You still did not answer my question.

Do you have a body? Do you have a brain? Do you have a mind? Do you have an opinion? Do you have thoughts? Do you have a personality?

If you do, then please tell me, who are you that has these things?

You said:



But I did not ask you what you believe a human is. I asked you something else. (I believe you are a human. but...)


Who are YOU that has these things?

And I respect your opinion. But, I didn't say that it makes anyone anything "more" or "less" than one of the billions of animals that inhabit a minor planet...etc...



What is a "god" then? Perhaps it is your definition of "god" that needs to be looked at.

I didn't say I was a god.

I said I AM.

"If" God is defined as "that which exists" then I am indeed God.


I exist.

So please understand me, when I say that "I AM or "I am God" I am saying that I exist.

I am NOT saying that I am a god or that I am better or less than one of the billions of animals..... etc.

So are you saying that one is not allowed to make "public" statements if they don't include acceptable evidence and/or the agreement of outside authorities to back them up?

Since this particular forum is called "general religion" and not "Science and Philosophy" I think I can state my own truth without some atheist or theist demanding I attempt to convince them with acceptable evidence for my statements.

I have stated that these are my opinions, and I have stated that I am not certain of ANYTHING except that I exist. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that.




I am my own authority. If you feel you should identify your "self" with your body, personality, beliefs, ego, mind, or what ever you identify with, that is up to you.

I speak only for myself, but like I said, I am not a Solipsist, so I acknowledge that other people do exist as thinking centers with wills of their own. Therefore it is my opinion that we are more than just our physical expression.



Those are indeed agreements. And I do agree with all the statements above.

P.S. of course you will probably reply: "They are more than just agreements, they are "facts."

And I'm sure there are a lot of people, who will agree to call them facts.

Hence, anything that is almost unanimously agreed upon to be true, can be called "fact."

(and most people have agreed to this.)

So you are the devil?

Maybe I do. Maybe you take science too literally.

A "constant" is either a constant or it is not. But if everything is relative, how can anything be a constant?

and... I have personally had some very "psychic" experiences so I know by my own experience that it is possible.

I've never done LSD but they do call it a "mind expanding" drug. Maybe you should try some.

So in relation to theists, I am labeled an "atheist" because I do not accept their God, and to most atheists (and even to agnostics) I am considered to be a "believer" or an idiot because I don't subscribe to their objective logical scientific dogma.

I realize that I am God.

That is what self realization is.

Well I know a lot of people who have had positive results with LSD that actually changed their lives for the better, and they say that everyone has the ability to be psychic. If you have never had a psychic experience yourself, then you have something to look forward to.

As for the fluctuation is these alleged "constants" and how they are averaged and then called a "constant" I think that is very misleading to call them "constants." I suspect they might be more than a millisecond off but I'm not a scientist. Just because you say it's "old news" does not mean that scientists should call something a constant when it is not.

RKISIT,

I have no knowledge about the messenger (Rupert) that you are bashing and had no idea about his religious beliefs, but that is not really the topic of the post.

The topic is about the fluctuations in the official measurements of the so-called constants, the speed of light and gravity.

I saw a show on television today about the earth and it was about a place in Canada that is missing gravity. What puzzled me about the show was that they did not say how much gravity it was missing and I sure didn't see any polar bears floating up in the air so I don't know if the gravity was just less than usual, but they made it sound like there was "no gravity" there. If that were the case, then I would think that matter would be sucked out of that hole and float up into space.

But in any case, I guess gravity there was not 'constant.'

So I would prefer a discussion about this subject if you, as a scientist, know anything about it rather than bashing the messengers.

Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God. Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.

LIKE!

You got it nailed.

Nobody looks for the divine inside themselves, and that is where it hides.

In short, (and this is of course going to sound cliche' because people hear it and say it all the time...)

I am God.

I exist.

I AM.

We are all intimately connected to each other and the universe we live and have consciousness in.

On a more personal, human consciousness point of view, all I can be absolutely certain of is that I exist.

I am not as certain if you exist, but I will take your word for it, and I accept that you exist. It is my personal opinion that you exist. I know I exist.

I am not a Solipsist.

I would better be "labeled" (and I hate labels) as a pantheist if you have to have a label.

And I might also ad that what a person believes is their personal business and does not change the truth that they exist or the truth of what is or how it came about. They will continue to argue those points until they realize who or what they are.

That we exist at all is amazing.

LOL

It is of course my opinion (as everything is an opinion.)

Even so-call "facts" are opinions. They are called "facts" only because a group of "authorities" agree on them.

Do you have a body?

Do you have a brain?

Do you have a mind?

Do you have an opinion?

Do you have thoughts?

Do you have a personality?

If you do, then please tell me, who are you that has these things?

This wisdom is self evident.

The only thing you (or me) can know for certain is that we exist.

I AM.

Everything else is an opinion.

If you can only accept information based on some "authority" ("says who?") then you are at the mercy of outside authorities in ascertaining what is true, providing you decide to accept said authority.



Based on my own personal experience of existence, verified by me.

Only if you identify "I" as your physical body. Is that who you are? Is that what you are?

Think about how people talk about the internal observer vs the external body, mind and brain.

"My body, my mind, my brain, my opinion, my thoughts, my idea, my soul, etc."

Who is "I?"

I think, I feel, I see.....

You are not your body, or your brain or even your mind or your thoughts or you feelings. So who or what are you?

You are the divine observer.

You are not your "personality." You are not your ego.

I have a personality, I have a brain, I have a body, I have an ego.

Who am I?

I am the divine observer.

Unconditional love is a detached divine love.

