God is up against Dorothy's Devil and Tommy's God is at war with Father Paul's God.

I send you the Love of the God behind this message, dear Anna!

John Shadow

--- In SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com, Anna Webb <electricwind@...> wrote:

Wow - problem for me is, I'm always suspect of something so complex
that I have to rely on someone else to 'splain it to me.
My first clue is when their are words included that I have to look up
in the dictionary. If it's not simple enough for all to understand,
I'm doubtful it came from God.

I like "the Simples" definition much better:

There is but one Life manifesting through all forms
There is but one Self manifesting through all selves.
There is but one Love manifesting through all loves.

The Self is one with Life and the Self is one with Love, therefore are
the three but one. He who realizes his unity with the Life, Self and
Love knows Bliss, for pure Life is bliss, the pure Self is bliss and
pure (unconditional) Love is bliss.

It's like the Sun shining through a stained glass window. The ray of
light shines in various colors inside the room but it is one light -
so it is with the Self shining through many selves.

If we see ourselves in all things, then we love all things as ourselves.
The mother of conflict is the illusion of diversity; the mother of
unhappiness is the search externally for what is found internally.
There is science in what I write at a quantum level - the science of
HADO, of vibration.

But if people skip over it because it's too long and complicated it
isn't very effective, IMO.
Peace, Anna

Re: [SpiritualPrep2012] Re: A Scientific Definition for the Universal Intelligence aka God/Anna
Aloha John,
I understand what you are stating. And, its not that I disagree with
your wholistic definition of "God". I will speak from my own
experience as I cannot judge someone else's "path" by which they come
to know their personal and collective truths. However, I don't
consider what I wrote "sentiments". I consider them simplistic truths.

When I speak about vibration it's because we are, as human beings,
comprised mostly of water. Water receives vibrational energy and
therefore "resonates". The clearer the water is, the faster/higher
frequency of the vibration/resonance. Simply put, we are like antennae
receiving and sending vibration - hence, our place/power within the
quantum field.

As we raise out of our low vibrational daily 3 dimensional mental
states of drama, we begin to transform and transcend into a place
easier to "receive" and begin to understand our personal truths,
thereby allowing us to begin to see our personal place and purpose
within the intelligent construct. Free will allows us to choose which
path we wish to travel learn/discover our truths. Whether or not that
path is "violent" or not is irrelevant in that we all eventually get
to the same place via different experience. Or is it? Perception is
key here - subjective. Polarity - good vs. evil. Memes.

I believe as we resonate closer with "God" through release of
imprinted memes (ideas, dogma, etc.) it is quite easy to understand.
It's quite simple. As we learn to re-program or retrain our moods and
mental states to higher vibrational ones, we find ourselves
transcending the complexities and dependence upon external "experts"
and more trusting in our ability to maneuver through our daily lives
without the emotional flares created by the meme of fear, for example.

Like attracts like therefore people who live in fear attract fear into
their lives, people who live in suffering attract suffering into their
lives adding more complication, more suffering.

I agree with you. Many will read your posted definition and will
resonate with it. Many will also begin to read it and skip on to the
next post. My point was simply - why not reach both with a simpler
message.

The lower vibrational mental states and emotional moods in which we
live in our reality can be perceived as a "battle". But is it? Only if
we allow ourselves to remain entrenched in the lower vibrational
states. As we raise our vibrational levels it resonates, ripples to
those around us as well.

Simplicity is key, IMO. Just a difference in perception, I suppose.

In lakech (I am another you),
Anna

In Lakech', Anna!

Do you recall, what this Mayan code of honour implies?
It means that the separation experienced in space and time is not in the unified realm of the oneness, the Mayan elders knew.

As said before, you DO experience the 'Real God' in your creative endeavours and you have stated the issue well in your last paragraph, when saying: "Simplicity is key, IMO. Just a difference in perception, I suppose".

A friend of mine had said: "In my father's house are many mansions!"; and you surely know the saying from antiquity: "All roads lead to Rome!".

