Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

28 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

This is all wrong......it would still take the astronaut 4.7 years to reach Alpha Centauri.....observed from the Earth it would appear that it took two years, but for the astronauts it is still 4.7 years.

Interesting! How long would their return journey to the Earth take, as observed from the Earth, and as observed inside the spaceship?

[Surelynot]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

Interesting! How long would their return journey to the Earth take, as observed from the Earth, and as observed inside the spaceship?

Well.....how embarrassing......forgot all about length contraction...so observed from the earth 4.7 years (even at the speed of light), but only 2 years for the astranauts as they travel a much shorter distance. Same returning so when they return they will have experienced 4 years of aging....everyone on earth 9.4 years.......going to keep out of this topic in the future (pun?)

[bonzerpom]

On 4/14/2019 at 9:25 PM, ivor bigun said:

 

It has fasinated me for years that people can believe in god and that Jesus was born to his virgin mother .

When you realize that there are so many billions of planets across hundreds of billions of light years.

It must be great to believe in a God and that one day you will be reunited with your loved ones a lady once said to me that she knows she will meet Jesus when she dies,i thought gosh he must be busy sitting down with the billions of people who die.

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

depends on which god you believe in dunnnit?It fastenates me too

 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

A small 'thinking out of the box' thought-experiment.

The speed of light is a constraint that seems to limit the options for physical inter-gallactic travel.

But what about 'the speed of thought'?  Obviously that's a nonsensical notion when viewing consciousness as nothing more than 'electro-chemical processes taking place in your brain'. 

But that's exactly the current materialistic 'scientific' outlook.  Scientific between brackets because it refuses to consider non-materialistic phenomena whose very nature makes it difficult or even impossible to measure them physically (a self-fulfilling prophecy, when insisting that the non-physical needs to be evidenced by physical means).

Many mystics have stated that consciousness is instantaneous, which is actually quite 'logical' when embracing the point of view of God as the One consciousness of which we are all part and connected to.  Universal consciousness is outside time and space (which are human constructs), or maybe more correct to state that it over-rides those illusionary time and space constraints.

 

Science can only explore what can be detected and then attempt to explain the causes and influences of what can be detected. Personal consciousness, or awareness, can be detected by every individual and can also be confirmed through the scientific process of fMRI scans which reveal activity in the brain associated with consciousness.

 

If a Buddhist monk agrees to an fMRI scan whist meditating, the scan can show that the part of the brain associated with thought, is unusually inactive, thus confirming the sense of peace and calm that the monk is experiencing.

 

A fundamental teaching in Buddhism is that everything is connected and every event is dependent upon a cause. Your idea that there are non-material phenomena that exist by themselves with no material or electro-magnetic connection or influence which can be detected by science, is no more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. ????

[Sunmaster]

29 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

A fundamental teaching in Buddhism is that everything is connected and every event is dependent upon a cause. Your idea that there are non-material phenomena that exist by themselves with no material or electro-magnetic connection or influence which can be detected by science, is no more than an unsubstantiated hypothesis. ????

[Elad]

16 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

A small 'thinking out of the box' thought-experiment.

The speed of light is a constraint that seems to limit the options for physical inter-gallactic travel.

But what about 'the speed of thought'?  Obviously that's a nonsensical notion when viewing consciousness as nothing more than 'electro-chemical processes taking place in your brain'. 

But that's exactly the current materialistic 'scientific' outlook.  Scientific between brackets because it refuses to consider non-materialistic phenomena whose very nature makes it difficult or even impossible to measure them physically (a self-fulfilling prophecy, when insisting that the non-physical needs to be evidenced by physical means).

Many mystics have stated that consciousness is instantaneous, which is actually quite 'logical' when embracing the point of view of God as the One consciousness of which we are all part and connected to.  Universal consciousness is outside time and space (which are human constructs), or maybe more correct to state that it over-rides those illusionary time and space constraints.

 

Like time, 'the speed of thought' is also relative and therefore must also be limited to the speed of light.