It does not mean that if you discover your husband is serial killer, that you put up with him. You can certainly still love him unconditionally, (perhaps because you understand he is mentally dysfunctional or ill,) but you should still turn him into the police.

Unconditional love does not mean you approve of someone's immoral or illegal activities, or that you love and support him or her even if they are abusive or cruel. To "love" someone normally is to have good feelings about them.

Unconditional love means that you care about them, and wish them well and you may feel very sad or sorry for them if they are miserable or beyond your help, but it does not mean you have good "loving" feelings about them.

Basically you love them on a spiritual level and you could even hate their ego identity.

Yeh I always raise an eyebrow when someone claims something has been "banned"

The article was interesting and I suspect that the speed of light and gravity are not as constant as we observe, but then our observations or measurements may not be and constant as we think.

The following are excerpts from Rupert Sheldrake's Banned Ted Talk: 'The Science Delusion'

Morphic Resonance: everything depends on evolving habits not on fixed laws.

(9:52) I want to spend a few moments on the 'constants of nature' too, because these are again are assumed to be constant. Things like the gravitational constant, the speed of light are called the fundamental constants. Are they really constant?

(10:07) Well, when I got interested in this question I tried to find out, they're given in physics handbooks; handbooks in physics list the existing fundamental constants and tell you their value, but I wanted to see if they had changed.

(10:21) So I got the old volumes of physical handbooks and I went to the patent office library here in London, and they're the only place I could find that kept the old volumes; you know normally people throw them away when the new values come out they throw away the old ones.

(10:36) When I did this I found that the speed of light dropped between 1928 and 1945 by about 20 km/s, that's a huge drop because they are given with errors within a fractions of decimal point of error.

(10:52) And yet, all over the world it dropped. And they were all getting values very similar to each other with tiny errors and then in 1948 it went up again and then people started getting very similar news again.

(11:08) I was very intrigued by this and I couldn't make sense of it so I went to see the head of Meteorology at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington; Meteorology is the science in which people measures constants.

(11:21) And I asked him about this, I said, "What do you make of this drop in the speed of light between 1928 and 1945?"

(11:29) And he said, "Oh dear, you've uncovered the most embarrassing episode in the history of our science."

(11:37) So, I said, "Well, could the speed of light have actually dropped and that would have amazing implications if so."

(11:42) He said, "No, no, of course it couldn't have actually dropped, it's a constant."

(11:47) So, "Oh, well then how do you explain the fact that everyone was finding it going must slower during that period? Is it because they were fudging their results to get to what they thought other people should be getting and the whole thing was just produced in the minds of physicists?"

(12:04) He said, "We don't like to use the word Fudge," and I said, "What do you prefer?" And he said, "We prefer to call it intellectual phase-locking."

(12:20) So, I said, "Well if it was going on then how can we be so sure it's not going on today and that the present values aren't produced by intellectual phase-locking?" And he said, "Oh, we know that's not the case." And I said, "how do we know?" And he said, "Well, we've solved the problem."

(12:35) And I said, "Well how?" And he said, "Well we fixed the speed of light by definition in 1972." So I said, "but it might still change…" And he said, "Yes, but we'd never know because we've defined the meter in terms of speed of light so the units change with it." So he looked very please about that, they'd fixed that problem.

(12:57) But I said, "Well then, what about Big G? The gravitational constant known in the trade as 'Big G' because it's written with a capital G. Newtons Universal Gravitational Constant that's varied by 1.3% in recent years and it seems to vary from place to place and from time to time."

(13:17) And he said, "Oh well those are just errors." And unfortunately there are quiet big errors with Big G. So I said, "What if it's really changing? Perhaps it's really changing…"

Pull Quote on Variable Rate of Radioactive Decay:

"That's when they discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry...Intriguingly, the decay seemed to vary with the seasons, with the rate a little faster in the winter and a little slower in the summer."

(13:29) And then I looked at how they do it: what happens is they measure it in different labs, they get different values on different days and then they average them. And then, other labs around the world do the same and they come out, usually, with a rather different average and then the International Committee on Meteorology meets every 10 years or so and averages the ones from labs from around the world to come up with the value of Big G.

(13:51) But what if G were actually fluctuating, what if it changed? There's already evidence actually that it changes through out the day and throughout the year...

(14:11) Maybe they all change together, what if these 'errors' are going up together and down together. For more than 10 years I've been trying to persuade Meteorologists to look at the raw data, in fact I am now trying to persuade them to put it online on the internet with the dates and the actual measurements and see if they're correlated: to see if they're all up at one time and all down at another.

(14:32) If so they might be fluctuating together and that would tell us something very, very interesting; but no one has done this, they haven't done it because 'G is a constant,' there's no point looking for changes.

(14:43) You see, here is a very simple example of where a dogmatic assumption actually inhibits inquiry. I myself think that the constants may vary quite considerably, well within limits, but they may all varying and I think the day will come when scientific journals, like Nature, will have a weekly report on the constants like stock market reports in newspapers, you know like: this week Big G was slightly up, the charge on the electron was down and the speed of light held steady...

Her father was deeply involved in shady government stuff so there is no telling what really happened.

It is not about health care, its about total control of everything. They have control of our food with Monsanto GMO non reproducing fruits and veggies, and they have control of the roads and Hwys, and they have control of the energy, the grid, the television.

Obama care puts all of your medical information into the hands of the overlords.

I think Obama care will be used by people who can't get insurance any other way because stupid Insurance companies won't insure people with preexisting conditions, which is stupid and pointless where healthcare is concerned.

People who need it can't get it.

I hope most people don't sign up for any of it, and refuse to pay any fines and refuse to pay their taxes, and just start working for cash.

Also, I think we should fire all the priests and preachers because they spew the same opinions.