The tattoo is just Starbucks tattoo from BSG

Watch image is from Metropolis, I think.

Origami is from Blade Runner, car too I think.
Quark was a bar tender on Star Trek : Deep Space 9

Also pretty sure the lab techs have Dharma Initiative patches from Lost

Things i'd like answered...

:47 What is the neon sanctuary sign from? (they had "sanctuary" in Logans Run but don't know if there was a neon sign)

:50 Is the SETI helicopter from anything?

1:01 Tatoo on womans arm seems familiar, but can't place it. Also is the scanning the eyes with a handheld device from something in particular?

1:18 The ROBOT sign seems familiar. Probably due to the font and particularly the "R".

2:22 What is the image on the watch from?

2:42 What is the Oragami and toy car from? Also is Quark from something?

2:45 Glowing object?

2:52 Chinese looking logos and walking through doorish type thing?

3:29 Can't place what that is from, but looks super familiar.

Alsaadi Tareq tests Spartan Quark Gyro & Rapicon Fuel - Trex has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Alsaadi-Tareq-tests-Spartan-Quark-Gyro-Rapicon-Fuel-Trex

Wait @harlequinn take a step back from the borders of advanced theoretical physics back to practical stuff like geometry and astronomy and measuring time and heating stuff and using other sources of power than slave labour.

Religion did not get us far in many areas.

If science had to start all over again maybe quarks and strings would look different, but steam engines would be the same. Heart transplants would be very similar. Other parts of medicine might not.

Personally traits have nothing to due with it, the video has two messages the first, funny message, is that yes there is a difference between the traits of westerners and Chinese people. The second, racist message, is that western couples don't actually love each other.

The video shows all the Chinese personality quarks as good natured ways the couple loves each other, such as sharing food, and the man sacrificing his money. The "western" people are shown in a relationship where they don't trust each other such as the man calling his SO a "b*tch" and spending all their money behind her back.

Think for a second, what of the video had been made about African Americans? would that be okay? (No it would not)

Degeneracy is really, really cool. It's all about squashing things into as tight a region of space as you can. It's an observable justification of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and the Pauli exclusion principle (the one that says you can accurately measure the position or the velocity of an object but not both and the one that says that two neutrons -in this case- can't both occupy the same very small region of space).

To be a neutron star, the remnant core after an unstable giant blows its outer layers away has to be more massive than 1.44 solar masses, but anything bigger than about 2.5 solar masses probably becomes a black hole. On the less massive end you get white dwarfs which are prevented from shrinking any more by electron degeneracy pressure - electrons won't let the star get any denser. But if you throw more mass on it, even electron degeneracy pressure can't resist the gravitational force and you get a neutron star, supported by neutron degeneracy - the neutrons won't let the star get any denser now. And then finally more and more mass and it becomes a black hole, which is where even the neutron degeneracy pressure can't sustain the gravitational force.

I mean, that's fucking cool - there is so much gravitational force that the electrons have to team up with the protons to become neutrons, because neutrons can get slightly closer together. And then if the neutrons aren't happy, you've got a singularity which is a fancy way of saying we don't know what the hell just happened but stay away from it if you like being in the part of the physical universe that kinda makes sense to us.

There's also speculation of a quark degeneracy state beyond neutron degeneracy.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
I remember this episode very well.
I liked it.

I remember my Trekk(er/ie) friend recorded this episode onto a VHS tape and brought it over to watch in my suite mate's dorm(itory) room with his CRT TV. It was awesome! I watched it again a few years ago. It was still a very good episode even though I wasn't a DS9 fan.

DS9 was dreak (IMHO).
But I did really like the interactions between the characters of Odo and Quark.


I just like Odo's physical transformations.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
I remember this episode very well.
I liked it.

I remember my Trekk(er/ie) friend recorded this episode onto a VHS tape and brought it over to watch in my suite mate's dorm(itory) room with his CRT TV. It was awesome! I watched it again a few years ago. It was still a very good episode even though I wasn't a DS9 fan.


