Might be a bit off topic, but I kind of like the idea of god using evolution to help him create the world. I mean, who am I to tell god he can't use certain tools. And i think evolution is provable on the small scale, after all isn't that how new drug resistance diseases come about? In the end the proof of god is a personal think, it's called faith for a reason. Leastwise that's what I think.

Thanks for the thoughts, Danny.

I'm not so sure the thought is off topic, either. There's at least two issues working here. One of them is whether or not some entity we think of as "GOD" created the world, and the other is whether or not "GOD" has the individuality (that sounds weird, huh) and the consciousness we ascribe to "GOD'.

Let's say a conscious, individual Entity created the world. My first thought is to the separation implied with this idea. When I think of "GOD" I do actually use gender to give characteristic to an unknowable concept. I think of "Him", and I think of "Him" using a human sense of logic and reason. I think of the word "omnipotence" and infinity. On some level I am aware that a)these characteristics are only partially in line with Judeo-Christian theology; and b)that I do not actually believe in these characteristics. Still, I use them. They make things easier for me. And when I think of "GOD" in this way, I also ascribe to "Him" the joy a human feels when we mimic creation in small ways. Also, the image of something from nothing seems to work. There is a beginning. We therefore prophecy an end.

Let's say that GOD is a force, rather than a conscious entity. GOD is a law, or a purpose, or a morality. Creation now seems like it is only part of the story, and perhaps not even the beginning. Evolution makes sense, now, and evolution becomes a multi-dimensional concept, and one begins to think of "doors of perception" and "samsara", the holy ohm and season cycles. Beginnings and endings are only small places in such a concept.

Let's say, instead, a conscious, but non-individual entity created the world. I do not mean to blaspheme or offend. I do not mean zen unity or timelessness. I am referring to quantum possibilities. Look at our own consciousness. I used to work with individuals with traumatic brain injuries; many of them had damaged short-term memory processing. These people were people. Some of them had quirks like I have. They have difficulties they need to meet head-on every day to live, difficulties I do not have. But I wonder: who are they?

Who are they, and who were they? Are they the same person? They are greatly changed. They are emotionally, mentally, socially, sexually, and physically different. Several of my clients retained their long-term memories, intact, intensified, even. How many individuals can fit in one head?

Prior to quantum physics, the scientific model of the universe showed such an incredible ratio of void to matter, with only minute subatomic particles demonstrating any mass. Well guess what? Quantum physics is showing that those particles may not have any mass either! Or, more accurately, these "particles" are really only "potentials".

Before I completely lose the section of this community who believes evolution is a populace control method proposed by the ultra-left, let me clarify what this means, and who is proposing this new model:

These things now commonly called subatomic particles, but conceived by quantum physicists to be potential particles, apparently only become fixed in time and space when the "observer" focuses on them. But these same scientists have not isolated the "observer". Who is the observer? The observer apparently does NOT reside in what we commonly label human consciousness, but somewhere else. Many theories have been suggested. But the one that I'm suggesting here is this:

The "observer" is "GOD". Yes, this proposal was suggested by a quantum physicist, and supported by more than one. I'm not sure I buy it, but the theory hypothesizes that we, humans, truly ARE creations of this "observer" and that any evolution is actually an evolution of thought, of perspective, which we as humans actually participate in. Not being a physicist myself, I cannot explain how "chicken or the egg" questions resolve themselves here. Again, I'll apologize to those noting my blasphemy, but I very much like to view the Christian notion of faith through this lens.

Close your eyes. What do you expect to see when you open them? Why? What if you expected something else? How much control do we have over what we expect? A Jewish thought: "Everything is in the hands of heaven, except the fear of heaven..." A Christian thought: "But by the grace of God...."

The Judeo-Christian system of beliefs requires this one step. Close your eyes again. Let yourself remember what love feels like, what peace feels like. Now before you open your eyes, imagine what you'd like to see. Now open them. What's missing?

So your saying that nothing actually exists? That all that is, is because god imagines it? Or did you completely lose me, or I you?

If any "losing" took place, it was definitely my fault.

In some ways I am saying "nothing" exists-- at least that's what the theory is saying. But that's not it exactly either.

Let's say you just picked up your favorite bowling ball, gave it a nice dusting, waxed it to a perfect shine. You take a long drink of your favorite refreshing beverage and then face the pins.

As you begin to take aim at those ten pins down the way, the pins come into focus more and more. They begin to take center stage rather than the beverage or the bowling ball, though your focus shifts a bit, from moment to moment.

Before you throw the ball, pause. When did you first think about the pins? Over pizza earlier at supper? Listening to Garth Brooks on the way over? When youre back was turned and you were watching a pair of high boots and tight blue jeans?

