TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is God energy?

Hi, I was raised a christian but now that i'm 16/17 i'm questioning that religion. I could never understand how a big guy with a huge white beard could be 'everywhere' at once. that got me thinking there's only one thing that is everywhere in the universe and that's energy. Energy is everywhere but cannot be created or destroyed also the first line of the bible is " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." but science tells us it was a big bang filled with energy. the priests say that "God is inside all of us" he's not but energy is... The bible also says "And God said "Let there be light. and there was light" without energy light couldn't exist and God created light so surely that makes God energy? Just one more thing if you feel really ill and down you don't have that much energy, but when you feel better you have huge amounts of energy so Do you get ill when you've sinned? I'm not saying that is what i believe i'm just asking for your opinion on it. thanks! :)

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jan 2 2013: I believe that that which some call "God" is an energy field. I believe that the energy field is aware and that we are part of it. The energy field is more "being" than "a" being. It cannot be personified.

    The energy field doesn't create us. We create ourselves from it, and we share what we learn because we are one-with it.

    Most people are not self-aware, so they do not know this.

    Quatum mechanics is saying that this is probably the case. It's the only thing that anyone has come up with to explain the oddities that have been discovered in the last few years. In the context of modern science, quantum mechanics makes perfectsense.

    I am a god. You are a god. We are a god. All that is is god. (What powerful gods we are too, as anyone who knows how to use the energy field to manifest things and events into their realities will attest)
    • thumb
      Jan 2 2013: Could you explain or provide a useful link to a reliable source that shows how quantum mechanics supports your view? Those I know who specialize in quantum mechanics do not see such a connection.
      • Jan 2 2013: I know that quantum mechanics don't support the theory. But i think that if you look hard enough you could find more connections and evidence that supports this in your world now than quantum mechanics would offer. Quantum mechanics explains most things but i think we have to look in and around ourselves to find answers to the big questions.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: Hi, Toby. Just a wild guess, but I am thinking none of us here actually knows all that much about quantum mechanics, though there are people who do. I agree with you that matters of faith are areas in which people need to make their own decisions and to question at least privately those who claim authority on the matter.
        • thumb
          Jan 3 2013: I think that Quantum Mechanics should become the modern version of godwins law.
          Essentially that the first to mention quantum mechanics in a debate automatically loses.

          I'm not sure what I've grown more sick of..
          People mentioning the term Quantum Mechanics or
          Everyone and his dog trying to claim Quantum Mechanics proves whatever asinine belief that person happens to hold at the time.

          Its true that it opens up additional possibilities, but its not magic and its not vastly understood, two things it would NEED TO BE to justify any psychic, reincarnation, god (etc etc) belief.
    • thumb
      Jan 5 2013: Hi TED Lover

      That has nothing to do with quantum physics.

      "We create ourself from the Energy field". What does that even mean?
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: As in the twin slit experiment. The photons, in seeing the two slits and knowing that which slit each will pass through is not measured, form a wave pattern on the back wall. It's as if the photons went through both slits - which means that it may have created its own double that proceeds to its own destiny. If the photons know that there is a measuring device behind the slits, no wave pattern forms. Apparently, the experiment itself is "aware".

        How can an experiment be aware? Think of Bell's Inequality, where a photon is split and the two parts are sent in opposite directions where the change of spin on one is changed and the other instantaneously changes its spin - no matter how far apart they are. This means that entangled particles are multidimensional. There is a part of their being that transcends the visible reality that you and I can perceive. Both realities of the two photons are part of the present moment of the superpositioned moment.

        Another example is Shroedinger's Theorum. (As explained through the Shroedinger's Cat thought experiment). Put a cat in a box with a device that will cause the cat to die at some "unknown" point in the next 60 minutes. For as long as no one looks inside the box, the cat is both dead and alive.

        Schroedinger points to the split universe theory. Let's say that you and a friend are walking down the street and you come upon a box with a cat in it. You say the cat is sleeping. Your friend says it's dead. You kick the box. At that moment, the universe splits. In one reality, the cat jumps out of the box & runs away. In the other, it was dead. Both realities are real but they cannot see one another.

        I choose which reality to exist in as do all the other probable selves. But we remain entangled.

