The meatball class GodCritter is an interesting being.

     Gods can really make themselves ugly relative to an actual truth,
it can be hard to behold.

     A God side being can out ugly any mere Soul side being he might
create himself as.

     These people talk about science as if they know any, they make
assertions of things they can't possibly know, and they generally act
like a rude interruption at a serious affair.

     Just stick anyone of these clowns in a scientific symposium, and
let them present their position.

     "No one has demonstrated proof of God, therefore God does not

     Given it enough time we have, I suppose.

     These forlorn creatures, with big vocal cords, and born to live
once and then never love again, have two basic problems.


     Their first problem is they believe in OUT THERE.  They believe
there IS an out there, and they believe that the source of causation is
out there.

     In the out there world, certain rules of discernment apply, we call
this the scientific method with its various verifiabilities and

     And yes, the rules of discernment like to see peer review, but for
one the absence of peer review doesn't make something wrong, nor does
its presence make something right.

     Some of the greatest scientific work was done by lone individuals
hundreds of years before the rest of the world stopped laughing at them.

     Usually however it is a matter of probabilities, and work that is
peer reviewed, in general, follows the opinion of the majority report,
which we instinctively take to be more dependable than the minority

     That the very existence of peers is itself unpeer reviewed, is

     How can you use a peer to review the existence of peers, if you
haven't proven a peer exists yet?

     Who will peer review the existence of the first peer?
     Ultimately you are alone with your truth.

     And with the ultimate truths, you will have no peers to review.

     The main problem then is this idea that everything of import comes
from out there, and thus the out there model of discernment applies.  If
they would only learn that model well and stop confusing supporting
evidence with proof, they might do better even in their own fields of
scientific inquiry.

     Alas, the dictionary defines proof as supporting evidence, and also
defines proof as perfect certainty, so the confusers love to declare
that supporting evidence equals perfect certainty.

     Or they will tell you with perfect certainty that perfect certainty
does not exist.

     Any fool knows that for *SURE* :)

     In any case they are all mind broke.

     Remember that most of the nitwits posturing 'science' on a.r.s.
are bigoted degrades, who probably have little or nothing to do with
actual science.  And if they do, we are all in very serious trouble.

     The problem comes in when they seek for the existence of God.

     Because everything of causal import is OUT THERE, so must God be.

     They miss the illogic of thinking that God made space and time, and
yet that same God is somehow to be found out there in space and time.
They want God to show some evidence for his existence, and they look out
there, into space/time in vain for evidence.

     When you find yourself looking up to the Heavens when you are
talking to God, know you are lost.

     You have to remember that the rules for discernment for learning
about anything in the out there world demand that one can never see the
thing directly but can only theorize about its nature based on its
causal effects in YOU.

     Call that the Machine Uncertainty Principle if you will.

     The poor mortal meatball is trying to learn about the dog by
looking at the dog poop on his shoe.

     That is never going to give proof of the dog, and neither will it
ever give proof of God.

     In other words you can never learn about God by studying humanity,
the physical universe, or anything you think God created.

     At least not with perfect certainty, no matter how much
'supporting' evidence you are drowning in.

     At best you can form a bet and act on it.

     Anyhow we are all dreaming, and out there simply just does not
exist, any more than it exists in a sleep dream.

     Things LOOK like they are out there, but they ain't.

     How can they be, they are all you.  Out there is what
YOU look like in the mirror of your consciousness, you have never
seen anything but yourself.

     Interesting clothing, wearing a town on you.

     Well what is it that is dreaming you say?  You are, not your brain,
when you wake up enough levels, your brain vanishes with the last dream
you woke up from, leaving only you to be with your experience.

     The physical universe is an exquisite theory brought asunder by one
ugly fact, consciousness.

     The meatball will say that their consciousness is just a process in
a mechanical medium, the brain, and that their emotional heart is the
tick tock of electronic chemical or metal wheels.