I am rather 'In Love' with YOUR 'Definition of God' as it definitely expresses MY God.

But can you discern that the mathematical definition for God given in article 10. actually scientifically describes your 'Kingdom of Vibrational Resonances'?

What then is your point of 'challenging' the semantics, which 'glorify' OUR common God?

Allow me to give you and anyone reading this a most pertinent reference - a movie you can watch to fathom this 'God of Vibration'.

It is a rather old movie and not as fast-paced and drowned in 'special effects', as the modern expressions of its genre.
This movie was produced by the 'Genes of God' and was directed by a 'Wise Man Robert' in the Story written by the 'Foster parents of God' in 1979.

The movie actually describes the 'Nature of God' as a PROCESS of BEING the Creator of the Creation and BEING created BY this Creation.

The movie is called: STAR TREK - The Motion Picture and was the FIRST of all Star Trek movies made.

Love you know and love you are and a new Barbelo you shall become.

John Shadow

From: spiritualprep2012@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Anna Webb (electricwind@earthlink.net)
Sent: Wednesday, 19 August 2009 11:18:37 PM
To: SpiritualPrep2012@yahoogroups.com

Bright blessings on your journey, John.
_________________________________________________________________________

spiritualprep2012@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Dani Djinn (djinn3175@yahoo.com) Thursday, 20 August 2009 9:53:36 AM

I really enjoyed the read. Reminded me a lot of Walter Russell

Hi Dani!

Yes indeed, Walter Russell was/is a visionary, whose endeavours should be taken seriously. He could be termed a stalwart for the 'New Age'; not eschewing the 'hard science' as so many 'Spiritual Journeyers' do.

In particular one of his cosmological viewpoints is rather on the mark; yet blatantly misunderstood by the mainstream.

This is his idea, that light itself does not move in first principle, but becomes an effect in the spacetime metrics (of the mainstream-orthodox astrophysics).

What Russell found, was that the entire spacetimematter defined by the standard physics of academia, is itself a 'background' which is unmoving relative to those metrical dynamics.

The lightspeed (c) invariance in 4-dimensional relativistic (Minkowski) spacetime so actually defines a LIGHT-MATRIX, which was somewhat erroneously termed the 'Rigid Ether' by James Clark Maxwell and many others of the pioneering scientists responsible for the sciences of today.

This can be rigorously proven in extending the Pythagorean theorem into a 4-dimensional continuum (which actually is discretized) for the displacement norm, i.e. the measurement of a distance between two coordinate points.

If you now describe the resultant velocity of some object in 3D space, but add a 4th dimension for the time; then it can be clearly shown, that the resultant 4-vector velocity describes the Movement of the Object through 3D-Space and a 1D-Time and where the 'Time-Velocity' behaves like a distance in the lightpath/c.

This means the following and something that Walter Russell knew:
Any object having SOME velocity Vspace in the 3D-Space must have a REDUCED velocity Vtime in the (common) 4D-Space.

In other words ANY velocity V of any object observed has a space-component and a time-component (calculable through Pythagorean vector decomposition).

This then also means that ANYTHING moving in space cannot move with maximum velocity in time.

This description then is another way to derive the postulates of Special Relativity from first principles.

Corollarily, only if something remains perfectly still within the metric continuum; can this something move with maximum velocity through Time.
Consequently the LIGHT-MATRIX of Walter Russel is 'proven' by Special Relativity.

John Shadow

Einstein used to speak so often of God that I tend to believe that he has been a disguised theologian.-Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Albert Einstein (Diogenes Verlag, Zürich, 1979), p. 12, quoted in Jammer, p. 7

Short Comments on God

Knowing God's Thoughts

Could God Have Done It Differently?

God's Punishment

God and Goodness

God's worry

An Unperceivable Being

Awe of the Structure of the World

Einstein used to speak so often of God that I tend to believe that he has been a disguised theologian.
-Friedrich Dürrenmatt in Albert Einstein (Diogenes Verlag, Zürich, 1979), p. 12, quoted in Jammer, p. 7