        I have learned how to manifest things & situations into my reality. If humans are that powerful, why can't we use the same energy field to explore probabilities (thus create an identity (self) to probe them?
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: Let me ask you this: in which way does the thought experiment with Schroedinger's Cat differ from the experience you would have, if the cat was alive OR dead before you opened the box? Saying that the cat is dead AND alive before you open the box doesn't change your experience of the situation.

          How does the adding of the word "quantum" differ from the free will you would have anyway?

          I understand the role that quantum mechanics play in understanding that our universe isn't deterministic, but it seems to me that you jump to unfounded conclusions on a macroscopic level.

          You say you have learned to manifest things and situations. Would you mind giving examlpes of this and how it is related to quantum physics?
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: The cat is not alive OR dead before I open the box. It is alive AND dead until observed. Both states exist in superposition.

        If I am the photon in the twin slit experiment, and I see potentials that others don't see, I can direct myself toward those realities through conscious choice. From my position as observer, it appears that things come to me, however my explanation to myself is more like I appear in the reality in which it already exists (as potential).

        Examples? So many - both large & small.

        My first manifestation? I was in a horrible marriage & needed to find a safe place to heal. I wanted a water-front house near - not on - the ocean. It must be a nice house, not an apartment. I didn't want any housemates. I wanted it to be $200/month heated (an unreasonably SMALL amount of money by any standard).

        I visualized every noon for 20 minutes before going to work. At some point, I started being aware of what it looked like. It was passive solar and had a deck in front of the massive windows. It was tall and I entered through the front door which opened from a small porch on the narrow side into a kitchen.

        On the 28th day, I knew that my new house was in the paper. I just knew. As I didn't read the local paper, I stopped to buy one on the way to work. When I got to work, I immediately turned to "houses for rent". It wasn't there. I re-read & reread. Nope. So I wondered if it was incorrectly placed & check apartments for rent. Not there either. Discouraged, I put the paper in the desk drawer, but immediately wondered if it was mistakenly placed in the rooms for rent section. I looked and there it was. A woman going to graduate school needed someone to live in her house, and take care of her cat. Rent? $200/mo - heated. Exactly as envisioned.

        I have manifested a sports car, a grand piano (full-grand, not baby). My current back yard, exciting travel. Too many to list because I practice. I've just listed some interesting ones.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: How does this relate to quantum physics. Well, the explanation is controversial and far from commonly accepted, but given that we have recently learned that time is provably not what it was thought to be, and that we know that reality must be seen through the lens of probabilities, it is a rational way to look at a multi-dimensional reality that quantum mechanics is close to declaring as extant.

        There are a number of theoretical physicists who are working with other fields to explore "mind". Discoveries confirm much that I already accepted as belief.

        AS AN ASIDE: I found it curious that as I studied QM & related, I kept being silently reminded of the teachings of Jesus (as opposed to Christianity). I started reading the words of Jesus, excluding the rest, and in a flash, understood that he was talking about QM to a fearful people who were incapable of understanding how POWERFUL and PERFECT they are because of fundamental flaws in their culture.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: I am aware of superposition of quantum states. My point being, if you say the cat is dead OR alive; or you say that the cat is dead AND alive, what difference does it make for you as an observer? Either way you will not be able to make a statement about the cat until you open the box. I fail to see the practical implication of it.

          Regarding the photon in the double slit experiment you contradict yourself. You talk about the photon as if you can predict its motion without observing it - contrary to quantum physics.

          You're not manifesting things - you rented a house as people do every day. Your approach can be compared to prayer. We are predisposed to see patterns, and we remember the successes and not the failures. This is well documented.

          I believe it is not only false but also a dangerous message to send, that all we have to do is think about stuff and we'll get it. But should your theory be right, we can solve poverty by thinking about it.

          The only thing I believe you manifested is the correlation between Jesus and QM.

          Another implication of what you are suggesting is the lack of free will. If you can "manifest" things, then you interfere with someone else’s free will. In the same way your free will can be suspended in order to grant possessions to another person who is "manifesting" stuff.

          Let's just assume that you are right. Then this is probably the biggest discovery in human history. But instead of proposing a theory or conduct studies you use this to gain possessions?

          Your theory is far from accepted because it has nothing to do with science nor quantum physics. And there is nothing rational about what you are suggesting.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: There is a HUGE difference when one gets to the practical implications. If the cat is both dead AND alive, then alternative realities exist within the superpositioned observer. We, as humans can take advantage of that and, being entangled beings in our own right, choose from the array of probable realities that lie (physically) unseen before us.