Lets imagine we have two twins on Earth and one of the twins is going to travel to Alpha Centauri and back at 90% the speed of light as mentioned earlier. Before the travelling twin sets off, they decide to do an experiment, to see how many books each twin can read during their time apart. Lets just say that the twins read books at a very similar pace, and for simplicity we'll say one book per month. So each twin has a stack of 120 books to read.

 

The Earth bound twin just finished his 113th book after 9.4 years, whereas the travelling twin who just arrived back only managed to read 48 books, because for him only 4 years has passed. So that means the thought processes for the traveller were much slower relative to the Earth bound twin, so for me, thought processes and any other brain activity going on that we don't fully understand is actually just part of the physical world, nothing more, nothing less.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Elad

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

The above quote is very relevant for many people. However, I'm in the following category. ????

 

"For those who believe, verifiable proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, verifiable proof is sufficient to cause a change of mind."

 

--VincentRJ

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

The above quote is very relevant for many people. However, I'm in the following category. ????

 

"For those who believe, verifiable proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, verifiable proof is sufficient to cause a change of mind."

 

--VincentRJ

Yea but you don't have a halo on your head, so doom on you!!

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

 

Like time, 'the speed of thought' is also relative and therefore must also be limited to the speed of light.

Lets imagine we have two twins on Earth and one of the twins is going to travel to Alpha Centauri and back at 90% the speed of light as mentioned earlier. Before the travelling twin sets off, they decide to do an experiment, to see how many books each twin can read during their time apart. Lets just say that the twins read books at a very similar pace, and for simplicity we'll say one book per month. So each twin has a stack of 120 books to read.

 

The Earth bound twin just finished his 113th book after 9.4 years, whereas the travelling twin who just arrived back only managed to read 48 books, because for him only 4 years has passed. So that means the thought processes for the traveller were much slower relative to the Earth bound twin, so for me, thought processes and any other brain activity going on that we don't fully understand is actually just part of the physical world, nothing more, nothing less.

In your example it seems that the only variable is time. The thought processes are still the same in both twins. The travelling twin only has less time to read the books. It doesn't mean that he's reading slower than the earthbound twin.

 

And where does it say that the speed of thought must be limited to the speed of light? I doubt this is a scientific fact.

 

[Peter Denis]

4 hours ago, Elad said:

 

Like time, 'the speed of thought' is also relative and therefore must also be limited to the speed of light.

Lets imagine we have two twins on Earth and one of the twins is going to travel to Alpha Centauri and back at 90% the speed of light as mentioned earlier. Before the travelling twin sets off, they decide to do an experiment, to see how many books each twin can read during their time apart. Lets just say that the twins read books at a very similar pace, and for simplicity we'll say one book per month. So each twin has a stack of 120 books to read.

 

The Earth bound twin just finished his 113th book after 9.4 years, whereas the travelling twin who just arrived back only managed to read 48 books, because for him only 4 years has passed. So that means the thought processes for the traveller were much slower relative to the Earth bound twin, so for me, thought processes and any other brain activity going on that we don't fully understand is actually just part of the physical world, nothing more, nothing less.

My post was not about 'individual consciousness', but about consciousness in the sense of being connected with the One.  

Mystics and saints have consistently stated that such universal consciousness transcends time and space (which are just human constructs), and that universal consciousness is instantaneous, i.e. not limited by physical constraints.

Assuming that the speed of light (a physical phenomemon) also applies to such universal consciousness is not really thinking outside of the box.   Also that 'mental box' is a human construct and there is no reason to limit it with the current state of verifiable scientific 'fact' (which are only hypotheses anyway).

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

My post was not about 'individual consciousness', but about consciousness in the sense of being connected with the One.  

Mystics and saints have consistently stated that such universal consciousness transcends time and space (which are just human constructs), and that universal consciousness is instantaneous, i.e. not limited by physical constraints.

Assuming that the speed of light (a physical phenomemon) also applies to such universal consciousness is not really thinking outside of the box.   Also that 'mental box' is a human construct and there is no reason to limit it with the current state of verifiable scientific 'fact' (which are only hypotheses anyway).