     Because the meatball thinks that everything is made of parts, the
more he tries to trace the cause of his own consciousness inside his
brain, the more he runs into parts with space between them, and each
part is more parts with space between them, until he gets to a
fundamental part that doesn't have any parts within parts any more.

     In present *THEORY* those would be the quarks and the leptons like
the electron.

     Physicists conceive those as point sources of cause, there just
aren't any more particles within particles once you get to that level,
they surmise.

     But if you get enough quarks and leptons together you can build
just about anything including a meat brain.

     As the being starts to zoom in on the center of his consciousness,
the space he is considering that his consciousness takes up inside his
brain gets smaller and smaller, until there just isn't enough brain
inside that space to account for what he sees going on in his mind and
conscious life.

     But by the time your meatball has gotten down to a fundamental part
inside his brain he has bypassed his consciousness entirely, because he
thinks his consciousness is a PROCESS AMONG MANY PARTS of the brain.

     In other words he considers that his consciousness itself is not a
fundamental part, but is instead a non zero size, spatial arrangement of
parts interacting with each other via cause and effect.  A machine or
sub machine in other words.

     He has to expand out from the dead center of his brain big enough
to encompass enough parts within the brain to be able to account for the
functional complexity of his conscious life.

     How much of his brain does he have to encompass to account for the
full functioning of his consciousness and everything in it and what can

     And is it enough?

     Can there BE enough brain to explain YOU?

     So this leads us to the second major problem of the poor fellow
meatball, he is under the spell of the complexity of function and
structure theorem.

     That theorem says that complexity of function must causally rest on
complexity of structure.

     That's a complex way of saying that if something can DO something
complex, it must BE complex, made of lots of parts, interacting with
others parts via cause and effect across a space time distance.

     In other words the more a machine can do on the outside, the more
complex the machine must be on the inside.

     This is pretty easy to see, take an electron, it has spin, charge,
mass, position, velocity and quantum state.  But that's it.

     Certainly no consciousness, self awrareness, love, pain, shame
blame, regret, memory, will, intent, volition, purpose or sense of
personal agency.

     An electron is very simple, not utterly simple, but basically
simple, it can only do a few things.

     So one day if an electron were suddenly to sit up and whistle dixie
in 4 part harmony, scientists and meatballs alike would take serious
notice.  That's just too much complexity of function being displayed and
not enough complexity of structure to explain it.

     Another example that really bothers the meat and cheese crowd is
the red box that exists for an infinite time, and then one day in the
middle of infinite time, it changes state to green.

     If the 'box' is just a patch of red, and it changes state to green,
there HAS to be a reason this happened.

     That reason is either going to be an internal reason, something
inside the box suddenly changed state, and we are going to have to trace
THAT down too, or something impinged upon the box from the outside
causing it to change state.

     Since the box has been red for an INFINITE amount of time, and the
turns green for the rest of INFINITE time, you can't even claim there
was some clock inside the box, because there is nothing to discriminate
one moment infinitely far way from the past from another moment also
infinitely far away from the past.

     So the cause of the change from red to green can't be "well its
time came up for the change," like some timer was counting down and when
it got to zero the red changed to green.

     Nor can it be a random process because if there is a finite non
zero probability that a change could take place at any moment of time,
it would have taken place long before an infinite amount of time would
have passed.

     But that change in state can't come from nothing, because nothing
is not enough complexity of structure to account for the complexity of
function of changing from red to green.

     Something can't come from nothing.  Therefore if something exists,
something must have always existed.

     Now each person has an idea of how complex or not they think they
are as a conscious being, some people think they are pretty simple as
far as their consciousness and its abilities go, and others think they
are very complex.

     We all know the brain is complex, but is it complex enough to
account for the complexity of our conscious beingness AND take care of
the physical body at the same time?

     Or maybe he has a conscious experience that he sees very clearly
can't be explained by a machine, by a space time gizmo, at all.

     He gets the idea that love and shame can not of force and mass be

     Force and mass don't give a damn, he does.  Since you can't make
something out of nothing, you can't make something that cares, out of
parts that don't.

