Does Our Brain/Environment Create God?

[InnerSpace]

Below you will find links to "God On The Brain", a professionally produced and very informative video documentary that may explain the origin of religious belief. The fascinating studies and interviews presented in this documentary are not an attempt to disprove the existence of God, but rather to show that God experiences appear to be transient, emotionally loaded phenomenon associated with the temporal lobes of the brain, coupled with cultural, verbal and pictorial conditionings. Numerous studies seem to indicate that TL sensitivities may be induced by any number of factors such as exposure to geomagnetic and/or electromagnetic energy fields, intense meditation/prayer, isolation/solitude, fasting, kundalini & yoga practice, high fevers, oxygen deprivation to the brain, stress, trauma, pregnancy complications, menopause, head injuries, drug/alcohol abuse, neurotechnology, etc. It is 50 minutes in length, broken down into five 10 minutes segments. Thank you for taking the time to watch.

My religious/spiritual experiences (visions of God and demons) were actually hallucinations. Recently, I was diagnosed with a mild form of TLE (abnormal electrical activity in the temporal lobes). Edited to add: Scaring (sclerosis) was found in one of my temporal lobes initially due to oxygen deprivation to my brain during my mothers prolonged childbirth labor, and then exacerbated by high fevers brought on by ear infections during childhood. This would explain why I was once very religious and sometimes wrote and read excessively!

"God On The Brain" Part 1

Also, if you look at the Middle East (the hub of 3 major religions), there is a lot of seismic activity in that region. Is it possible that these historical men and women who experienced and recorded visions of god and revelation, were actually experiencing some form of Temporal Lobe phenomena brought on by neurological, physical and/or environmental factors. I find it interesting that another symptom of this phenomena can cause people to become compulsive writers. It's called hypergraphia.

"God On The Brain" Part 2

What I'm beginning to see is a pattern that seems to indicate that we are very much affected by energy fields and the frequencies they emit.

The brains uses magnetic signals. The earth produces geomagnetic signals. When the two are in phase, the earth enables an hallucination of whatever function that signal would ordinarily be matched with.

"God On The Brain" Part 3

I use to lived close to fault-line in California. After moving from CA, the "demonic" hallucinations stopped.

I used to have these experiences on a daily basis. I lived in an area of my town that was directly on a fault line. These experiences were the most terrible events that I have ever experienced and at that time I just KNEW they were from God. When I moved out of the little town a couple years ago they immediately ceased...no more "demons".

Kindly, Hairston

Parts 3 and 4 show an example of how eletromagnetic energy from a simple electric alarm clock can cause one to experience "demons". Once the clock was removed, the phenomena discontinued. Electromagnetic and geomagnetic fields in our environment have been shown to profoundly affect the brain if conditions are right.

"God On The Brain" Part 4

I feel a bit left out. I always have a sense of indifference. I have never been able to feel anything religious/spiritual, only indifference.

I've been to places where I could see the natural beauty of the place...but not felt anything.I think it's just a case of different things affecting different people differently.

have never had a 'spiritual experience' either.

Why is it that some people never seem to have "religious/spiritual type experiences? The question may be explained in the second half of part 4.

<snip>...our beliefs can help us to cope with life and death anxiety...

"God On The Brain" Part 5

Edited for modifications/typos

Edited March 16, 2008 by Inner Space

[InnerSpace]

This thread is fantastic, I don't have anything to add to it really . just thought i'd say how great it is and that i've learnt a lot from reading it .very thought provoking .

Some unbelievably great posts on here!!! Everyone should take a bow...especially IS!!!

SS & Leo...I really appreciate you both taking the time to read through this thread, and thank you so much for your kind comments.

"The most interesting part of this is getting into the hardwiring of morality and free will," Swerdlow said. "It raises the question, how free is free will?"

Brought the above post forward again because of something i recalled reading a while back, a documented article about how the German general populace POWs included back in the 30s & 40s were intentionally swindled into drinking through the water supply with 'higher than average levels' of fluoride & calcium which was & is known to effect part of the brain that distorts & or damages free thinking (a 'dumbing down' think it was coined?) with of course other unhealthy implications caused to the human body that is scientifically now known today.

Thanks REBEL for bringing that to our awareness. Most interesting!

I feel there are serious questions we need to ask ourselves though, given the information we now have available to us regarding our natures and how this is defined by our experiences and our physiologies.

Reading the last few posts has made me wonder...what is Good and Evil???

Of course, there is still room for god despite this - but would that god be the divinity described in any religion today?

My points, exactly

If that's the case, how did a mindless, soulless, ultra-materialist, blind watchmaker evolution ever manage to create such a wide-spread belief in the existence of such a "non-existent" thing as God?

OTR, thank you for your comments. I do want to reiterate that I'm not questioning the existence of God, just our interpretation of God.

Great point Leo, i have read that frontal lobe damage and early childhood especially if it is abusive or teachings that teach one is evil and beyond hope or extreme repression around ones sexual essence are factors that have a huge impact on later dysfunctions...I look forward to IS's work on this....

Sheri, I'll touch on this subject a bit later. There are some fascinating studies on what happens in the brain with regard to sex drive and intense religious dedication. It's quite eye opening, to say the least.

if i may also add V~ that creating childhood environments that are loving and encouraging and free of violence and punishment/reward systems or fear based systems of guiding ( this isn't inferring no age appropriate limits) is one of the best steps as a humanity we can take for preventing future psychopaths....

Yes I agree, although with regard to reward systems, living creatures, from yeast to humans are reward driven, i.e., dopamine, which I addressed earlier. I think with the new discoveries in neurology, we will have a much better understanding on how important a loving and nurturing environment is for both children and adults, as it has a profound effect on behavioral hardwiring, especially in children.