Perhaps it's a human trait to find limits, then there are a minority who can, or at least try, to see and explore beyond those limits.

The majority, apparently, seem to find some comfort within said limits.

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

"For those who believe, verifiable proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, verifiable proof is sufficient to cause a change of mind."

 

--VincentRJ

That's a very nice quote.
If it were true.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

And where does it say that the speed of thought must be limited to the speed of light? I doubt this is a scientific fact.

 

It seems to be generally accepted by scientists that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Since thoughts are generated by the activity of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain, generating multiple, complex electrical signals through multiple axons and synapses, a thought would be much slower than the speed of light, even though it might seem instantaneous to the delusional. ????

 

The following articles might provide some enlightenment about the processes which generate thoughts.

 

"Your brain is a hotbed of electrochemical activity. About 100 billion neurons are each firing off 5-50 messages (action potentials) per second." 
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/organ-systems/neural-synapses/a/signal-propagation-the-movement-of-signals-between-neurons

 

"When you read these words, for example, the photons associated with the patterns of the letters hit your retina, and their energy triggers an electrical signal in the light-detecting cells there. That electrical signal propagates like a wave along the long threads called axons that are part of the connections between neurons. When the signal reaches the end of an axon, it causes the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the synapse, a chemical junction between the axon tip and target neurons. A target neuron responds with its own electrical signal, which, in turn, spreads to other neurons. Within a few hundred milliseconds, the signal has spread to billions of neurons in several dozen interconnected areas of your brain and you have perceived these words."
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

That's a very nice quote.
If it were true.

 It's true for me, and quite a few others. You're not calling me a liar, are you? ????

[Peter Denis]

4 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

It seems to be generally accepted by scientists that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Since thoughts are generated by the activity of neurons and neurotransmitters in the brain, generating multiple, complex electrical signals through multiple axons and synapses, a thought would be much slower than the speed of light, even though it might seem instantaneous to the delusional. ????

 

The following articles might provide some enlightenment about the processes which generate thoughts.

 

"Your brain is a hotbed of electrochemical activity. About 100 billion neurons are each firing off 5-50 messages (action potentials) per second." 
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/organ-systems/neural-synapses/a/signal-propagation-the-movement-of-signals-between-neurons

 

"When you read these words, for example, the photons associated with the patterns of the letters hit your retina, and their energy triggers an electrical signal in the light-detecting cells there. That electrical signal propagates like a wave along the long threads called axons that are part of the connections between neurons. When the signal reaches the end of an axon, it causes the release of chemical neurotransmitters into the synapse, a chemical junction between the axon tip and target neurons. A target neuron responds with its own electrical signal, which, in turn, spreads to other neurons. Within a few hundred milliseconds, the signal has spread to billions of neurons in several dozen interconnected areas of your brain and you have perceived these words."
https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/what-are-thoughts-made-of/

Nice that you provide the technical background of how my 'brain-computer' works. 

To expand the allegory > My current connection with the Internet is very slow and limited to only a few domains/sites.  Full access at 'lightning speed' to the complete Internet, would give somewhat an indication of what being part of the One Consciousness might look like.  And in the One Consciousness access/awareness of the full content would be instantaneous in same moment. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

In your example it seems that the only variable is time. The thought processes are still the same in both twins. The travelling twin only has less time to read the books. It doesn't mean that he's reading slower than the earthbound twin.

 

And where does it say that the speed of thought must be limited to the speed of light? I doubt this is a scientific fact.

 

As I made a one off posting day to say goodbye to Trump on world news I might as well post on here as well before I return to self imposed exile from TVF.

 

Interesting deflection from the topic to discuss travel to far off worlds, but to reference your last paragraph, if one believes in God, and by extension the ability of God to do anything, whether within the boundaries of primitive human science or not, thought could be transferred instantaneously if one was in the "God" dimension. IMO the mental part of "us" ( that which is carried around by our bodies, NOT our body, which is only a biological transportation device to carry "us" around ) could travel instantaneously around the universe once we pass over to another realm of existence. It could be that "ghosts" are manifestations of spirits from the other side.