DS9 was dreak (IMHO).
But I did really like the interactions between the characters of Odo and Quark.

@hpqp
Good points, all.
However, the "cognition is sacred" (as opposed to "human life is sacred") viewpoint has a hole in it about the size of human consciousness. (Oh man, tangent time!) Some loudly proclaim the presence of a divine soul or spirit, but there is certainly something else there, aside from the physical form.
Obviously, human (and for that matter animal) experience and behavior is influenced by the physical brain and its processes. Damage to it predictably and reproducibly changes behavior and perception. As much as some of us would like to think otherwise, the physical structure and function of the brain influences who we are and what we do as individuals. I would honestly have no problem accepting that the physical universe as we've modeled it functions precisely as it has, autonomously. (Right down to fruitless debates between individuals on the Internet.) Evolution is a real thing. The brain has developed as yet another beneficial mutation that promotes the propagation of its host organism. Input in, behavior out, feedback loop. Click click click, ding.
But the problem is that we experience this. Somehow this mass of individual cells (and below that individual molecules, atoms, quarks) experiences itself in a unified manner, or rather something experiences this mass of matter in a unified manner. No matter how far down you track it, there's no physical accommodation for consciousness. To give a specific example, the cells in the eye detect light (intensity and wavelength) by electrochemical stimulation. The binary "yes\no" of stimulation is routed through the thalamus in individual axons, physically separated in space, to the visual cortex, where it's propagated and multiplied through a matrix of connections, but all individual cells, and all just ticking on and off based on chemical and electrical thresholds. The visual field is essentially painted as a physical map across a region of the brain, but somehow, the entire image is experienced at once. Cognition is necessarily distinct from consciousness.

What this means, practically, is that we must attribute value to cognition and consciousness separately.
Cognition may not be completely understood, but we can explain it in increasingly specific terms, and it seems that we'll be able to unravel how the brain works within the current model. It absolutely has a value. We consider a person who is "a vegetable" to have little to no current or expected quality of life, and generally are comfortable making the decision to "pull the plug".
Consciousness, however, is what we believe makes us special in the universe, despite being completely empty from a theoretical standpoint. If sensory input, memory, and behavioral responses are strictly a function of the material, then stripped of those our "unified experience" is completely undetectable\untestable. We have no way of knowing if our neighbor is a meaty automaton or a conscious being, but we assume. Which is precisely why it's special. It's obviously extra-physical. Perhaps @gorillaman's tomatobaby (that is, the newborn which he says is without Mind) has a consciousness, but it isn't obvious because the physical structure is insufficient for meaningful manifestation. I have difficulty accepting that consciousness, empty though it is on its own, is without value. "So what," though, right? If you can't detect it in anyone but yourself, what use is it in this discussion? Clearly, there IS something about the structure or function of the brain that's conducive to consciousness. We are only conscious of what the brain is conscious of and what it has conceived of within its bounds. So the brain at least is important, but it's not the whole point.
Anyway, there's that tangent.

The "stream of potential life" argument has its limits. Any given sperm or egg is exceedingly unlikely to develop into a human. For a single fertilized egg, the odds shift dramatically. That's why people seek abortions, because if they don't do something, they're probably going to have a baby. The probability of "brewin' a human" is pretty good once you're actually pregnant. The "potential for human life" is very high, which is why you can even make the quality of life argument.

Obviously, you realize how those on the anti-abortion side of the debate react when someone who is...let's say abortion-tolerant ("pro-abortion" overstates it for just about anyone, I suspect) says that they're considering the "quality of life" of the prospective child in their calculus. They get this mental image: "Your mother and I think you'll both be better off this way, trust me. *sound of a meatball in a blender*"
I appreciate that we're trying to minimize suffering in the world and promote goodness, but I think it's over-reaching to paint every potential abortion (or even most) as a tragic tale of suffering simply because the parent wasn't expecting parenthood. Quality of life is much more nuanced. Many wonderful humans have risen from squalor and suffering and will tell you earnestly they believe that background made them stronger\wiser\more empathetic\special. Many parents who were devastated to learn they were pregnant love their unexpected children. And holy crap, kids with Downs, man. What's the quality of life for them and their parents? Terribly challenging and terribly rewarding.
No, I'm not trying to paint rainbows over economic hardship and child abuse and say that "everything's going to be finnnnneeee", but quality of life is a personal decision and it's unpredictable. Isn't that what "It Gets Better" is all about? "Things may seem grim and terrible now, but don't kill yourself just yet, you're going to miss out on some awesome stuff."