     This might violate a lot of new age crystal gazer nonsense that the
whole can be bigger than the sum of its parts, but actually when it
comes to machines, the whole can't do anything that at least one of its
parts can't do also in some uncorralled fashion.

     Take a simple pocket watch for example, it keeps time because of
the causal pathways inside it from wound up spring, energy source,
through an oscillating escapement mechanism, the balance wheel, ending
at the hands on the dial face indicating how much time has gone by.

     The truth is though if you take the watch apart, some of its parts
also have the quality of timingness.  Every part is made of parts which
are made of atoms, which are made of electrons which are vibrating back
and forth KEEPING TIME.

     The fundamental forces that drive a spring back and forth when you
pull or push on it and then let go is a way of keeping time.

     All a pocket watch has done is corralled or harnessed the already
existing function of timingness of the parts inside it, to make it a
macro level event useful to humans rather than a micro level event
useful to no one.

     Thus we get a simple theorem out of this, the sole purpose of a
complexity of parts is to instantiate one or more of the functions of
the parts themselves at a more macro level.

     Same thing for the biggest meanest super computer ever built, it
can add because the simplest of electrical forces can add.  The job of
the complexity builder then is to translate the abilities of the parts
into the abilities of the whole in a more useful way.

     But how are you going to make pain out of force and mass in motion?

     There is a difference between mass and will, and between force and

     Will can be forced, but it can also be motivated, those are
two discernably orthoganal things.

     Orthoganal means one can't be made of the other.

     Electrons may repel each other in close proximity, but they don't
CARE, they don't HURT.

     If none of the particles in a machine can feel pain, then the
machine as a whole can't feel pain.

     A machine can be programmed to ACT like it feels pain, to say OW!
every time the O key is hit on the keyboard, but is anything there
actually feeling pain?

     So at some point the being has an epiphany out of all this and he
sees that the mechanics of OUTHERENESS are not all there is to his
world, as he has a conscious life too.

     He also sees that mechanics and consciousness are dicoms.

     Machines are dead, blind, live in the dark and can never be certain
of anything including their own existence, and can only act like it
gives a damn if programmed to do so.

     Consciousness is alive and self luminous, perfectly certain of its
own existence, and gives a damn, has no choice about it, knows it, and
likes it that way.

     Machines have no idea if cause exists, unless they are told it
does.  And they could never discover for themselves if cause existed,
and couldn't even come up with the idea because machines can't SEE

     Weirdly enough machines can't even see themselves being an effect,
they simply ARE an effect.

     And that's something the conscious unit sees about the
machine, never something the machine can see about itself.

     Running on cause and effect is insufficient to witnessing cause and

     At best a machine can record and note a correlation between events,
but correlation, even perfect correlation is not perfect certainty of
causation except to massively bogus minds.

     Consciousness has perfect certainty that personal agency exists.

     There couldn't BE perfect certainty of color and self without
causation going on between perceiver and perceived.  That causation can
be seen directly, not by looking at effects supposedly correlated to
theoretical causes, but by looking at cause directly.

    Machines learn by indirect perception, they learn about
A by looking at B, namely A's affects in themselves.

    Relative to B, A is a THEORY and B is some 'supporting evidence.'

    Since the machine can't see A, nor the cause between A and B,
the machine can never have certainty that B was actually caused
by A, not that A is really out there.

     Consciousness can see causations within itself by direct
perception of the causal agent, not by indirect perception of
alleged effects of the causal agent.

     That's a big statement, meatballs will just go on by it.

     Failing such an epiphany the meatball will consider that there is
NOTHING in his mere conscious experience that would teach him anything
OF IMPORT about the nature of the ALLTHATIS, because everything of
import comes from OUT THERE which includes his brain, which relative to
the center of his consciousness, is also OUT THERE.

     So when you try to approach the subject of God with this guy, you
have a problem.  He looks out there for God, sees nothing and says
"Whew!  had me worried there for a moment you did" and goes on believing
God doesn't exist.