God, that created everything in the universe, is not bound by the limitations of science, or anything else within the intellectual grasp of mere humans.

 

It's somewhat discouraging to see that after 700 pages of discussion, some posters still apply human aspects to God. It's like some of us have been talking to a brick wall for all the difference it's made to explain that spirituality and faith is not the same as religion, even though religion may encompass aspects of faith and spirituality.

How many times must it be explained that God is not a human and spirituality is unexplainable by science as it is now. IMO if humans don't pollute themselves into extinction, or exterminate themselves first, in a few thousand years science may become clever enough to understand spirituality/ faith.

[thaibeachlovers]

46 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It seems to be generally accepted by scientists that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Some time ago scientists believed that the earth was the center of the universe.

Scientists may have discovered that the earth is not the center of the universe, but they are as yet unable to explain many things, including spirituality.

I have never seen Mars, but that does not mean it does not exist. Likewise, scientists can't prove that God exists ( or doesn't exist ), but that only means that they are not clever enough, not that God does not exist.

To believe that science is settled or knows everything is, IMO, a nonsense.

[Tagged]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As I made a one off posting day to say goodbye to Trump on world news I might as well post on here as well before I return to self imposed exile from TVF.

 

Interesting deflection from the topic to discuss travel to far off worlds, but to reference your last paragraph, if one believes in God, and by extension the ability of God to do anything, whether within the boundaries of primitive human science or not, thought could be transferred instantaneously if one was in the "God" dimension. IMO the mental part of "us" ( that which is carried around by our bodies, NOT our body, which is only a biological transportation device to carry "us" around ) could travel instantaneously around the universe once we pass over to another realm of existence. It could be that "ghosts" are manifestations of spirits from the other side.

God, that created everything in the universe, is not bound by the limitations of science, or anything else within the intellectual grasp of mere humans.

 

It's somewhat discouraging to see that after 700 pages of discussion, some posters still apply human aspects to God. It's like some of us have been talking to a brick wall for all the difference it's made to explain that spirituality and faith is not the same as religion, even though religion may encompass aspects of faith and spirituality.

How many times must it be explained that God is not a human and spirituality is unexplainable by science as it is now. IMO if humans don't pollute themselves into extinction, or exterminate themselves first, in a few thousand years science may become clever enough to understand spirituality/ faith.

Going extinct seems natural and gods will. But when, is a different matter. 

 

What also have to be reminded, is that humans is not above anything else, and we are as every other living not specially cared for or protected by god. Is that an acceptable thought? 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps it's a human trait to find limits, then there are a minority who can, or at least try, to see and explore beyond those limits.

The majority, apparently, seem to find some comfort within said limits.

Apparently a majority believe what they read on social media. Need I say more?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently a majority believe what they read on social media. Need I say more?

Yes ! About 70% of the people accept without much questioning what they are fed by the power that be.

"Science" is the latest cult.

..And they can get quite upset with the minority who dare to question the narrative ????

Nothing new under the sun.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Mystics and saints have consistently stated that such universal consciousness transcends time and space (which are just human constructs), and that universal consciousness is instantaneous, i.e. not limited by physical constraints.

You seem to be implying that mystics and saints are not humans. The concept that 'universal consciousness transcends time and space' is also surely a human construct, but without verification.

 

"Assuming that the speed of light (a physical phenomenon) also applies to such universal consciousness is not really thinking outside of the box.   Also that 'mental box' is a human construct and there is no reason to limit it with the current state of verifiable scientific 'fact' (which are only hypotheses anyway)."

 

You seem confused about the definition of 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis is a proposition or suggested explanation for some phenomenon, which hasn't been verified. After it's verified, it ceases to be a hypothesis.

 

An example is the proposal that 95% of the matter and energy in the universe consists of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which is currently invisible and undetectable. The existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy has not yet been verified and is therefore no more than a hypothesis which attempts to explain why the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating, according to observations from the Hubble telescope.