Hrm. Thus far we've really been framing abortion as being about "unready" parents, probably because the discussion started on the "mother can choose to have sex" angle.
You've got to wonder how confused this issue would get if we could detect genetically if a fetus might be homosexual. Would Christians loosen their intolerance for abortion if it meant not having a "gay baby"? (Even if it would fly in the face of their belief that homosexuality is a choice.) Would pro-choicer's take a second look at the availability of abortion? Would it still be "one of those terrible things that happens in a free society"?

On western aid, you're spot on. It's so easy to throw money at a problem and pretend we're helping. Humanitarian aid does nothing if we're not promoting and facilitating self-sufficiency. Some people just need a little help getting by until they're back on their feet, but some communities need a jump-start. As you say, they need practical education. I've only been on handful of humanitarian missions myself, so I give more financially than I do of my sweat, but I'm careful to evaluate HOW the organizations I give to use the funds. Are they just shipping food or are they teaching people how to live for themselves and providing the resources to get started? Sure, some giving is necessary. It's impossible for someone to think about sustainable farming and simple industry if they're dying from cholera or starving to death.

>> ^messenger:
Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.


If you're referring to the geneology of Jesus, it is presenting one geneology through David's son Solomon, which is the royal line, and one geneology through David's son Nathan, which is the non royal line. The lineage in Matthew is Josephs line, and the lineage in Luke is Marys line. There is no actual contradiction there, or anywhere else in the bible. What skeptics call contradictions are usually things they simply do not understand.

In any case, it would not be unreasonable to believe the bible, even if there were contradictions. This is simply a fallacious argument.

>> ^messenger:
The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)


Your contention is false for a few reasons; first, that miracles do not occur, and second, that we should expect to find an abundance of miracles. Not only have I seen miracles occur, I have been a party to them. As far as the number of miracles, we shouldn't expect to know how many miracles occur. God isn't performing for the general public. Even the post-resurrection appearances were only for a limited number of people.

We do have circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, such as the information in DNA and the evidence of fine-tuning. The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for these phenomena. We should never ignore a theory which better explains the evidence.

>> ^messenger:
This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.


It is the persistant claim of atheists that science has sufficiently described the Universe and is regulating God to a smaller and smaller corner. It's called the "god of the gaps" and you hear this all the time. You hear it from eminient scientists like Dr Krauss. So I don't wish it is being said, it is being said all the time.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are more evidences for a young earth than an old one. Since you don't know much about macro evolution, you probably don't know much about the theory of deep time either. Paleontology and archaelogy are historical sciences. The age of the earth is assumed, and the evidence is interpreted through that assumption. The assumption itself is never challenged.

>> ^messenger:
This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.


Messenger, you seem like a thoughtful person, so step outside of your box for a moment and think about this. The statement that "If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence" is a scientific statement of absolute fact. If it isn't, explain why not.

>> ^messenger:
You and I agreed before, no solipsism.


I engaged in no solipsism, as you will see, and I also thought we weren't going to be doing cherry picking either. I noticed you avoided these questions:

The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

>> ^messenger:
You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".


I am not using logic to disprove logic, I am using logic to show you that you don't have a foundation for your own rationality. You live your life as if logic is a transcendent and absolute law, the same way as you do right and wrong, but you can't account for it in your worldview. It's a bit like sitting in Gods lap to slap His face. If logic doesn't have the same value independent of human belief, then you have no basis for your own rationality. Words do have meaning, which is why I am pointing out you have some intellectual sinkholes in your worldview that you just accept without thinking about it.