        If the cat is either dead OR alive, no such opportunities exist and we are pretty powerless creatures consigned to a fixed Euclidean reality (that we know doesn't exist because we know that time is multi-dimensional). For creatures in such a world, fear is inexorable.

        Those who live in fear make irrational short-term decisions and in this way get themselves into trouble (because of an over-active amygdala). Understanding that you get to create your own reality takes away the fear and puts power back into your hands.

        I cannot interfere with anyone else's free will any more than they can interfere with mine. I am the creator of my reality. You are the creator of yours. Sheeple allow others to lead them into realities that don't necessarily serve them well.

        Dr. Daryl Bern (Cornell) recently published a paper that relates to this. He put volunteers in front of a computer that randomly chose words. They were then tested on the words. AFTER the test, the computer gave them certain words from their list to practice typing. Those who called themselves "risk takers" (those who see an array of probabilities) scored so much higher on the test than the others (fearful) that it was most improbable that they did not "time travel" for lack of a better phrase, find the word, and remember the word practiced after the test as they were taking the test before practice.

        This view is not dangerous. In fact, it's the opposite. You cannot be harmed w/o your consent. You can't bring harm to others without bringing harm to self. You cannot have what you would deny others. It gives "The Golden Rule" actual meaning.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: I am sorry, but this is unscientific nonsense.

          You abviously don't understand the experiment with Schroedinger's cat. Either way you only find out whether the cat is dead or alive when you open the box.

          But, your theory can be tested easily. We replace the cat with you. As you create your own reality and you can't be harmed without your consent, you should come out alive every time.

          Let me know how the experiment turns out.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: You said, "Let's just assume that you are right. Then this is probably the biggest discovery in human history. But instead of proposing a theory or conduct studies you use this to gain possessions?"

        How else cold I test my theory? And now that I have tested it, and found it to be workable and effective, I no longer focus on things. I've gotten rid of most of my "things". I focus on talking to others about WHAT a human is and how to develop their own power.

        This worldview is an ancient one and one that is being rediscovered. You would probably be surprised by the numbers of people who are ex-christian because they discovered that Jesus and Christianity have nothing in common but a name.

        To see one's perfection and power is to, metaphorically,live in the christ or in the kingdom of heaven. (Didn't Jesus assure us that those who hunger and search shall find that which they seek? Did he not say that the kingdom of heaven isn't outside of us, but within us, and when found will come a wise counselor? Did he not say that ALL that you ask for is given, if you have faith (that it will be) even as small as a mustard seed? Christianity has twisted Jesus' words so much that the message has become incomprehensible ramblings. Look at the changes from the KJV and forward. The changes are profound.

        I am not alone in the world with this worldview. There is a growing global movement. We find one another on-line. We speak of things that few understand, but we understand one another. The world is filling with deliberate manifestors.
      • thumb
        Jan 5 2013: You said, "You abviously don't understand the experiment with Schroedinger's cat",

        but you make it very clear that you have no understanding of it at all, so you are not in a position to judge

        I am not trying to make you angry, yet you are angry. How's that working for you?

        Bye.
        • thumb
          Jan 5 2013: Hi TED lover

          You have not made me angry - it is hard to convey tone in a debate.

          My main point is that we can actually experimentally verify your theory. If you take the place of the cat and come out alive every time. This is what you are claiming.

          Off course the experiment can be conducted with another mechanism that will not result in death.

          I do not understand why you are avoiding the one thing I write that could actually verify your theory. There is a guaranteed Noble prize if it works.

          Faisel
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: After doing a bit of research on quantum mysticism, I can't help noticing that it's either based on fraudulent research or unfounded speculation.

          It seems to be an adaptation of eastern mysticism into a western consumer based ideology.

          I find it dangerous because it is disguised as science, yet it completely ignores logic, rationality and the scientific method. And ultimately I believe it promotes a solipsistic world view.

          Do you realise that a lot of the publications on this matter have a disclaimer stating that it is for entertainment purposes only, as it can not be classified as science?

          If you truly believe in this, why don't you - or anyone else - conduct an experiment that can verify if the theory is valid? For instance you could play Solitaire on a computer and see if you can win every time. The way the cards are distributed is based on probabilities, which you claim to be able to manipulate.

