God in the Bible vs other religions

I didn’t think anything else about it, other than I had not previously thought of the universe as a collection of objects with respect to an arbitrary reference point.

You can find this image in the handouts of my Science & Religion course.

Here is the homepage: CHRTC 350 Science & Religion Homepage Fall and Winter Terms
Click the gray box on Handouts at the top, and the image in on page 86.

Hermeneutical Principle 13A-D presents the 3-tier universe from pages 79-86.
To hear the slides, click the gray box for Audio-Slides, and listen to each principle (in Red).

1 Like

@DOL thank you kindly for helping me.

I think my last message seeking to combine.

  • I still think earth doesn’t spin.

2) descriptions (noses)

1. from heymike3

2) from Dol
and the description of nose from you @DOL Here is the homepage: CHRTC 350 Science & Religion Homepage Fall and Winter Terms Click the gray box on Handouts at the top, and the image in on page 86.

I’m learning what is Panspychism because I want to learn this.

**1) Heymike3 description of nose about reference point.
2) Dol description of nose of reference point.

Both are reference points and is this Panspychism?

Reference points from each person and reference point from understanding perspectives. Using the name nose to help communicate.

Nose bible: as Dol describes from bible is used as reference point.
Nose school: Heymike3 learn that nose from each person is to reference point

What type of language is this that people use the word ‘nose’

I used the word light. When seeing light in people radiate outward. I understand light as God who lives in all of us.

Is this the same as you two using the word nose, as how I used the word light?

Because borrowing a word due to no word for original thought. Because what causes borrowing words and not create original word?

Yet I seen light though., and your knowledge of nose is on the face.

But you used a word nose to help communicate, just like the bible used nose and that school used the word nose. It’s borrowed by many. Because there is no word so you two borrowed a word from a different area, to help communicate, yet many has already did this too borrow.

well me too, I borrow a word light to help me communicate.

I used the word light because that’s what I saw in people radiate outward.

But light sun and light from bulb isn’t the same as light that I seen in people radiate outward. But I borrowed that word light like you two borrow the word nose, and so did bible borrow word nose., and school borrow word nose, is to help communicate.

How does borrowing words do what to panspychism, will panspychism be more comprehended as there’s more original words? Is borrow words due to still lacking understanding for many? What causes slowly towards original words?

Bible uses language nose, you dol draw earth showing nose. at heymike3 school uses nose of each person for explaining reference point.

Panspychism and borrow words to help communicate, how common is this 'till original word comes about?

reference on page 86 or 92 slide well 86., https://sites.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/350handouts.pdf

how did you like the psalm 95 song I found and showing you I agree with Psalm 95

The song is nice, but I wonder: One of the verses says: “Come, let us bow down and worship”. When you bow down and worship God, do you bow down in front of a full-length mirror?

Screenshot 2022-11-09 at 21-10-33 Red Barrel Studio® Marcum Easel Modern & Contemporary Beveled Cheval Mirror Wayfair

Busy with what, having a relationship with Holy Spirit?

  • I would claim when I feel busy is when I’m blocking Holy Spirit, then it feels like work, and not rest at all.

  • Eventually as I’m blocking I’ll surrender and allow Holy Spirit teach me why I’m blocking

  • and eventually the blocking becomes less as Holy Spirit becomes more.,

  • that area when blocking and it feels like work does feel busy, but as I allow Holy Spirit I feel more at rest and inner peace. I allow Holy Spirit teach me in the midst of my situations

@bharatjj @heymike3 what are your thoughts about this word making?

I understand the word making as relationship

I agree with Psalm 95

It’s a relationship with God is what making means

I’m spirit soul and Holy Spirit lives in me

Worship is drinking from Holy Spirit

What do you think happen when Holy Spirit fire is cycle with our Spirit a relationship

Holy Spirit is food water in the spiritual world

People in Iran, Iraq, who’s Muslim lives forever too

People who’s Hindu who lives in India lives forever too

The topic of panpsychism relates to the improbability of consciousness arising from elements of the periodic table. I would like to expand my comments, which started this discussion, to include a Biblical reference. In the opening to the Gospel of John, the author declares, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God.” The Greek word for “word” is logos, and by extension, refers to language. Since language is the outer manifestation of inner consciousness, this opening sentence could be interpreted as a declaration that Jesus is the embodiment of God’s consciousness. This consciousness was, and is, God.