A child's experiences, good or bad, influence the wiring of his brain and the connection in his nervous system. Loving interactions with caring adults strongly stimulate a child's brain, causing synapses to grow and existing connections to get stronger. Connections that are used become permanent. If a child receives little stimulation early on, the synapses will not develop, and the brain will make fewer connections." Source

However, environmental influences, i.e., love and nurture, do not always prevent someone from becoming a psychopath, if for example, the psychopath's actions were caused from brain damage or tumors, or any other factors he/she had no control over. No loving God would send a person to "hell", no matter what their actions/behavior, knowing the true cause of said behavior.

The God gene

Composed of three sub-sets, self-transcendence is composed of "self-forgetfulness" (as in the tendency to become totally absorbed in some activity, such as reading); "transpersonal identification" (a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe); and "mysticism" (an openness to believe things not literally provable, such as ESP). Put them all together, and you come as close as science can to measuring what it feels like to be spiritual. This allows us to have the kind of experience described as religious ecstasy.

Excellent articles Ripley. Thanks for posting them.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Inner Space

[seanph]

Great post IS! Numerous clinical studies have shown that it is quite easy to reproduce religious and paranormal experiences by stimulating particular areas of the brain. Even hypnosis has been shown to be effective in creating ecstatic events--hearing disembodied voices, seeing deities/angels/demons, and even stigmata representative of Jesus' supposed wounds suffered before and during his crucifixion. Most remarkable. In fact, many scientists believe that we have been biological "hardwired" by millions of years of evolution to believe in deities ect. And that only makes sense. From the moment we dropped from the trees and began to reason, we were asking questions and in awe of nature--sun, rain, fire, wind, life, death so forth and so on. What could cause such things? And so the gods were created and evolved as we did.

Most kindly,

Sean

[greggK]

First, I want to know about he 'frontal lobes' of the brain. It is clear that in a child, the level of connective neuronal pathways are very limited because of experience and if one lobe is damaged, the mirror side develops the sense.

There's the case of Pineas Gage that happened in September 1848 where a rod that was used for packing gunpowder into a rock was propelled throught the skull of Mr. Gage under his left cheek and up through his skull posssibly destroying one or both of the frontal lobes and he lived for about 12 more years.

It is really an amazing thing.

Amazingly, Gage spoke within a few minutes, walked with little or no assistance, and sat upright in a cart for the 3/4-mile ride to town. Though physicians found him weak from hemorrhage, he had a regular pulse of about 60 and was alert and coherent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage

At least in Mr. Gage's case, the frontal lobes have nothing to do with the existence of the individual.

The frontal lobes have been found to play a part in impulse control, judgment, language production, working memory, motor function, sexual behavior, socialization, problem solving initiation, facial movement, planning abilities, coordinating, and motivation. The frontal lobes assist in planning, coordinating, controlling, and executing behavior. People who have damaged frontal lobes may experience problems with these aspects of cognitive function, being at times impulsive; impaired in their ability to plan and execute complex sequences of actions; perhaps persisting with one course of action or pattern of behavior when a change would be appropriate (perseveration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe

I have had damage to the left hemisphere of the brain around the ear and more recently a direct hit in the middle of the forehead. What happened with the first was I was in a comatose state for about 1 month and a light coma for 4 to 5 more months. That was 30 years ago so I have no problem with my memory, but after the recent hit to the head, I have the problem with the last sentence up there, preservation.

Speaking on preservation, you know they preserved Albert Einstein's brain for study and they found part of the brain missing and another part 15% larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

The part of his brain that was missing is the same part of my brain that was injured. The part of Einstein's brain that is larger had to do with his ability to do super-mathmatics; he had a wider brain. He had no division between the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes of his brain which may explain the speech of Einstein, but also there was no 'parietal operculum' in either side of his brain. Was Einstein a different species of human?

If our brains create god, Albert Einstein wrote, figured, and destroyed god.

If our environment creates god, Albert Einstein used his environment and along with the missing parts of the environment of his brain to invent ways to destroy god.

So, in that sense, neither our brain nor our environment create god, but with either we can destroy god. So what is god?

Man's god is nature.

[+Sherapy]

Great point on the frontal lobe damage... very very imperative point..thanks for reminding me.... alfie cohn's book unconditonal parenting http://www.alfiekohn.org/index.html .. I also have a study that was posted in our charter addressing this highly debated idea rewards style parenting and teaching.........I'd be interested in your pov onthis ...

I will look at the videos in a bit..thanks for putting them up...

Edited March 17, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[OldTimeRadio]

OTR, thank you for your comments. I do want to reiterate that I'm not questioning the existence of God, just our interpretation of God.

I have no problems with that. I often enough question the existence of God and I'm a Believer!

[greggK]

I have no problems with that. I often enough question the existence of God and I'm a Believer!

It has been presented positively to me by viewing the environmental activities . . . wait, I'm watching these videos now that IS put up there and I have to say they are convincing . . . but, it has been shown positively to me that there is a controller of your future, your father. I believe that your mother's genes control the body and your father's genes control the mind. It is written in the bible something like not blaming your father for your sins. I would say your father gives you the blueprint and you build the structure. Your mother however, gives you the disposition. Just my opinion.

Edited March 19, 2008 by greggK

[MUM24/7]

I can't believe I missed this post......V, , once again you demonstrate your inner strength and resilience by taking an unfortunate tragedy occuring in your life (your husband's accident and subsequent passing) and turning into a reason for personal growth and enlightenment....

Our life experiences are what mould us and now I have even more of an insight into the wonderful and giving person that you are my friend....

What you've presented in this thread is fascinating to say the least and like others have stated, I also have never experienced anything remotely spiritual BUT my hubby actually did when he was studying for his final exams in high school......He was under a lot of stress obviously at the time and he remembers seeing a figure resembling Jesus appear in his room, although at the time he thought it was the devil.....

He's not particularly religious but I find him to be more tense and emotional than me (I'm more laid-back and calm) so could this be another reason for the sighting ? I don't know......

