We Are Gods Appendix

Aren't you really saying that Almighty God is within us?

No. We argue that no god can be almighty because, in terms of logical probability, almightiness is so extremely improbable it is virtually impossible. So likely there is no almighty god injecting himself into us.

When you argue against the existence of an almighty god aren't you just an atheist? And even if there is no almighty god, that doesn't prove that you are a god.

Thank you for your question, and good point. As to your question, simply because I argue against the existence of an almighty god does not mean I favor of atheism. We say in this book that there is most likely no such a thing as an almighty god. The basic thesis of this book is that all persons are gods—including atheists. But we also say that such gods as Jesus, Allah, Passaconaway, and others, were persons who had evolved so far that they were able to access some of their own superconscious powers. They may even have able to utilize some of the superconscious powers of crowds around them.

As to your good point, we do not claim to prove that persons are gods. In Chapter Two we offer a set of beliefs constructed by using logical thinking to eliminate highly improbable beliefs and mysteries; and by linking any surviving beliefs with logically compatible scientific theories we hope the reader might find the resulting logical faith compelling.

You are just saying what the Zen Buddhists have been saying all along.

No we are not. We have not yet found in our ongoing research of Zen writings the idea that we persons are gods. Instead we find advice to deny the very existence of self itself. (Wouldn't a self have to exist during the time it denies its own existence?) Then there is also the Zen denial of a continued existence of self after its own 'death'. For example:—

"Zen has no future abode to which the dead are destined."—D. T. Suzuki

"Instead of eternal souls, individuals consist of a 'bundle' of habits, memories, sensations, desires, and so forth, which together delude one into thinking that he or she consists of a stable, lasting self."―Kevin Williams

I can't put into words the greatness I have intaken as a result of your book. Thank you.

Thank YOU. You are the only person who has had such an intake and told us of it. As you evolve along your path please send us more emails so that we may learn from your journey. But also please remember: word of mouth may do far more to spread the ideas of this book than any organization.

Are not the statements "we are gods" and "there is some higher power working within us" one in the same? You are on the same page as people who believe there is just one God, but coming at it from a different part of the spectrum.

We are definitely not on the same page as those who believe there is some external power occupying us. Perhaps the reason so few of us believe that our highest possible powers—god—are part of our upper selves is because the upper self is still far removed from the reach of everyday consciousness.

I see a minor flaw in your logic, and that is you are assuming negative events never happen for a good reason. This is what I think I am hearing in your statement: "Their deaths were not caused for a reason." The point I think you are missing is the possibility that you or we just do not know the reason why the event occurred. But it may have a reason just the same. its like a unsolvable math problem. eventually you will figure it out. and I would add when the time is right.

You appear to believe that something can happen because of a reason—that a reason can be a cause. We are arguing against that belief. Many events happen for no reason at all. Reasons are thoughts we use to explain events. Consider the following: "

"We have thus to distinguish between the relation of reason and consequence, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the relation of cause and effect."—W. J. Sidis
"Reason’s function is to justify what has come to pass."—Boris Sidis

We love Him.

Perhaps the love you feel is derived from those regions of your upper selves which simultaneously exist in the afterlife and in this life. Many afterlife reports speak of an intense love permeating all existence there.

your dumb

As a god you should continually seek ways to support those you disagree with.

Amateur Gods

In the words of William Branham (Jeffersonville, Indiana) revered by many as God's prophet to the last church age, Laodicia, "we are amateur gods," able to create. This leads me to believe your statement that we are all gods; however, the existence of an almighty God is to me very realistic due to the meaning of the word god, (an object of worship). To discredit the view of an almighty god to me is futile since the Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (period) At this time may I ask, where were you? If you were a believer, you could tell me, you were in His thoughts.

Sincerely, In Christ (the anointed one), Jesus (my Lord.)

P.S. I believe I am an amateur god, that believes in an eternal, almighty God, Jesus Christ. Of course this is also only my opinion, which I also am entitled to. Thank you for the opportunity of allowing my comments.