>> ^messenger:
Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.


I didn't say God created logic, I said He is a rational being. Since we are made in His image, we are also rational beings.

>> ^messenger:
No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.


It doesn't mean that, no, but it does mean that you spoke authoritatively and condescendingly about something that I actually know more about than you do, jumping to conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I said, that on a lack of knowledge about the theory itself. I would say this is positive evidence in my favor, and negative evidence against you.

>> ^messenger:
But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.


They aren't outdated quotes, they are predictions that were made about what we should expect to find if the theory is true. Darwin made a great discovery, that changes can occur within a species. From there, he made an unjustified extrapolation that all species had a common ancestor. He expected to find evidence for this theory in the fossil record, but what he found was evidence against his theory. He blamed this on the relative poverty of the fossil record. 120 years later, we know it isn't the poverty of the fossil record; there simply is no fossil evidence to confirm macro evolution.

Do you know what a gluon is? It is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that binds quarks together. It has never been observed; it is simply a fudge factor, and without it, atoms would fly apart. Scripture says God is upholding them.

>> ^messenger:
Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.


You're talking about the theory of punctuated equillibrium, or the modern "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of my favorite quotes:

In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'

Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136


It's the theory to explain why there is no evidence for evolution. How convenient. Do you realize that this makes macro evolution unfalsifiable? It also makes macro evolution a metaphysical theory, like abiogenesis, which you must take on faith. The video you referenced is not an accurate demonstration of macro evolution, either, since nothing is being added to the genome. A reconfiguration of the same genetic material is not traversing above the species level and is therefore micro evolution.

Since you're never read a book on macro evolution, try this one and challenge yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

Indian people rob stores? I thought they just ran them! I wonder what Quark would say about this.......

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dannym3141:
@GeeSussFreeK i don't like it either, but it's one of those things you have to accept is true - just like quantum mechanics Your mind's desire to slot it into a jigsaw puzzle will have to go unsatiated.

You can't really talk about something unless you have an idea of it, just like you can't talk about circular squares or some other such construct that doesn't point to a real idea. I am still considering what @Ornthoron was saying and wondering if we are talking about the same thing or not. Get back to this later, have to ponder, I think this is a problem of ontology vs abstraction. @Mikus_Aurelius I am very familiar with the idea of a limit, taken many years of calculus and dif. EQ back in the day. My argument isn't that you can "use" things, but if those things represent actual things in and of themselves. I do think that there is an inherit realness to numbers outside of complete abstraction. The idea of a single object relating to itself is always true, regardless of a formal number system to represent it. The relation of 2 objects against 1 object is also still a real distinction that exists outside of a formal numbering system. The realness of elements of counting are, seemingly (and I need to think more on this) tautological true; an analytically true statement in other words.
I need to ponder on this more though, perhaps I am mistaken. Or perhaps I was talking about a different aspect of it than everyone else. Time to grease down the mind with beer!


But you DO have an "idea" of it. You know how it behaves. You may not understand why it does that but you can prove to yourself that it does. You might find that it crops up more often in nature than you like - as i said, quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive which unfortunately only goes to tell us that our intuition is wrong.

My lecturer's example was always to take electric charge - we have a name for it, we have a set of characteristic rules for electric charge and interaction between charges but when it gets right down to it 'electric charge' is just a name. We have simply defined and described a set of rules for a phenomenon that we have observed. And the same goes for quarks - we have up, down, top, bottom, strange and charmed. Those are just words too, we're just more familiar with electric charge as a term so we think we understand it.