Love ya,

xxooxxooxxoo

[InnerSpace]

I can't believe I missed this post......V, , once again you demonstrate your inner strength and resilience by taking an unfortunate tragedy occuring in your life (your husband's accident and subsequent passing) and turning into a reason for personal growth and enlightenment....

Our life experiences are what mould us and now I have even more of an insight into the wonderful and giving person that you are my friend.... <snip>

Love ya,

xxooxxooxxoo

Mum, your post has profoundly moved me.

I am at a loss for words right now. I've PM'd you a song.

xoxo xoxo

~V

[InnerSpace]

Questions from God?

I have a few questions...not rhetorical questions aimed at teaching spiritual lessons, but some real, honest-to-God inquiries. This should not shock you because, after all, I created you in my image., right? Your inquisitiveness is an inheritance from me. You would say that love, for example, is a reflection of my nature within yourself, wouldn't you? Since questioning is healthy, it also comes from me. Somebody once said that we should prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. So, my 1st question is this:

Where did I come from?

I find myself sitting up here in heaven, and I look around and notice that there is nothing else besides myself and the objects that I have created. I don't see any other creatures competing with me, nor do I notice anything above myself that might have created me, unless it is playing hide-and-seek. In any event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything), there is nothing else but me and my creations. I have always existed, you say. I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than myself. So where did I come from?

I know how you approach that question regarding your own existence. You notice that nature, especially the human mind, displays evidence of intricate design. You have never observed such design apart from a designer. You argue that human beings must have had a creator, and you will find no disagreement from me.

Then, what about me? Like you, I observe that my mind is complex and intricate. It is much more complex than your mind, otherwise I couldn't have created your mind. My personality displays evidence of organization and purpose. If you think your existence is evidence of a designer, then what do you think about my existence? Am I not wonderful? Do I not function in an orderly manner? My mind is not a random jumble of disconnected thoughts; it displays what you would call evidence of design. If you need a designer, then why don't I?

You might think such a question is blasphemy, but to me there is no such crime. I can ask any question I want, and I think this is a fair one. If you say that everything needs a designer and then say that not everything (Me) needs a designer, aren't you contradicting yourself? By excluding me from the argument, aren't you bringing your conclusion into your argument? Isn't that circular reasoning? I am not saying I disagree with your conclusion; how could I? I'm just wondering why it is proper for you to infer a designer while it is not proper for me.

If you are saying that I don't need to ask where I came from because I am perfect and omniscient while humans are fallible, then you don't need the design argument at all, do you? You think it is important that I have always existed. I'll take your word for it, for now. My question is not with the duration of my existence, but with the origin of my existence. I don't see how being eternal solves the problem. I still want to know where I came from. I can only imagine one possible answer. I know that I exist. I know that I could not have created myself. I also know that there is no higher God who could have created me. Since I can't look above myself, then perhaps I should look below myself for a creator. Perhaps this is speculative, so bear with me. Perhaps you created me!!

Don't be shocked. I mean to flatter you. Since I contain evidence of design, and since I see no other place where such design could originate, I am forced to look for a designer, or designers, in nature itself. You are a part of nature. You are intelligent! Why should I not find the answer to my question in you? Of course, if you made me, then I could not have made you, I think. The reason that I think I made you is because you made me to think I made you. You have often said that a Creator can put thoughts in your mind. Isn't it possible that you have put thoughts in my mind, and now here we are, both of us, wondering where we each came from?

Some of you have said that the answer to this whole question is just a mystery that only God understands. On the one hand you use logic to try to prove my existence, but on the other hand, when logic hits a dead end, you abandon it and invoke "faith" and "mystery." Those words might be useful to you as place-holders for facts or truth, but they don't translate to anything meaningful as far as I am concerned. You can pretend that "mystery" signifies something terribly important, but to me it simply means you don't know.

Some of you assert that I did not "come" from anywhere. I just exist. However, I have also heard you say that nothing comes from nothing. You can't have it both ways. I either exist or I don't. What was it that caused me to exist, as opposed to not existing at all? If I don't need a cause, then why do you? Since I am not happy to say that this is a mystery, I must accept the only explanation that makes sense. You created me. Is that such a terrible idea? I know that you think many other gods were created by humans: Zeus, Thor, Mercury, Elvis. You recognize that such deities originate in human desire, need, or fear. If the blessed beliefs of those billions of individuals can be dismissed as products of culture, then why can't yours?

My second question is this:

What's it all about? Maybe I made myself, maybe some other god made me, maybe you made me, but let's put that aside for now. I'm here now. Why am I here? Many of you look up to me for purpose in life, and I have often stated that your purpose in life is to please me.

If your purpose is to please me, what is my purpose? <---- To please myself? Is that all there is to life? <----

If I exist for my own pleasure, then this seems very selfish. <----It makes it look as if I created you merely to have some living toys to play with.<---- Isn't there some principle that I can look up to? Something to admire, adore, and worship? Am I consigned for eternity to sit here and amuse myself with the worship of others? Or to worship myself? What's the point? <----

I have read your writings on the meaning of life, and don't misunderstand me, they make sense in the theological context of human religious goals, even if they don't have much practicality in the real world. Many of you feel that your purpose in life is to achieve perfection. Since you humans fall way short of perfection, by your own admission (and I agree), then self improvement provides you with a quest. It gives you something to do. Someday you hope to be as perfect as you think I am. But since I am already perfect, by definition, then I don't need such a purpose. I'm just sort of hanging out, I guess.

Yet I still wonder why I'm here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds of natural laws that govern everything from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own. I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules, and a trillion other boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together, and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing in the universe for me to do. It's boring up here.

I could create more universes and more laws, but what's the point? I've already done universes. Creation is like sneezing or writing short stories; it just comes out of me. I could go on an orgy of creation. Create, create, create. After a while a person can get sick of the same thing, like when you eat a whole box of chocolates and discover that the last piece doesn't taste as good as the first. Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must compel myself, then I am a slave.