     Now of course he has God conceived of as a conscious being separate
from himself who made him against his will and who is mostly concerned
with good and bad behavior.

     "Love me you little piece of shit or I will send you to hell

     What kind of God is this?

     Good news is, being a separate being from the soul, such a God
remains forever a theory, and a false one at that.

     Two different objects can never be certain of each other.

     Bad news is, the soul IS God, and thus we have a problem with the
external rules of discernment.

     How can you use EXTERNAL rules of discernment when the observer is
trying to learn about itself!

     Looking out there won't find you anything, and once you find
something, IT WILL BE YOU.

     But what are you going to do about those that insist on peer

     You say "I have seen the truth, we are all God in carnation."

     They say "Prove it, he who makes the extraordinary claim has the
burden of proof, put up or shut up!" Like Occam's razor, that's a lot of
nonsense, but its touted religiously, I mean scientifically, by those
who are terrified you might be right.

     You say, I can't prove it, you have to see it for yourself.

     They say "You are hallucinating and brainwashed."

     We will leave it up to the reader as a home work assignment to work
out who bears the burden of proving you are brainwashed or who is

     Now to a meatball, it is absolutely inconceivable to them that
there might be something to know about in you that could possibly be of
import to anyone including you.

     In other words if you didn't find it by looking for it out there,
then it is either false, or utterly unimportant.

     At first they said it wasn't true.

     Then they said it wasn't important.

     Then they said they knew it all along.

     That's the journey from incipient carrion to God in carnation.

     There are those that would go so far as to say that consciousness
is a mere epiphenomenon of the brain, that causation travels through the
brain and not consciousness, and that consciousness can't actually
affect anything because it merely displays what is going on.

     Of course the mere fact that we are TALKING about consciousness,
implies that consciousness has seen itself and decided to talk about it

     That happened without cause and effect?
     And if one argues that consciousness did not see itself, but that
the brain machinery saw it and started talking about it, well the brain
machine HAD to learn about the consciousness by being an effect of it,
so of course consciousness HAS CAUSE, including cause over matter,
energy, space and time, namely in the brain.
     To know about consciousness is to be the effect of consciousness,
and if you are the effect of it, IT IS CAUSE over you at the moment of
that learning.

     But once you spot your I AM, I CARE, I AM AGENT and I GIVE A DAMN,
and I hate meatballs to pieces, you will get over the idea that
consciousness isn't agent instantly.
     So clearly we are not just dominos pushing others as we were

     A conscious domino can ORIGINATE a push without itself being pushed.

     A conscious being can act independently of any prior events in
matter, energy, space/time and force, that might or might not have
impinged upon him first.

     Thus we have a will that CAN be free of determination by the
physical universe.  It is never however free of its own nature.

     Thus we had better pray for that nature off consciousness, for
there are many more ways to harm than to help.

     So one has to ask, if there is something that created space and
time, where are we going to look for it?

     You would think that if you were God in carnation, that there would
be some shred of evidence left behind that you were.

     Exercising paranormal powers won't prove anything, and they won't
come until you contact your own fountainhead of source anyhow.

     But the thing you would long for most would be something that was
spaceless and timeless and was you all rolled into one.

     Eternal, immutable, indestructible and at absolute peace.

     Oh yes, and beyond thank you or endless gratitude, which ain't

     Gratefulness is a kind of hysteria born of irresponsibility for
doing well.

     Absolute peace is absolute smug.

     So how much weller can you do than eternality with the ability to
wake up and get lost in a dream with others any time you want, with a
hundred trillion heavens and hells alternating along the way.

     That's what you want, and that's what meatballs want, but they
can't admit it, too lost in the sour grapes of thinking they can't have

     It's painful to a meatball to even think of what he really wants,
if he ever gets momentarily really real about.

     But once you had that experience of eternality within yourself, and
you are once again in contact with the CHOICE you made to manifest
yourself in space and time, that the ocean flows because of you, and
everyone else who chose to be here, you would KNOW something that can't
be proven to any one else without them also having the same experience.