 

Alternative explanations, such as the modification of existing theories of Physics and Astrophysics, might eventually solve the problem.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

Going extinct seems natural and gods will. But when, is a different matter. 

 

What also have to be reminded, is that humans is not above anything else, and we are as every other living not specially cared for or protected by god. Is that an acceptable thought? 

I have often said on this thread that humans are no more importance to God than a virus. God made them all, large and small, so God IMO regards them all as part of creation, none more or less important than anything else. The planet is a finely balanced environment, and everything is part of the plan. If humans start to think they are more important than nature, ergo as Godlike, IMO nature will destroy humanity.

IMO humans are so arrogant that they think they are special. A virus is proving that to be a fallacy-  something too small to see has shut down the entire planet.

Primitive people would say that God is punishing mankind for straying from God, but IMO it's just nature's revenge on us for raping the environment.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

You seem to be implying that mystics and saints are not humans

Leaving aside that saints are just part of religion, a mystic is a human that has attained a higher level of spirituality. I fail to see why that makes them less human, as that is just the animal side of us. It's the mental side which has exceeded normal constraints.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Assuming that the speed of light (a physical phenomenon) also applies to such universal consciousness is not really thinking outside of the box.   Also that 'mental box' is a human construct and there is no reason to limit it with the current state of verifiable scientific 'fact' (which are only hypotheses anyway)."

 

You seem confused about the definition of 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis is a proposition or suggested explanation for some phenomenon, which hasn't been verified. After it's verified, it ceases to be a hypothesis.

Surely you are not suggesting that science has proven anything to do with universal consciousness? IMO scientists have not even begun to understand it as no machine exists that can explain it ( to my knowledge ).

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 It's true for me, and quite a few others. You're not calling me a liar, are you? ????

I don't think you're lying to me, but I believe you're lying to yourself if you believe that. Especially the second part of the statement when referred to yourself. For those who disbelieve, verifiable proof is sufficient to cause a change of mind.
We've been presenting you lots of hints on how to find your own subjective evidence, but you keep insisting that only objective evidence could (maybe) change your mind. As you really should have understood by now, science can not sufficiently validate a spiritual experience, at least not yet. Why not use those tools that would produce verifiable proof? Do you prefer looking at the shadows in the cave, rather than walking out in the sunlight?

 

You can not expect the truth to be forced into your tiny box, but rather the box has to be made large enough to contain the truth (obviously, there's no box big enough to contain the Truth). Which implies a change on your side. Which implies letting go of old preconceived ideas and be open to other possibilities/explanations...as wild as they might appear. This doesn't mean you have to accept every crazy idea anyone has out there (flat earth comes to mind)...discernment is always necessary of course. 

Don't take offence...it's just the way I see it. I'm sure your intentions are honorable. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO humans are so arrogant that they think they are special. A virus is proving that to be a fallacy-  something too small to see has shut down the entire planet.

Primitive people would say that God is punishing mankind for straying from God, but IMO it's just nature's revenge on us for raping the environment.

 

Covid-19 hasn't shut down the entire planet, just the cities inhabited by humans, who are a very small portion of the total biomass on Earth. There's a far greater total mass of all the worms in the soil than all the humans above the soil.

 

Claiming that it's nature's revenge on us for raping the environment is just as silly as claiming that it is God's punishment for straying from his teachings.

 

Epidemic diseases are  normal and frequent phenomena in nature which affect most animal species, sometimes even causing extinction. The severity of such pandemics are affected by overcrowding, a major problem which has exacerbated the spread of Covid-19 among humans.

 

All forms of life feed on each other. Even herbivores and vegetarians feed on living plants. Why should there be a rule in natures that bacteria and viruses are not allowed to live? Our lives as humans are dependent upon trillions of 'good' bacteria. Without them we'd die.

 

The following scientific article goes into more detail.

 

"It it is safe to say that many species of wild animals suffer from outbreaks of disease no less severe than those which attack civilised man. In some cases (e.g. the Norwegian lemming) the decimating effects of these epidemics far exceed anything that is witnessed among human beings."