Many of you assert that it is inappropriate to seek purpose within yourself, that it must come from outside.<---- I feel the same way. I can't merely assign purpose to myself. If I did, then I would have to look for my reasons. I would have to come up with an account of why I chose one purpose over another, and if such reasons came from within myself I would be caught in a loop of self-justified rationalizations. Since I have no Higher Power of my own, then I have no purpose. Nothing to live for. It all seems meaningless.

Sure, I can bestow meaning on you...pleasing me,<---- achieving perfection,<---- whatever--and perhaps that is all that concerns you; but doesn't it bother you, just a little, that the source of meaning for your life has no source of its own? And if this is true, then isn't it also true that ultimately you have no meaning for yourself either? If it makes you happy to demand an external reference point on which to hang your meaningfulness, why would you deny the same to me? I also want to be happy, and I want to find that happiness in something other than myself. Is that a sin? On the other hand, if you think I have the right and the freedom to find happiness in myself and in the things I created, then why should you not have the same right? You, whom I created in my image?

I know that some of you have proposed a solution to this problem. You call it "love." You think I am lonely up here, and that I created humans to satisfy my longing for a relationship with something that is not myself. Of course, this will never work because it is impossible for me to create something that is not part of myself, but let's say that I try anyway. Let's say that I create this mechanism called "free will," which imparts to humans a choice. If I give you the freedom (though this is stretching the word because there is nothing outside of my power) not to love me, then if some of you, a few of you, even one of you chooses to love me, I have gained something I might not have had. I have gained a relationship with someone who could have chosen otherwise. This is called love?

This is a great idea, on paper. In real life, however, it turns out that millions, perhaps billions of people have chosen not to love me, and that I have to do something with these infidels. I can't just un-create them. If I simply destroy all the unbelievers, I may as well have created only believers in the first place. Since I am omniscient, I would know in advance which of my creations would have a tendency to choose me, and this would produce no conflict with free will since those who would not have chosen me would have been eliminated simply by not having been created in the first place. (I could call it Supernatural Selection.) This seems much more compassionate than hell.

If I can't respect your right to exist independently, and your right to choose something other than me, then I couldn't love those of you who do choose me. I would have to find a place for all those millions upon millions of eternal souls who reject me, whatever their reasons might be. Let's call it "hell," a place that is not-God, not-me. I would have to create this inferno (separation from me), otherwise neither I nor the unbelievers could escape each other. Let's ignore the technicalities of how I could manage to create hell, and then separate it from myself, apart from whom nothing else exists. (It's not as though I could create something and then simply throw it away...there is no cosmic trash heap.) The point is that since I am supposedly perfect, this place of exile must be something that is the opposite. It must be ultimate evil, pain, darkness, and torment.

Cont....next post.

Source: "Losing Faith in Faith" ~Dan Barker


Edited to divide article into 2 post, due to length. Edited March 19, 2008 by Inner Space

[InnerSpace]

Questions From God?...cont.

If I created hell, then I don't like myself.

If I did create a hell, then it certainly would not be smart to advertise that fact. How would I know if people were claiming to love me for my own sake, or simply to avoid punishment? How can I expect someone to love me who is afraid of me in the first place? The threat of eternal torment might scare some people into obedience, but it does nothing to inspire love. If you treated me with threats and intimidations, I would have to reconsider my admiration for your character. How would you feel if you had brought some children into the world knowing that they were going to be tormented eternally in a place you built for them? Could you live with yourself?<---- Wouldn't it have been better not to have brought them into the world in the first place? I know that some of you feel that hell is just a metaphor. Do you feel the same way about heaven?

Anyway, this whole love argument is wrong. Since I am perfect, I don't lack anything. I can't be lonely. I don't need to be loved. I don't even want to be loved because as God, to want is to lack. To submit to the potential of giving and receiving love is to admit that I can be hurt by those who choose not to love me. If you can hurt me, I am not perfect. If I can't be hurt, I can't love. If I ignore or erase those who do not love me, sending them off to hell or oblivion, then my love is not sincere. If all I am doing is throwing the dice of "free will" and simply reaping the harvest of those who choose to love me, then I am a selfish monster.

If you played such games with people's lives, I would call you insensitive, conceited, insecure, selfish and manipulative.

I know you have tried to get me off the hook. You explain that Yours Truly is not responsible for the sufferings of unbelievers because rejection of God is their choice, not mine. They had a corrupt human nature, you explain. Well, who gave them their human nature? If certain humans decide to do wrong, where do they get the impulse?<---- If you think it came from Satan, who created Satan?<---- And why would some humans be susceptible to Satan in the first place? Who created that susceptibility?<---- If Satan was created perfect, and then fell, where did the flaw of perdition come from?

If I am perfect, then how in God's name did I end up creating something that would not choose perfection?<---- Someone once said that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit. Was Eve Perfect? If she was, she would not have taken the fruit. If she wasn't, I created imperfection. Maybe you think all of this gives me a purpose...putting Humpty Dumpty back together. If you are my creator, then I could spout tenderness out of one side of my mouth and brutality out of the other. I could dance with my lover on the bones of my errant children, and pretend to enjoy it. I would be very human indeed.

I have a many more questions, but I hope you will allow me one more:

How do I decide what is right and wrong? Let's just say that my purpose is to make good people out of my creations. Let's say that I am to help you learn how to be perfect like me, and that the best way is for you to act just like me, or like I want you to act. You goal is to become little mirrors of myself. Won't that be splendid? Is that how you want your children to be..."little mirrors of you"? This may or may not be meaningful, except to boost our egos, but it will at least keep us both busy. I suppose that from your point of view this would be terribly meaningful, since you think I have the power to reward and punish.