I don't necessarily think you do need an idea of something to talk about it; anything more in-depth than "it exists, and here is how it behaves" comes after you analyse it, and presumably talk about it if only to yourself conceptually.

ok.
i shall attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability.due to the length and breadth of your questions i shall tackle them on a singular basis.
welcome to part one:
@IAmTheBlurr
Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

@enoch
this is a multi-faceted question.
i think the best approach would be to outline my faith in order to give you a decent starting point and will hopefully add context to any further discussions.:

"god" is a only a term i use to represent a creator.
there is no gender bias when i use this term.
now let me define my usage of "creator".
with the stipulation that i believe reality is the illusion and thought is real.
because what is "reality"?
what is "consciousness"?
and how do we measure these things?based on what scale?
we have five senses in which to articulate the "real" world.
and it is our "consciousness" which discerns this reality through first the five senses and then processing through said consciousness.
while over-simplified..we can agree on the basic mechanics of what i say?

now here is where you and i will have divergence.
for i believe (have faith) that we are a composite of mind.body and spirit.
you stop at mind .body.
you may view your ego as an accurate representation of who you are while i believe that your ego is only who you THINK you are based on those who influence your own self-identity but not who you ACTUALLY are.
this is a wholly different discussion but in so many ways extremely pertinent to our discussion.
a topic i will visit in the later parts of our conversation.

now on to my personal revelation.
while i will not share the particulars (for no other reason than it will take up too much space and time) i will share what was shown to me at 14 yrs old.
i was shown that:
god is not separate.
god is a consciousness and not one that we have any capabilities to understand at this point in our evolution and on this physical plane of existence.
god is literally everything.every molecule..every atom or quark.gas-solid-microbe.
god resides outside time/space but also within.
god did NOT create us specifically but we are rather a by-product of his (not saying god is a dude here btw) creation.
as a species god is indifferent if we succeed or fail (let the religious folk have fits over THAT statement).

let me attempt a different approach,not to convince of you of anything but rather to illuminate my position in a clearer light.
1.when this universe came in to existence what was the ONE thing that also came in to existence?(besides the obvious).
time.
and what does this fourth dimension give us?
things become relative.
2.so being relative what do you find in the most basic and simplest of terms?
positive-negative
good-bad
god-devil
a really ancient story but appropriate.
of course humanity anthropamophizes this basic construct but what else does this universal creation put out there?
evidenced over and over again.
the desire to live...life..to create.
the entire universe follows this edict.
religious people will point and say "look at that! there is your evidence!"
i disagree..because that implies intent and god did not intentionally create any of it.
the ONLY intent god put forth was to push forward...to strive..to be.
to a religious person this is blasphemy incarnate because the ideas i am putting forth basically say that god did not intentionally create us as we are..and he didnt..we are a by product of the first intent billions of years ago.

now here is where it gets really cool in my opinion.
jesus stated "i am you..you are me".
correctamundo.
IF you follow my understanding of the universe as i have stated then you must also see where i am going with this.
god is consciousness who created the universe from itself.
we are part of this universe.
so hence WE are a part of god and god is literally a part of us.
think "we were created in his image"
yep..just not in the way religious folk may have ever imagined.

now..lets put the conversation of "consciousness" away for a minute (because that ..in itself is another entirely different..and long..conversation).
and let me ask that you withold disbelief for a moment and consider the possibility of a spirit/soul.
consider that the spirit is the divine spark.the part of us that is connected to this god consciousness.
or..as you would most likely do...dismiss the idea of a spirit.
would you agree that we experience this reality through our senses?
that we love.cry.play and indulge on this physical plane?
and that if my understanding that god is literally everything..would that not correspond to our experiencing this physical reality is actually experiencing creation itself?
and if that makes sense to you would it be too huge a leap to realize that while we experience god subjectively through our experiences that god experiences itself through us?
"i am you..you are me".

pretty cool huh?
the creator resides outside of time/space but experiences its own creation through us and conversely we experience god just by breathing and interacting with creation.
this means that god gets to experience linear existence through us and we through it.

god does not judge because all creation is experiencing itself in a linear fashion.
good and evil are just arbitrary term based on subjective understandings.
god does not discern from either.
so you experiencing love and joy..or the best sex you have ever had in your life.
god experiences also.
just as god will experience the violated and the violator.
both equally.
it is WE who deem acts either good or evil.
because it is WE who have the divine within us.
we make moral distinctions predicated on our own subjective understanding at that moment in time and respond according to those understandings.
god does not distinguish such things.
WE judge ourselves and each other..god does not.

