Impressions of being under observation.

there is a battle that wages in the hearts of all mankind. the battle is of truth and lies, good and evil.the judges i believe, are significant to that battle. and when truth and good win, you'll be less likely aware of the judges, but become aware of God.this is what i feel to be true.no man is righteous, but only God. Jesus was the very consciousness of God in man. in a verse of the recorded word, a man had asked Jesus "good master, what must i do to inherit the kingdom of heaven?" and Jesus replied: why callest thou me good? there is none good, but the father who is in heaven.Jesus recognized he was in the body of a man. the living Word was in this body, but he said this so that men would understand, they cannot do as God does. and no man can do as Jesus has.the truth is very hard to deal with. and evil is also real. but no matter what you decide to accept of mind, if you do not accept it in your heart, you have accepted nothing. and if your heart accepts something., but your mind will not, you have not accepted it.but when your mind and heart have accepted something, for you, that is true to you.God IS of true faith. without this faith, nothing is. doubt is poison to faith. and satan is doubt. when man lied to God, God doubted man. and the doubt is satan.Jesus defeated the doubt. and is the shield between the corruption of doubt to a being of true faith. that is why without Jesus, no one can reunite with God. us in him, and him in God. the marriage of the lamb is the reuniting of a part of the body of God that has denied the body that it lives in. but by grace and faith, can we be reunited.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Telsa what exactly has all that got do with the OP?You sound like you are preaching your own interpretation of xianity. Why would you do that?

dunno what xianity is.I'm just observing the relation of the "feeling" of the watchers.have you ever heard : reality is what you make it?objective reality is seeing reality for what it truly is, not what it could be.but what is true reality? when your dealing with a "feeling" in the mind, what can you conclude?i gave you the truth of my conclusion, based on what i observe as reality, by the presence of the "watchers", and by the apparent disappearance, as it is relative in my mind, from my experience and growth in my search of the truth of reality.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Sorry, xianty is just short for christianity. I don't understand you phrase 'the relation of the feeling'. No. The correct phrase is 'life is what you make it'. Reality is what you percieve: we don't construct it. It is already there. Reality is what we can measure. If we can't measure it (directly or indirectly) it in not in any real sense of the word there. You don't have feelings in your brain. You have thoughts in your brain. Feelings (I assume you mean emotions or moods) are lables we give to physiological reactions such as the sinking sensation you get in your stomach when when you have bad news or the muscle tension you experience when excited. No. You have given my your conclusion; not the 'truth' of your conclusion. Without evidence the 'truth' of your conclusion is nothing more than a 'hunch'.The rest I don't understand. Can you write it in a more clear way?

i observed the "watchers", the "feeling" of being watched, and at the same time the mental awareness of the "watching" by a panel of "judges".it was a strange phenomenon.after debating the law of existence here, the "feeling" of being watched was replaced, by God in my mind, and not the panel of judges.perceiving reality:a man walks over to a cup at a store, and exclaims: wow! what a beautiful cup! his wife pick the cup up and notices a slender line along its sides, from where it was molded. she retorts: its a piece of crap. look at the slender line here. if it was a beautiful cup, it would have been formed better. the man without missing a beat said: well thats your opinion, and i have mine.what is the truth? in reality, the cup is beautiful to those who perceive its beauty. by changing the way you look at things, the things you look at change.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

So you had the feeling of observation and concluded your god is real. That's a pretty hefty conclusion to jump too. What other conclusions could you have made from the availible data?

http://EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity -->EvC Forum: Before Big Bang God or Singularity no. i had the feeling and the mindset of seeing the watchers just the same as you as your initial post stated.but after debating the laws here, and learning the laws were true, and believing both in my mind, and in my heart, then the judges/watchers apparently have been replaced in my mind by seeing God there, and not the judges/watchers.the watchers did not bring me to conclusion of God. science did.
but on conclusion, the phenomenon has changed. i didn't consciously prompt either of the phenomenon.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

We've been through this before, my friend. Science did not conlude your god. You made the erroneous leap from the fact that the universe appears to start at some point in the past to 'xian god is real'.Logically your conclusions do not hold water. You cannot conlude, the universe exist, energy exists, nothing out side of energy exist, energy has existed since T=0, therefore god is real.Once more this is the wookie defence writ large.

im not taking away from your conclusions by concluding mine.im a realist. if i cannot logically reason something i can't accept it at heart.i have observed what is real by my own logic, and can come to no other conclusion or explanation.it is reality as it truly is for me, because for me, only what is real is reality. and the theories suggested are incomplete.by observing the state of the current universe i can indirectly view the before. and by the motion and evolution logically throw everything into reverse and see there was a "start".by scrutinizing the start by mathematical logic, the odds are enormous.my conclusion 100% chance.other conclusions : literally impossible odds.im a realist larni. i cannot accept anything without proof. and no one has shown me any proof to the contrary of what i do now believe.i came to this site looking for faults. looking for evidence. and the evidence that has been shown has only supported my original logic.i cant change my mind unless other evidence that is logically sound is shown to me.your field is a study of human behavior and understanding logic's.(if you are indeed a psychologist?) this is my logic.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Ok.Lets call it quits, eh?

sure your thread God be with you always,
-Tim Brown

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

I get this feeling sometimes. But the fact that I'm able to turn it off or on (or, at least, on 'high' or 'low') at will implies to me that it's an internal function and not from something probing my thoughts or any external source.If something external was causing the feeling, I would suspect that I wouldn't have much control at all on the intensity of the feeling. Let alone have the high-level of control that is actually present.Of course, this would be a wondrous security feature of the being doing the probing if they could allow me a sense of control over the feeling... And my only idea against this is that it's too "into the realm of conspiracy theories". Not very solid. But, well, neither is the entire main point of this thread I also found this interesting. Why must it be an evolved trait, though? Couldn't it simply be learned? I admit I don't have much knowledge in this area, but it seems to me that we could easily learn to develop a sophisticated 'how do others see me' program in our minds. I'd guess it would start with basic scolding."If I do something wrong, and my mom yells at me, I feel bad." Creates the feedback loop of "if I do this, I'll get yelled at again by my mom". I don't see a large stretch into a feeling that one is being watched 'by mom'. And, as our world increases (respect for mom turns into respect for elders, and then peers and then lots and lots of people) the people doing the watching could also increase.I don't think I have a case against such a thing being evolved, but I think we could just as easily learn such a feature.

When I say evovled I mean in a similar way to how we evolved language inso far as we evloved preparedness to learn language. So in a social environment we are prepreogrammed to be prepared to be sensitive to what other people think of us and that this contributes to the the sensation of observation.

I think I understand. I can see how we wouldn't be able to learn to have the ability/capacity in order to have these feelings or sensations. And that the infrastructure itself would have to have been evolved.Kind of like how we can learn to throw, but we can't learn to have an arm. The arm itself needs to be evolved.I should have seen that the first time around, thanks.

No worries.To be fair to you however, preparedness (as a concept of psychology) was going out of fashion when I was an undergrad (mid 90s) and I've not really kept up with it so I can't say that something new has'nt come along and rendered my pet theory obselete.The pros and cons of tentativity I guess.