Another point...it is entirely incomprehensible to me why you think I would accept the blood of one individual for the crime of another. Is that fair? Is that justice? Is that love? If you commit a felony, does the law allow your brother to serve the jail sentence for you? Do you really think that I am such a bloodthirsty dictator that I will be content with the death of anyone for the crime of another? And are you so disrespectful of justice that you would happily accept a stand-in for your crimes? What about personal responsibility? It is tough to open my arms to welcome believers into heaven who have avoided the rap for their own actions. Something is way out of kilter here.

Some of you say that since I am perfect, I can't make any mistakes. Whatever I choose to be right or wrong will be in accordance with my nature, and since I am perfect, then my choices will be perfect. In any event, my choices will certainly be better than your choices, you feel. But what does "perfect" mean? If my nature is "perfect" (whatever it means), then I am living up to a standard. If I am living up to a standard, then I am not God. If perfection means something all by itself, apart from me, then I am constrained to follow its path. If, on the other hand, perfection is defined simply as conformity to my nature, then it doesn't mean anything. My nature can be what it wants, and perfection will be defined accordingly. Do you see the problem here? If "perfection" equals "God," then it is just a synonym for myself, and we can do away with the word. We could do away with either word, take your pick.

If I am perfect, then there are certain things that I cannot do. If I am not free to feel envy, lust, or malice, for example, then I am not omnipotent. It would appear that I cannot be more powerful than you if you can feel and do things that I cannot. Additionally, if you feel that God is perfect, by nature, what does "nature" mean? The word is used to describe the way things are or act in nature, and since you think I am above nature, you must mean something else, something like "character," or "attributes." To have a nature or character means to be one way and not another. It means that there are limits. Why am I one way and not another? How did it get decided that my nature would be what it is? If my "nature" is clearly defined, then I am limited. I am not God. If my nature has no limits, as some of you suggest, then I have no nature at all, and to say that God has such-and-such a nature is meaningless. In fact, if I have no limits, then I have no identity; and if I have no identity, then I do not exist.

Who am I?

This brings me back to the conundrum: if I don't know who I am, then how can I decide what is right? If morality is discovered in nature, then you don't need me, except maybe to prod you along. I saw to it that you have capable minds with the ability to reason and do science and nature. There is nothing mysterious about studying how humans interact with nature and with each other, and you should be able to come up with your own set of rules, to ensure survival of the species. Some of you tried this for millennia. Even if your rules contradict mine, I couldn't claim any higher authority than you. At least you would be able to give reasons for your rules, which I can only do by submitting to science myself.

If morality is defined by how human beings exist in nature, then you don't need me at all. I am off the hook! From what I have read, many of you have your feet firmly planted on the ground with no help from me. I could hand down some stone tablets containing what I think is right and wrong, but it would still be up to you to see if they work in the real world. I think we all agree that grounded reason is better than the whim of an ungrounded deity.

Does it help you to believe that morality, love, compassion & goodness are only found outside of yourselves.<----?

Could it be that perhaps you created (perception/interpretation) "Me" in "Your" own image??? Just a thought to ponder.

Source: "Losing Faith in Faith" ~Dan Barker

Edited March 19, 2008 by Inner Space

[Bella-Angelique]

God is Logical. God is pure Logic.

I think mature people who do not think rhetorically and think using facts can easily figure this out.

[InnerSpace]

I have had damage to the left hemisphere of the brain around the ear and more recently a direct hit in the middle of the forehead. What happened with the first was I was in a comatose state for about 1 month and a light coma for 4 to 5 more months. That was 30 years ago so I have no problem with my memory, but after the recent hit to the head, I have the problem with the last sentence up there, preservation.

Hi Gregg. We've chatted many times via PM, but I had no idea that you have incurred a recent head trama. I am very sorry to hear that.

Speaking on preservation, you know they preserved Albert Einstein's brain for study and they found part of the brain missing and another part 15% larger.

The part of his brain that was missing is the same part of my brain that was injured. The part of Einstein's brain that is larger had to do with his ability to do super-mathmatics; he had a wider brain. He had no division between the frontal lobes and the parietal lobes of his brain which may explain the speech of Einstein, but also there was no 'parietal operculum' in either side of his brain. Was Einstein a different species of human?

Thanks for sharing that info. I thought you might find this interesting:

"The human brain is not one organ as neuroscientists led us to believe, but it is rather a whole system that consists of several organs or "microbrains", according to our latest "Brain Theory". The established conception of neuroscience: "There are several pathways that serve similar functions. This concept is called "redundanc" and is found throughout the nervous system". The new brain theory views the human brain as a "highly organized system", similar to respiratory and digestive systems, that consists of 33 microbrains. There is no such thing as 'redundancy' in the brain. Each microbrain has irregular shape that resembles "Octopus" and has its own independent function, capacity and even its own memory. For example, there are vision microbrain, hearing and balance microbrain, smell and taste microbrain, etc. Also, there is microbrains that are responsible for specific ability such as: mathematical, language, imagination, logical, musical, etc. Some of these microbrains are located predominantly in the right hemisphere; others in the left hemisphere, but all of them extend their arms to the counterpart hemisphere. The main function of the whole brain is organization and integration between these microbrains.

By studying the work and life of so called "genius people" such as Einstein, Jan Jack Russo, Michael Angelo or Mozart, we can easily find that each of them was able and may be succeeded in using 100% of only one of these microbrains. Einstein himself was able to use the full capacity of one of his microbrains, the mathematical microbrain. Michael Angelo used the full capacity of the imagination (artistic) microbrain. Jan Jack Russo used the full capacity of his argument (philosophical) microbrain. Mozart used the full capacity of his musical microbrain. This means that so called "genius people" properly used less than 4 % of their whole brains capacities. Please, don't envy those "genius people". They were able to use 100% of one of their microbrains only because all of them suffered from one or more brain conditions (i.e. Mozart had Epilepsy and Michael Angelo had Schizophrenia, and so on). These brain pathologies continuously stimulated the one microbrain that they were able to use fully, but at the same time irritated their whole brain."