the arrogance and hubris of religion to even postulate that we were somehow this "special creation" to me is just a reaction to just how small and insignificant we are....as a species.
it is the spirit which holds the key to understanding because that is the part of us connected to the divine.so while the flesh will decay,die and rot..the spirit will be consumed back in to the source.
how that will translate i have no idea but i was shown that creation is infinite.
infinite universes and dimension.
life creation in ways that are unimaginable to us.
all of it up/down and sideways.
myriads of lifeforms so strange and alien according to our current understandings.

as a lifeform we are really..at the heart..a complicated amalgamation of co-operative bacteria which strove billions of years ago to be more than the single sum and in doing so became self-aware.
and IN that self awareness came curiosity.
all following that first intent..strive...push forward..be more.
and since the advent of our self-awareness that is exactly what we have been doing,and our understanding is growing exponentially.
everything has a consciousness but we are the most self aware on this planet but consciousness has been evident in other animals (of varying degrees).consciousness can even be attributed to plants.
i propose that the universe has a consciousness.one we cannot comprehend or fathom at this juncture in our evolution.

and NO..i am not speaking of the "good of gaps".
and also a very strong reason why i have no urge to defend my position because that implies that somehow my understanding is somehow more "right" than somebody elses.
just as in saying i am "committed" to one ideology implies that i am somehow a messenger with a strict theocratic way of thinking,or an absolutist way of thinking and both would be inaccurate.every new piece of information changes the paradigm..how can it not?
the only constant i have experienced is how these new pieces of information confirm that very first revelation shown to me.
love creates something more than when it first came into being while negative destroys and gives back nothing.
god is indifferent to both.
and everything is connected.


now.
let me respond to your query "why do you trust your personal revelation"?
i shall answer in bullet point outline:
1.i knew my grandfather had died.though nobody had been called about it yet.
2.i knew..to the day..when my father was going to die and why.
3.i knew my aunt had colon cancer though she showed no signs of having any problems.thank god she believed me at 15 years of age and went to the doctor. consequently lived for another 18 years (died at 84).
4.while i will not post every particular occurance over the span of my life,suffice to say i have learned to trust my inuition because it has been spot on..
every..
single..
time.

now is this due to my brain attempting to find patterns and a certain congruence?
perhaps..but how do i just know some things?
when there is no possible way to even suspect?
my father was the pinnacle of health.
my grandmother was in terrible health and everybody was certain she had only days left.
i knew she would live another year and five months because she was afraid of dying.
i was right on both accounts.

i could go on,but understand i post these events not to convince you of anything other than to explain them is no easy task.
we just dont understand how these things happen but happen they do,
and i have all confidence that one day we will understand.
it just wont be today.
because science..in its most base definition..is obeying the first intent.
to strive..to push.

we are trying to understand creation.
religion does not attempt that.religion only seeks to quantify god into terms that we can understand and accept and in that respect,religion will always fail.
science fails also but recognizes failure and moves forward.
religion stagnates and suppresses.

well,
thats it for this chapter.
am i delusional for having faith in spirit?
possible.being a rational and reasonable human being i have to accept that possibility.
but everything i have experienced has just revealed the exact opposite.
we are more than the sum of our parts.
there is a part of us which is divine and seeks out that divinity in everything we touch/see/hear.
though we may not even be aware of it.
the spiritual person is VERY aware of this though.
the religious person is not.
till next time my friend.
namaste.

Space-Time V1.0

1:1
First the Higg's boson came to be with a photon, light defined by dark, as the quantum space-time field or quantum foam oscillated into fruition a virtual particle with an asymmetrical energy matrix. Thus it hast made what is creation.

1:2
Then thoust foam made up and down quarks, strange and charm quarks, and top and bottom quarks. And the foam was happy.

1:3 Next came thine foam's baryonic matter that thou'ist made from; and all composite particles. Then came the other matter, unknown to man and animal, but by gravity and still some to none.

Etc...

We can do the same stupid thing.