Reference: We Are Gods, on the subject of chance:
     I argue against this concept. All things that happen are effects with a cause. If a man becomes drunk and wanders into a forest, only to be bitten by a rattlesnake, this is not chance. It happened because the man caused himself to be in the presence of a snake, and because the snake had a desire to be there, and reacted according to its natural behavior.
    If dice are thrown and the number seven, in any combination, show on the upward facing surfaces, it is not chance that this happened. It was caused by the trajectory, rotation, physical characteristics of the dice, etc.
    Chance is a concept used to inadequately explain a cause and effect that are not known, for whatever reason. In primitive times, earthquakes were considered acts of God (yes, the "capital G" God, in which I have no belief.) Causes for earthquakes have since been found through scientific research. As humans evolve, we will continue to find the true causes for many things now explained as "acts of God" or "chance."
    "The picture is on the wall, but the wall has a picture on it."
    There is also the aspect that every cause has its resulting effect. This is at the very base of scientific research. We ask ourselves, "If I mix this liquid with another liquid, what will be the result?" Reasoning is the work we do with our minds to try to find the answer to this before we conduct the actual experiment. We reason and logically deduce possibilities through the use of math, prior experiences, and so on, for the sake of personal safety and other reasons. When the two liquids are mixed, we then have a cause and an effect.
    Causes and effects are also present in our minds, for the mind is surely a physical thing, a thing that is altered physically through the act of thought. I was influenced (caused) to think about the afterlife by reading a Mark Twain book. The effect was for me to do a Yahoo! search on the afterlife, and to begin a paper of my own on this subject, which I intend to write in a light-hearted style, attempting to offend nobody, but only to make other people think about this same subject, and possibly provide some input for others doing research on the afterlife. Your web site is one of the hits resulting from my Yahoo! search. The words "description of the afterlife" and, "lower plane of vibration" caught my eye because I hold as truth most of what is contained in the seven Hermetic Principles. The effect: I opened your web page. The cause: The attraction of your web site summary provided by Yahoo! So you see, it is not by chance that I am now typing this message to you. I am typing this message to you because I believe that you are a thinking man, capable of polite and entertaining argument, and I wanted to impart to you my opinion of the concept of chance, which is, I do not believe in it.
     Douglas Adams would have been proud of at least two of the sentences in this little writ.
    It could be accurately stated that I am writing you because Samuel Clemens was born, but then, there is a cause behind that as well, isn't there? The layers of cause and effect are so vast and complicated that it most often ends in rhetoric. It is a good subject matter for meditation, to consider causes and effects, and to try to discover a NEW cause (if indeed there are any.) Trace back to discover any cause, and its cause, and so on. See if you can find any cause that has a firm stopping point, a true BEGINNING.

* * *

     REPLY. Let's start with the reader's dice example: "If dice are thrown and the number seven, in any combination, show on the upward facing surfaces, it is not chance that this happened. It was caused by the trajectory, rotation, physical characteristics of the dice, etc." Not so. The initial conditions, do not, as the reader believes, cause the dice to face up each time in the particular way they do. This is because the initial conditions themselves vary randomly and not in any lawful way whatever. If the initial conditions occurred according to scientific laws, we would be able to predict every outcome and possibly every event in the universe. The reader does not even mention, let alone offer any refutation of, our arguments in Chapter One regarding the logical near impossibility of complete determinism. An then there is the matter of the laws of nature: "It appears to me that it is not laws which make the dice turn up sixes; for these laws act just the same when other throws come up. The chance lies in the diversity of throws; and this diversity cannot be due to laws."—Peirce
     The reader then argues against the existence of randomness by claiming that randomness is the absence of cause-and-effect: "All things that happen are effects with a cause." There are actually two types of randomness. One, logical randomness, is characterized by the absence of a cause-and-effect relationship such as when two independent events occur near each other in time, for example eating in a restaurant and soon after coming down with a cold. There may be a causal relationship, or there may not be. Logical randomness is found in psychology. But the other type of randomness is found in cause-and-effect processes such as throwing dice: the throw is the cause, a particular landing the effect. In the case of causal randomness, we cause the outcomes but do not determine them; and as Peirce clearly showed, neither do the laws of physics. (See Chap. 1.)
    The emailer has faith in chaos theory too. This is the popular variation of complete determinism which tries to dismiss randomness as an illusion because it always has, supposedly, a hidden order, and is therefore not really randomness: "Chance is a concept used to inadequately explain a cause and effect that are not known." In other words, there really must be a hidden order underneath it all. We just need some more computer power. Most gamblers are fans of this theory too.
    Most interesting is: ". . . 'acts of God' or 'chance'." What? Acts of God are random (chance) events?
    Emailer also confuses mind and brain: ". . . for the mind is surely a physical thing, a thing that is altered physically through the act of thought." How many volts are there in a thought? He should read a bit of Descartes.