          If you could present an experimental verification of your theory, it would convince me of its validity.

          If you aren't interested in this, I can only assume that you are not interested in the truth, but have a fanatic faith in a belief system, where you see facts as something you need to avoid to protect that very belief system. If that is the case, what is the difference between what you are claiming and people who still today claim that the earth is flat?

          In hope of a constructive dialogue, sincerely

          Faisel
      • thumb
        Jan 8 2013: Faisel,

        So you have reviewed what I have been studying and following for nearly 30 years, and you feel competent to declare science as mysticism and that it is based on fraudulent science?

        Faisel, you don't know what you are talking about. to the informed, your ignorance in this matter is profound.

        Your aggression is inappropriate here. I simply answered a question. Unless you are working with multiple screen names, it wasn't even your question. I have no desire to have a conversation with someone who doesn't recognize the research., studies, and experiments (some of which were given early on in this dialogue) and which has been accepted by ALL quantum physicists as legitimate science

        Please don't bother me any more on this subject. It is a waste of my time. You cannot hide your ignorance behind aggression or contempt - except for the benefit of others who are not sufficiently informed to know better. Those who are informed can see your aggression for what it is as clearly as I can. Please leave me alone.
        • thumb
          Jan 8 2013: Physics and especially quantum physics has been a great passion of mine since my early teens and I've studied it at University. In the last couple of years I've had a growing interest in the relation between our macroscopic world and quantum physics. So you make it hard not to view your argument ad hominem as nothing more than a diversion, because you can't answer the questions I ask.

          You say you have studies it for 30 years. If you come across evidence that your theory is untrue, would you accept it?

          I am trying to reach out to you and have a constructive dialogue about the subject. If you have perceived my last comment as being aggressive I sincerely apologise. However, you call my ignorance profound - another example of argument ad hominem, as you are unable to argue your case.

          If you by research mean the double slit experiment and Schroedinger's cat - I most certainly accept it. My point is that you misinterpret them completely without any rational arguments.

          If you by research mean you "materialisation of things" it does not in anyway qualify as science or legitimate research.

          Why in the world would I operate under different screen names? Again an unfounded claim and argument ad hominem. I could say that you write in this forum under a pseudonym, but it is completely irrelevant for the discussion.

          If you wish to terminate this debate, don't reply to this message. But let me make it clear that I have stated experiments that could determine whether your claims are true or not several times, but you keep dodging the subject.

          Since you are unwilling to verify your theory through experiments (the scientific method), I can come to no other conclusion that you are promoting a false belief.

          However, if you can verify it through experiments, I will accept your theory. And that is the difference between you and I - the scientific method and rationality.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2013: Can I prove that time is what I think it is (a prerequisite to what I suggest)? No.

        Twin Slit & Bell's Inequality lay out the framework of evidence that supports the idea. They don't PROVE it, any more than rock formations and ancient skeletal remains PROVE that evolution is true. Evolution is a theory based on evidence. So is my assertion.

        As to being able to manifest intended consequnces, the evidence comes from various sources.

        the fist venture into this area involved tests with basketball free-throws. Volunteers were divided into 3 groups. 1st, all were tested for free throw ability, then split into 3 groups. 1st group practiced every day. 2nd group visualized making baskets every day. 3rd group was told to avoid basketball courts. At the end of 21 days, the 2nd group improves its ability equal to or greater than the first group. These experiments (repeated many times) are the reason why all professional/olympic athletes include visualization (a key component of manifestation) as part of preparation.

        More recent experiment: Students placed in front of computer monitors. Given 30 words. They were then tested on how many words they remembered. The computer then selected random words for them to practice typing. Those students who called themselves "risk takers" remembered words practiced AFTER the test in a degree that was most improbable. This makes sense because those who consider themselves risk-takers are able to see more probabilities than the fearful, and can choose from among them. Dr Bern suggest that they are able to travel into the future, learn from it, and apply it to a moment of now. (=different future)

        Dr Bern's paper (published last year) is completely harmonious with the new definition of time that Twiin Slit, Bell's Inequality, & Schroedinger's Theorem suggest.

        Physicists R actively working w/ researchers in other fields to study "mind" because of their discoveries about the nature of time & our relationship to it
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi,

          The experiments show no evidence whatsoever of your claims of being able to manipulate probabilities through consciousness.