The theory suggests that from the moment you first thought about those pins, then the particles begin to solidify. So you ask: huh? Someone had to make those pins. Did someone get on the phone when you started thinking about Schwoegler's? It's not that kind of solidify, exactly. It's a time and space, thing to some extent. But let's just say the more you expect those pins to be there, and you to be there, the more likely it is that they will be there.

So let loose, now, throw the ball, knock those pins down. What did you expect? A strike? A gutter ball? Your muscles know what you expected better than you do, right? Why? Some unconscious thought or control? Huh? Does that make sense?

Not too much, but we expect it to make sense. We expect some slide in the lane. We expect uniformity from the wood, and balance from the pins. Everything loses "potential" to become solid, for your benefit.

This is quantum physics, except for one thing: "your benefit" is misleading. The observer's benefit is closer. If the observer is not you, why the hell does it care about bowling pins? The theory says the observer IS you, but not necessarily the conscious you, with whom you believe controls the dialogue that exists in your head.

Here's the kicker, where the notion of faith and "GOD" comes in: expectation. Not what you believe, but what you have faith in. Not the thoughts of your head, but the thoughts of your heart.

I find it endlessly amazing to discuss physics with concepts like faith, and expectation, and the power of subjectivity, and to talk about religion and spirituality in terms of sub atomic particles, and space and time.

You want a concept that could bridge some of the divide this world is dealing with right now, this could be it. Funny that such a concept could birth itself, just when it seems we need it most, huh?

It almost sounds like your saying faith/belief makes the world what it is. Which wouldn't make it funny that the concept shows up when people are looking for it, it would be their looking for it that made the concept exist.

Exactly.

We'd have to rethink our belief in things like chance, coincidence....

these new theories tend to blend concepts like evolution and creation,  Except there us a vast difference between an observer and a creator, the latter being divorced from the universe, the former an integral demiurge. 

That's a good point.

The concept that intrigues me though is the relation an individual has to the "observer", and the separation, implied by test results, that while there appears to be a relationship between the observer and the individual, the relationship is not made through the individual's consciousness--in fact, the connection does not seem to take place inside the individual at all.

The theological definition of "Creator" seems to be an eternal consciousness existing independently from Its creation, though involved in some of creation's workings. The quantum physics definition of "observer" seems to be a translator of sorts, one that serves as a go-between for the individual and the world. In some ways, the observer is the individual and in some ways the observer is the world. But what remains constant is the ability of the observer to affect both entities, as dictated by the opposite entity!

I'm sure that was clear as mud. Maybe it makes more sense this way: you control the world through the observer, and the world controls you through the observer. Apparently, this isn't a "chicken or the egg" debate; the ultimate indentifier is you as the individual.

Like you said, steven, the difference is in the relationship of Entities, and the irony is that theologies probably see this as an attack on the idea of faith, while scientists probably see this as a demand to accept the idea of faith.

Hmm.

TBT

TBT: There is, of course, in such a dualistic universe, an element of faith in that it is essential to presume what is perceived and examined actually exists as opposed to systemic faith that all is but an extension of a deity superimposed.

sure. faith in the solidity of the universe is something we learn as soon as our brains begin to process stimuli. faith in objectivity, faith in subjectivity, faith in perspective. . .some of these need serious TNT to make us reconsider their roots, and their meanings. philosophies that proclaim self-evidence as proof positive of faith would severely limit the possibilities in quantum thought.

i was discussing this notion today with some friends, one of which hates the concept. my example was the oft-overlooked branch called "the theory of quantum wallet, keys, and money physics". i'm sure you know how it goes: you lose your keys. . .somewhere in your own house. it has to be either on the coffee table, on the kitchen counter, your jacket pocket, or the floor of the downstairs bathroom. so, of course, you check those places, and golly!-- they aren't in any of those places. so you check in places where they shouldn't be, like in the sofa cushions, your girlfriend's purse, the fruit roll-up drawer. . .and still you're out of luck.

now you're desperate. you check the locks on your car and the front door to your house. you check in the recycling bins and in the rosemary bush out back. no go.

it's at this point when you realize that someone must have moved them to a strange place. right? otherwise you would have found them already. so now you have a row with your girlfriend, and she gets sucked into helping you, and at this point you find them smack in the middle of the coffee table.

did you just miss them the first three times around the coffee table? of course not. something your girlfriend did (bumped the bar stool, threw the remote--aimed at you during the row--ate some lemon grass soup and moved a table mat) has changed something. there's no other way to look at it.

except the nagging doubt in the back of your mind which says you just screwed it up like usual.

and so it goes, ever onward: you'll continue to intentionally (subconscious intention) lose the damn keys, and continue to feel like it is mostly, but not positively, your girlfriend's fault.

your assumptions make things happen, right?

er.

TBT