 

"Disease is, in fact, a perfectly natural phenomenon, and it forms one of the commonest periodic checks upon the numbers of wild animals, especially in the case of mammals, being in this respect no less important than enemies, climate, food supply, and other generally recognised regulating factors."

 

"Such epidemic diseases are usually associated with overcrowding in the population, though they may not actually be caused by it directly."

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A652BDE9616A45C2F09D876512835774/S0022172400017642a.pdf/study_of_epidemic_diseases_among_wild_animals.pdf

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Covid-19 hasn't shut down the entire planet, just the cities inhabited by humans, who are a very small portion of the total biomass on Earth. There's a far greater total mass of all the worms in the soil than all the humans above the soil.

 

Claiming that it's nature's revenge on us for raping the environment is just as silly as claiming that it is God's punishment for straying from his teachings.

 

Epidemic diseases are  normal and frequent phenomena in nature which affect most animal species, sometimes even causing extinction. The severity of such pandemics are affected by overcrowding, a major problem which has exacerbated the spread of Covid-19 among humans.

 

All forms of life feed on each other. Even herbivores and vegetarians feed on living plants. Why should there be a rule in natures that bacteria and viruses are not allowed to live? Our lives as humans are dependent upon trillions of 'good' bacteria. Without them we'd die.

 

The following scientific article goes into more detail.

 

"It it is safe to say that many species of wild animals suffer from outbreaks of disease no less severe than those which attack civilised man. In some cases (e.g. the Norwegian lemming) the decimating effects of these epidemics far exceed anything that is witnessed among human beings."

 

"Disease is, in fact, a perfectly natural phenomenon, and it forms one of the commonest periodic checks upon the numbers of wild animals, especially in the case of mammals, being in this respect no less important than enemies, climate, food supply, and other generally recognised regulating factors."

 

"Such epidemic diseases are usually associated with overcrowding in the population, though they may not actually be caused by it directly."

 

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/A652BDE9616A45C2F09D876512835774/S0022172400017642a.pdf/study_of_epidemic_diseases_among_wild_animals.pdf

You seem to have missed the point I was making and went into great detail on something I wasn't talking about at all.

[VincentRJ]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You seem to have missed the point I was making and went into great detail on something I wasn't talking about at all.

The please explain or summarize your point that I missed. My reading ability is not too bad.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Nice that you provide the technical background of how my 'brain-computer' works. 

To expand the allegory > My current connection with the Internet is very slow and limited to only a few domains/sites.  Full access at 'lightning speed' to the complete Internet, would give somewhat an indication of what being part of the One Consciousness might look like.  And in the One Consciousness access/awareness of the full content would be instantaneous in same moment. 

 

The speed of lightning is much slower than the speed of light. Didn't you know that? ????

 

Also, the internet cannot transmit information instantaneously, and not even at the maximum speed of light. As I've mentioned before, it takes over 4 years for light to reach the nearest star to our sun, and billions of years to reach the far galaxies. There's always a time lag. Nothing is truly instantaneous.
 

[Peter Denis]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The speed of lightning is much slower than the speed of light. Didn't you know that? ????

 

Also, the internet cannot transmit information instantaneously, and not even at the maximum speed of light. As I've mentioned before, it takes over 4 years for light to reach the nearest star to our sun, and billions of years to reach the far galaxies. There's always a time lag. Nothing is truly instantaneous.

My God (quite appropriate response to your post by the way)!  The computer-internet comparison is just an allegory to provide some insight in how your individual consciousness relates to the One Consciousness to which we are all connected. 

But we are not discussing computer-science here, nor the electro-chemical reactions in your brain that allow you to read these posts (understanding them is a different matter).

 

No offense meant, but it seems to me that you are only able to think within a hermetically sealed science-box, which explains your fascination with a thread on a subject that discusses what is outside these boxed walls.

But as the saying goes: We can explain it to you, but we cannot understand it for you...