          The basketball experiment is very easily understood if you apply a bit of knowledge of how the brain works. What the experiment shows is that practising mentally under certain circumstances can be just as good or even better than the physical part of it. There is nothing shocking about it and absolutely no evidence of people being able to manipulate probabilities.The only thing the students in experiments manipulate is their own minds.

          I don't know who Dr. Bern is, but anyone who would explain a certain statistical pattern in a memory test with time travelling is not a man of science. It is a memory test! A “risk-taker” remembering differently is being interpreted as if he or she is travelling into the future. If you have a link to the study, I would be very interested in reading the foundation for Dr. Bern's claims.

          If you see these experiments as evidence for your theory, it is because you want to see it. You have already accepted the theory and now you interpret everything through that lens - even the bible.

          In order to verify your claims one needs to set up an experiment where the subject has to manipulate a system with the mind alone, which is what you claim to be able to do. This is why I don't understand why you or any of your peers haven't conducted such an experiment. It would be irrefutable evidence. Why are you not providing it?

          Do you know that there is a prize of one million dollars from the James Randi Educational Foundation if anyone produced such evidence.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2013: Faisel, while I await response from a distinguished scientist (of the Stanford/MIT/Harvard/Berkeley level) specializing in quantum mechanics, could you give me your opinion as a physics-educated person on whether the linked article might clarify the confusion between the points of view being put forward here?

        http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/views/qm-cr.htm
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi Fritzie

          Thanks for the link. I haven't finished reading it yet, but the first sentence sums it up quite well:

          "Since 1975, enthusiastic adcovates of "mystical physics" have claimed that the New Physics (especially Quantum Physics) lends scientific support to a pantheistic worldview of New Age beliefs about "creating your own reality." (*) But these claims, which are not scientifically justifiable, are based on nonscientific interpretations leading to implausible metaphysical speculations that are rejected by most scientists."
      • thumb
        Jan 10 2013: Faisel, I will be interested in your thoughts on the arguments when you have time to read further.

        I am totally fine with whatever religious or metaphysical beliefs people have, but I think its important not to pretend there is a SCIENTIFIC basis for prefering one over the other, when there simply is not.

        I believe those who promote pseudoscientific arguments absolutely do not mean to mislead but believe them to be true and can spend years seeking only confirmation of their biases. This is why critical analysis and open-mindedness are vital in education and in life.
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Hi Fritzie

          How refreshing to read a scientist interpreting quantum physics without the over-dramatisation! It is a rarity these days.

          Overall I agree with Dr. Rusbult's interpretation of quantum physics, however, when it comes to the implications of the science, I do think there is a little room for interpretation, but it is rather about the limitations of consciousness and our definition of reality. It is a semantic/philosophical discussion that has no implications in our every day life.

          I completely agree that it is a matter of misuse of the word science. It is a subject that has caught my interest lately. I don't know if you've heard of the “Simulation Argument”. It is an argument stated 10 years ago by an Oxford professor and basically it says that we most likely live in a computer simulation. It has gained increasing popularity and researchers at universities in Bonn and Washington are conducting research to find evidence for it. It might sound insane but the argument hasn't been refuted yet.

          I have (almost) finished writing a counter argument that refutes the theory. The simulation argument is often presented alongside multiverse theory and string theory, but I have mathematical proof that they are conflicting and mutually exclusive.

          I feel all this is important, because I believe that logic, rationality and the scientific method are invaluable tools in the face of our current and future challenges. And I am amazed at how little we value these tools.

          Faisel
      • thumb
        Jan 10 2013: Then go to my answer on this question and read about some more. http://www.ted.com/conversations/15812/what_research_has_been_done_to.html. I can't list them all in 2k characters or less, nor am I able to educate one who is unwilling to be educated. You are perfectly able to pull out the data yourself.
        • thumb
          Jan 10 2013: Let's summarise:

          We both accept the experiment of Schroedinger's cat. You claim to be able to manipulate the outcome of the experiment with your mind.

          All you have to do is conduct an experiment to verify this. I have asked yoy five times, why you do not do this, but you refuse to answer.

          Please refrain from calling me "unwilling to be educated" just because I ask critical questions. I find it deeply offensive, especially when all your claims are easy refutable.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.