Source

Edited to fix quotations marks

Edited March 19, 2008 by Inner Space

[+Sherapy]

Hi Gregg. We've chatted many times via PM, but I had no idea that you have incurred a recent head trama. I am very sorry to hear that.

Thanks for sharing that info. I thought you might find this interesting:

"The human brain is not one organ as neuroscientists led us to believe, but it is rather a whole system that consists of several organs or "microbrains", according to our latest "Brain Theory". The established conception of neuroscience: "There are several pathways that serve similar functions. This concept is called "redundanc" and is found throughout the nervous system". The new brain theory views the human brain as a "highly organized system", similar to respiratory and digestive systems, that consists of 33 microbrains. There is no such thing as 'redundancy' in the brain. Each microbrain has irregular shape that resembles "Octopus" and has its own independent function, capacity and even its own memory. For example, there are vision microbrain, hearing and balance microbrain, smell and taste microbrain, etc. Also, there is microbrains that are responsible for specific ability such as: mathematical, language, imagination, logical, musical, etc. Some of these microbrains are located predominantly in the right hemisphere; others in the left hemisphere, but all of them extend their arms to the counterpart hemisphere. The main function of the whole brain is organization and integration between these microbrains.

By studying the work and life of so called "genius people" such as Einstein, Jan Jack Russo, Michael Angelo or Mozart, we can easily find that each of them was able and may be succeeded in using 100% of only one of these microbrains. Einstein himself was able to use the full capacity of one of his microbrains, the mathematical microbrain. Michael Angelo used the full capacity of the imagination (artistic) microbrain. Jan Jack Russo used the full capacity of his argument (philosophical) microbrain. Mozart used the full capacity of his musical microbrain. This means that so called "genius people" properly used less than 4 % of their whole brains capacities. Please, don't envy those "genius people". They were able to use 100% of one of their microbrains only because all of them suffered from one or more brain conditions (i.e. Mozart had Epilepsy and Michael Angelo had Schizophrenia, and so on). These brain pathologies continuously stimulated the one microbrain that they were able to use fully, but at the same time irritated their whole brain."

Source

Edited to fix quotations marks

I did not know mozart had epilepsy and i took classical music and studied mozart amoungst amoungst a few other composers....I know he was sickly ....I may of missed it.. gee i learn something new every hour ..

wonderful wonderful data V`~I loove the brain stuf, I love sharing this data at my home school groups to help others..

thanks so much for your efforts and time towards this... (((HUGS)))

[greggK]

Hi Gregg. We've chatted many times via PM, but I had no idea that you have incurred a recent head trama. I am very sorry to hear that.

Thanks for sharing that info. I thought you might find this interesting:

"The human brain is not one organ as neuroscientists led us to believe, but it is rather a whole system that consists of several organs or "microbrains", according to our latest "Brain Theory". The established conception of neuroscience: "There are several pathways that serve similar functions. This concept is called "redundanc" and is found throughout the nervous system". The new brain theory views the human brain as a "highly organized system", similar to respiratory and digestive systems, that consists of 33 microbrains. There is no such thing as 'redundancy' in the brain. Each microbrain has irregular shape that resembles "Octopus" and has its own independent function, capacity and even its own memory. For example, there are vision microbrain, hearing and balance microbrain, smell and taste microbrain, etc. Also, there is microbrains that are responsible for specific ability such as: mathematical, language, imagination, logical, musical, etc. Some of these microbrains are located predominantly in the right hemisphere; others in the left hemisphere, but all of them extend their arms to the counterpart hemisphere. The main function of the whole brain is organization and integration between these microbrains.

By studying the work and life of so called "genius people" such as Einstein, Jan Jack Russo, Michael Angelo or Mozart, we can easily find that each of them was able and may be succeeded in using 100% of only one of these microbrains. Einstein himself was able to use the full capacity of one of his microbrains, the mathematical microbrain. Michael Angelo used the full capacity of the imagination (artistic) microbrain. Jan Jack Russo used the full capacity of his argument (philosophical) microbrain. Mozart used the full capacity of his musical microbrain. This means that so called "genius people" properly used less than 4 % of their whole brains capacities. Please, don't envy those "genius people". They were able to use 100% of one of their microbrains only because all of them suffered from one or more brain conditions (i.e. Mozart had Epilepsy and Michael Angelo had Schizophrenia, and so on). These brain pathologies continuously stimulated the one microbrain that they were able to use fully, but at the same time irritated their whole brain."

Source

Edited to fix quotations marks

Yes, Einstein had those parts missing from his brain and he had trouble speaking properly. There was no 'buffer' between his thought and his expression. Like communication between the environment and the expression, he had no warning system. Yes, I believe in the concept of 'microbrains,' but not to the extent of being as small as an organ. I believe you have at least 2 microbrains, the autonomic and the mental body. The autonomic system originates in the heart and the mental body is the brain.

The brain, which is you mental body, is composed of different memory banks of each organ. In other words, the groups of neurons in the grey matter of the brain make up the body of the 'octopus.' The white matter is the 'tentacles' of that octopus running down the spinal chord and to each separate organ, for example, iridology. The tentacles are myelinated axons with 10 million billion 'little Christmas-tree lights' called Nodes of Ranvier. But, these lights operate off of negative electricity and are ionic exchanges of electrons creating photons. I guess you have to go nano with it.

'Book 'em Nano,' as Steve McGarret would say on 'Hawaii-50.' Or is that Dano? Anyway . . .

Yeah, I had a little accident at work and really there is no physical evidence now, but it is mentally conforting to know that I don't have to rely on the physical anymore. I can concentrate more on the mental impulses now, which is the right-brain. With the left-brain, I believe, you at least navigate through the physical through the coordination of the hemispheres of the mental body.

When your pineal gland which is controlled by light secretes the hormone to produce melatonin when it gets dark, the mental body separates from the autonomic body and you can do things like dream. It is not a good thing to separate the two when you are awake, I wouldn't think, because that is more mental and during the awake time your mental body has a physical body to worry about and you have to have both together when you are awake. You sit down and have an Out-of body experience, you just don't know if that body has come back; it could be just your autonomic body.