Those who insist on the wholly materialistic nature of the universe ignore the profound improbability of the existence of consciousness in a world made up solely of the elements in the periodic table. Carbon is still carbon no matter how it is organized, and we are carbon- based creatures. Yet carbon speaks. What draws words out of carbon is the gift of consciousness that originates with God. Our consciousness is a construct of God’s pure consciousness limited by our physical constraints and imperfections. James Wade

  • And what if I believe that the stuff in the cosmos consists of point-masses moving through the void. Whereas the consciousness of any single point-mass seems unlikely, something’s going on, IMO, when a flock of those point-masses takes off like a flock of Dunlins (birds) and “engage in” or “perform” murmurations, as seen in this 5:37 video: Murmuration of Dunlin (HD).
1 Like

In philosophical topics we have had long made an error in confusing language with reality. Just because we have a single word for something doesn’t mean that the reality it points to is in any way singular. Intelligence and consciousness are the principle examples. The evidence tells us that both of these are a collection of many different abilities. And it is likely that a reduction of human consciousness by one or more of these abilities would have results which are hard to recognize as what we usually mean by these words. But a more objective approach would see all of these abilities as parts of a more quantitative measure.

For example, our recent experience with AI, where we have computer programs teaching us how to better play our most difficult strategy games, it looks unreasonable to me to say that these programs have no intelligence. Clearly they have some of the most important abilities which are usually identified with intelligence. Likewise I see some of the most important abilities identified with consciousness in the operation of a single cell. Of course this hardly means that the intelligence of these AI and the consciousness of a cell are the same or even close to our own, and objections are fairly numerous and easy to think of.

With such a more quantitative approach, this judgement of “improbability” becomes similar to like arguments against the evolution of the species. It seems to me this is not so far off judging that snow flakes, crystal caves, and galaxies are improbable results from the periodic table. On the contrary, in mathematics we can demonstrate how infinite complexity can arise from fairly simple processes.

And they would object that such arguments ignore the demonstrable findings in science. Who is more head blind? Those who ignore what can be demonstrated for all to see or those who ignore your personal sentiments and feelings? How can you expect to win any respect for the theistic point of view with arguments which are so easily trounced?

And yet I am a believer because there are better reasons and arguments – at least this is the case if you are willing to back off from making demands to simply suggesting other possibilities. Religion will never compete well with science when it comes to objective observation. But since life requires subjective participation, then why should religion seek that sort of competition anyway. For life we clearly need more than the objective observation which science has to offer and is so good at.

I don’t remember that you’ve answered this: what does the Holy Spirit teach you about Jesus?

1 Like

Mitchell, I agree that dogmatic statements can be offensive in a discussion like this. However, I was responding to the theory of panpsychism which does question the idea that consciousness can arise from materialistic elements without those elements having at least a spark of intelligence. Roger Penrose, the well-known Nobel prize winning physicist, has observed that whatever intelligence is, it is not computable. He bases that on Godel’s theorem which proves that human consciousness knows, as true, things that cannot be proven. This has led me to suggest that the term AI is misleading and should be changed to IA signifying Intelligence Augmentation.


I thought panpsychism supported the idea rather than question it.

This is, in my view, correct.

It is incorrect. Let the truth in.

1 if consciousness was before matter, then can consciousness continue to make matter?
2 if matter was before consciousness, then consciousness and God would be subordinate to matter.
Both don’t work. Only solution is panpsychism that says both are joint.
The word begininng in john as well as Genesis 1.1 may perhaps be understood as .Beginning of self awareness. Consciousness existed before God but was not aware of itself.

From my 6th Grade Spelling Book.

Screenshot 2022-11-10 at 16-50-18 He Who Knows and Knows Not He Knows Is Asleep Awaken Him – Quote Investigator


Why do they both have to ‘work’? That is an artificial force fit – it’s not a ‘solution’ but a mirage. One can be true (the first) and the other false (the second). (Panpsychism is false too, in case you missed what #2 being false entails.)

1 Like

Or the cause of the universe is not yet aware of its action. Sometimes described as an infinite task. Like the becoming of nothing, or nothing coming to be. That which can contradict itself.

Or the cause of the universe is aware of its action.

One or the other, but not both.

1 Like

Rather there is no cause. Material universe existed. Conzciousness embeeded in the material existed. It is evolving