     Basically the only way to prove to another that you are not
brainwashed is to prove to them that they are, namely brainwashed to
believed they were meat, and made of out there!

     What's more insane, a human that thinks it is God, or a God that
thinks it is human?

     But you know the very self luminousness of your present time
consciousness is evidence enough of a spaceless timeless process
creating and maintaining your space time (dreamtime) existence.

     The whole physical universe is a light picture burning off the face
of God.

     But its a bit hard to see, and you would have to study the proof
long and hard.  You would have to come to understand what a self
symbolizing event is and how it leads to self lumination, and I have
kind of given up on getting people to do that so we won't go there.

     But that is what you would have to do, observe a spaceless timeless
part of your own consciousness, and you would have all the evidence you
will ever need that 1.) we are all God incarnation, and 2.) you are an
eternal being lost in illusions of temporality, immortality, mortality
and out thereness.

     And once you have done that, you can start rebuilding your power
packages again, and start playing around with the various magics of
outthereness, and practice with others of your own level with good

     But you see the problem is when you are dealing with others, they
are God too.  And they don't want to know they are God, and that is why
they don't.  And frankly its not just a friendly little game of let's
pretend we are not God for while and have a good time.  No, this time it
was forever, they don't want to know about it FOR GOOD.

     That's a serious forever in there.

     So some piece of meat comes up to you and says 'Prove it!', you
might as well give it up right there, because he doesn't want to know,
and he doesn't know that he doesn't want to know.

     If he did want to know, merely reminding him the world was a dream
would be enough to return some measure of clarity, lucidity, and

     Only the scientist needs the proof.

     He is protecting a death directed state like you wouldn't believe,
until YOU finally come up to realizing you don't want to know either.

     There are lots of happy high tone people running around all
claiming the glories of God and eternal life, and all the more power to
them, but most of it is 100 percent superficial.


     When they get a little deeper into the truth they have discovered,
they begin to realize to their infinite horror that they are a God in
hell, and they gave up long ago ever getting out.

     (They have eternality and immortality confused.)

     A few life times later you find them alone in a dark alley with
only an empty bottle to their name.  You say 'Hey I thought we were all
God in carnation!" They will say, "Yeah I know, go away, that's the

     So much for proving this to people, the science of religion can get
very beaten down by the very nature of a God being in trouble, seeking
death through illusions of mortality, by becoming what he made and
claiming it made him, then dying as it, as death comes to all compound
things, made of constituency, arrangement and process.

     NOTHING made of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
space time distance stays together forever.

     Thus "death is inherent in all compound things, seeking ye
diligently then for thy salvation." - Lord Buddha

     If consciousness is a process in space time, then consciousness is
on death row.

     However the truth is consciousness is a non process that is
conscious OF dreams of constituency, arrangement and process in space

     Dreams of machines, space time gizmos.

     Consciousness is not made of anything it is conscious of, and
consciousness is not an arrangement of parts, as where consciousness
comes from, there is no space time to have parts in.

     But that is what you are trying to do, build a bridge between
religion and science.  The Gods in trouble hope you never do, but *REAL*
science is the only thing that will finally figure out the correct
religion, how we did it and why.

     But don't look to the science found in the halls of academentia and
lower learning.

     Two thousand years ago, both science and religion were failed

     Today science has grown up and has become a very successful

     That may seem rough, but take a look at what physics has given us.

     Atom bombs and cell phones.

     Oh OK, physicists aren't all bad.

     They gave us the cell phone so when the bombs drop, we can call up
our loved ones and kiss our sorry asses goodbye together.

     But if science has evolved into a monstrosity, religion remains an

     It may be science that gave us the ability to terminate the world,
but it is religion that wants to destroy it.

     So between the two headed Goliath of religion and science, goes

     You need to understand science cold, so you can understand religion
from the center of your GodSoul to the outer reaches of the AllThatIS.

      None of which is OUT THERE.


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY    In the Line of Duty
Fri Apr 30 23:07:58 EDT 2010