In that way, I do not think that you can say that you create God by your environment, you express the God that is inside you according to what is available in the enviroment.

Wow, 33 microbrains.

Edited March 20, 2008 by greggK

[InnerSpace]

I did not know mozart had epilepsy and i took classical music and studied mozart amoungst amoungst a few other composers....I know he was sickly ....I may of missed it.. gee i learn something new every hour ..

Just an FYI... Other historical figures who also were known to have various forms of epilepsy were Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Joan of Arc,

Napoleon Bonaparte, Dante, Flaubert, Nicolo Paganini, Lord Tennyson, English poet Lord Byron, Charles Dickens, Fydor Dostoyevsky,

Peter Tchaikovsky, French Playwright Molière, Lewis Carroll, Edgar Allen Poe, Agatha Christie, Truman Capote, Sir Isaac Newton,

George Freidrich Handel, Heracles, Beethoven, Vincent Van Gogh, St. Paul, Soren Kierkegaard, Pope Pius IX, Hermann von Helmholtz,

Aristotle, Theodore Roosevelt, Alfred the Great, Charles V of Spain, French composer Hector Berlioz, Louis XIII of France,

Robert Schumann, Sir Walter Scott, Paul I of Russia, Martin Luther, James Madison, Alfred Nobel, Leonardo Da Vinci, Socrates, &

Hippocrates, who wrote "The Sacred Disease in 400 B.C.E.

It was called the sacred disease because people thought that epileptic seizures were a form of attack by demons, or that the visions experienced by persons with epilepsy were sent by the gods. Hippocrates remarked that epilepsy would cease to be considered divine the day it was understood.

Many famous people alive today also have some form of epilepsy, but don't talk about it publically because of the unfortunate stigma, ignorance, and myths behind this condition. At various times in history, people with epilepsy were shunned, locked up in mental institutions or prison, and even forbidden to marry or have children. They were also accused of being demon possessed, even to this day. About 50 million people worldwide have epilepsy at any one time. Source

Famous People/Source

Another Source

History of Epilepsy

wonderful wonderful data V`~I loove the brain stuff, I love sharing this data at my home school groups to help others..

thanks so much for your efforts and time towards this... (((HUGS)))

Thank you, Sheri, hugs right back at cha.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Inner Space

[John from Lowell]

This is truly an interesting discussion. I can thank Rebel for bringing it to my attention.

I tend to align my thinking with the experiences shared by Mr Walker. My experiences with the unseen are similar to his. As a result I tend to think that the unseen influences the physical more than the physical influences the unseen.

My concepts about energy are that they have states of awareness. The awareness influences the physical. The physical is a bi-product of that energy with its own state of awareness.

I realize this kind of discussion is like the chicken and egg concept. We all have our perceptions reguarding which came first or which is the principal underlying causal factor.

John

[Leonardo]

This is truly an interesting discussion. I can thank Rebel for bringing it to my attention.

I tend to align my thinking with the experiences shared by Mr Walker. My experiences with the unseen are similar to his. As a result I tend to think that the unseen influences the physical more than the physical influences the unseen.

My concepts about energy are that they have states of awareness. The awareness influences the physical. The physical is a bi-product of that energy with its own state of awareness.

I realize this kind of discussion is like the chicken and egg concept. We all have our perceptions reguarding which came first or which is the principal underlying causal factor.

John

It's an interesting comparison, John, but when the egg (Humanity) exists but the chicken (God) is nowhere to be found except in some undefinable, inexpressable and unprovable personal experience then we have to start questioning did the chicken really lay this particular egg?

[OldTimeRadio]

In the cases of St. Paul and St. Joan the identification with epilepsy seems to be mere speculation. If Joan's "divine" visions can be ascribed solely to a malfunction of her brain God can be entirely omitted from the equation. And the same thing with the bright light which knocked Paul off his horse.

[John from Lowell]

It's an interesting comparison, John, but when the egg (Humanity) exists but the chicken (God) is nowhere to be found except in some undefinable, inexpressable and unprovable personal experience then we have to start questioning did the chicken really lay this particular egg?

What if the power of the mind is even greater than the concepts presented in this thread.

As I read the material I can not help but think of a saying that goes something like "What you seek you will find". Could the mind actually create physical verification for just about any world view we are capable of constructing. That would be quite a powerful mind.

When you compare humanity where it is today to all the potentials we could consider for advanced ET civilazations, the question of which came first is easier to find I think.

I myself am not at all religious. In my view, religion has done more to stunt the groath of humanity tham almost any other factor. The populations of the world are trained Not to think. So I am very much in favor of the material in this thread.

I would suggest that there is a first cause but it is not at all what we have been led to believe it to be.

Edited March 20, 2008 by John A Spera

[OldTimeRadio]

In any event, as far as I know (and I supposedly know everything), there is nothing else but me and my creations. I have always existed, you say. I did not create myself, because if I did, then I would be greater than myself. So where did I come from?

If God is genuinely immortal questions as to "where did God come from" become entirely meaningless. According to standard Judaeo-Christian (at least) theology God simply IS. Or as God explained it to Moses, "I AM that I AM."

That we humans can't truly grasp the idea of eternity doesn't put limitation on God.

[InnerSpace]

Great post IS! Numerous clinical studies have shown that it is quite easy to reproduce religious and paranormal experiences by stimulating particular areas of the brain.

Most kindly, Sean

Thank you Sean, and to your comment!

What you've presented in this thread is fascinating to say the least and like others have stated, I also have never experienced anything remotely spiritual BUT my hubby actually did when he was studying for his final exams in high school......He was under a lot of stress obviously at the time and he remembers seeing a figure resembling Jesus appear in his room, although at the time he thought it was the devil.....

He's not particularly religious but I find him to be more tense and emotional than me (I'm more laid-back and calm) so could this be another reason for the sighting ? I don't know......Love ya,

Thank you Mum. Just wanted to mention that I plan to address your last comment in another post. I've got some stuff to share that you might find of interest.

Yeah, I had a little accident at work and really there is no physical evidence now, but it is mentally conforting to know that I don't have to rely on the physical anymore. I can concentrate more on the mental impulses now,

Ack!!! Gregg, I wondered why I had not heard from you. I got your PM, I understand now. Wow...you were very fortunate that you were not killed in this accident. Thanks for sharing the info about the brain, very interesting.

This is truly an interesting discussion. I can thank Rebel for bringing it to my attention.

John, what a nice surprise. I have missed you!! We haven't spoken in a while, but it's sure nice to see you again. Thank you for browsing through the thread and for your comments.

What if the power of the mind is even greater than the concepts presented in this thread.

Certainly, that's possible. If I had not had certain personal experiences myself that caused me to question, this thread probably wouldn't have ever come to fruition.

In the cases of St. Paul and St. Joan the identification with epilepsy seems to be mere speculation. If Joan's "divine" visions can be ascribed solely to a malfunction of her brain God can be entirely omitted from the equation. And the same thing with the bright light which knocked Paul off his horse.

I agree with you, OTR...it's only speculative, however, I've read quites a few neurological studies due to my own "God" experiences, and based on historical writings and their symptoms, historians/neurologist seem to be in agreement, but that certainly can never be proven, of course.

Saint Paul

born 5-15 AD in Tarsus/Cilicia, died approx. 64 AD in Rome

In old Ireland, epilepsy was known as 'Saint Paul's disease'. The name points to the centuries-old assumption that the apostle suffered from epilepsy.

To support this view, people usually point to Saint Paul's experience on the road to Damascus, reported in the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament (Acts 9, 3-9), in which Paul, or Saul as he was known before his conversion to Christianity, is reported to have a fit similar to an epileptic seizure: '...suddenly a light from the sky flashed around him. He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him: ''Saul, Saul! Why do you persecute me?''...Saul got up from the ground and opened his eyes, but he could not see a thing... For three days he was not able to see, and during that time he did not eat or drink anything.'

Saul's sudden fall, the fact that he first lay motionless on the ground but was then able to get up unaided, led people very early on to suspect that this dramatic incident might have been caused by a grand mal seizure. In more recent times, this opinion has found support from the fact that sight impediment-including temporary blindness lasting from several hours to several days-has been observed as being a symptom or result of an epileptic seizure and has been mentioned in many case reports.

In his letters St Paul occasionally gives discreet hints about his 'physical ailment', by which he perhaps means a chronic illness. In the second letter to the Corinthians, for instance, he states: 'But to keep me from being puffed up with pride... I was given a painful physical ailment, which acts as Satan's messenger to beat me and keep me from being proud.' (2 Corinthians, 12,7). In his letter to the Galatians, Paul again describes his physical weakness: 'You remember why I preached the gospel to you the first time; it was because I was ill. But even though my physical condition was a great trial to you, you did not despise or reject me.' (Galatians 4, 13-14) In ancient times people used to spit at 'epileptics', either out of disgust or in order to ward off what they thought to be the 'contagious matter' (epilepsy as 'morbus insputatus': the illness at which one spits). Source

Joan of Arc

(1412-1431) born on Jan 6th

Jeanne d'Arc (in France) also known as the Maid of Orléans

A patron saint of France and a national heroine, led the resistance to the English invasion of France in the Hundred Years War and altered the course of history through her amazing military victories. She was an uneducated farmer's daughter in a remote village of medieval France and from age thirteen Joan reported ecstatic moments in which she saw flashes of light coming from the side, heard voices of saints and saw visions of angels ( St. Michael, St. Catherine, and St. Margaret) believing them to have been sent by God. These voices told her that it was her divine mission to free her country from the English and help the dauphin gain the French throne. They told her to cut her hair, dress in man's uniform and to pick up the arms.

In the opinion of the neurologist, Joan's blissful experiences "in which she felt that the secrets of the universe were about to be revealed to her"- were seizures, and they were triggered by the ringing of church bells. Joan displayed symptoms of a temporal lobe focus epilepsy: specifically, a musicogenic form of reflex epilepsy with an ecstatic aura. Musicogenic epilepsy is generally triggered by particular music which has an emotional significance to the individual. Joan's voices and visions propelled her to become an heroic soldier who saved France from English domination and eventually led to her to be tried for witchcraft and heresy by the English when she was captured. She was burned on the stake when she was only nineteen years old. Source

That we humans can't truly grasp the idea of eternity doesn't put limitation on God.

Fair enough! We may never know.

[+Sherapy]

V~ i kid you not today at the park i was discussing St Paul with a freind and this came up the vision he reported and I said to myself i wonder if he had epilepsy..LOL and then i read here he did...

Wow I can't get over the list....that is compelling how far back this has been looked at....

i forgot to mention i watched the videos also, very interesting, very insightful how they parallel this research....I particularry liked the tests with the monks and nuns and how the brain is the same in prayer and meditation.... ....I delight in checking to see what you put up next, like a kid in a candy store...... this is so fun and interesting....

[greggK]

V~ i kid you not today at the park i was discussing St Paul with a freind and this came up the vision he reported and I said to myself i wonder if he had epilepsy..LOL and then i read here he did...

Wow I can't get over the list....that is compelling how far back this has been looked at....

i forgot to mention i watched the videos also, very interesting, very insightful how they parallel this research....I particularry liked the tests with the monks and nuns and how the brain is the same in prayer and meditation.... ....I delight in checking to see what you put up next, like a kid in a candy store...... this is so fun and interesting....

You know, I was thinking the other night about what they do at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. They throw their heads back and forth and no telling what that after days of doing that. And what, do they hit their heads against the wall?

What are some causes of TLE?

[meagan80]

Awesome!! you are brilliant