# [MEGA] God



## goatyoghurt

I couldn't find a thread dedicated to this and after learning it in Philosophy class on friday it absolutely blew me away, considering I was raised a strict Christian but have recently doubted the existence of God, this rocked my fucking world, just wanted to share it, get opinions and thought 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Ergo, the universe had a cause.


Now anyone who has done any logic can see that what I mentioned above is a syllogism, that being said, I will prove using reason, premises 1 and 2, therefore making the conclusion valid and the argument as a whole a valid deductive argument.

Explanation for 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is the most successful postulation in the history of science, that being the law of universal causality. This assumption has never been falsified and is seen as unavoidable, everything that begins to exist had to have a cause.

explanation for 2. The universe began to exist.

Scientific explanation: It has been discovered that all matter/energy is expanding, therefore it had to start at a point of singularity (referred to as the Big Bang). Before the Big Bang there was no universe, afterwards, the universe existed, in other words, the universe began to exist.

Metaphysical explanation: To say that the universe didn't have a beginning would be to say that the universe is infinite. It must be said that the concept of an infinite is paradoxical and contradictory, I will explain how. If the universe was infinite then there would be an infinite number of moments leading up to this exact moment in time, if this were the case, then an infinite amount of time would have passed before this moment, therefore, this moment would never have existed. The same can be said for causes.

Like I said before the concept of an infinite doesn't make sense, it creates a paradox, and we all know that something paradoxical cannot be true. imagnie a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books, if you took out all of the red books, how many would you have left? The answer is a paradox. Furthermore if all the books in the library had an infinite number of pages and you read one book and your friend read all of the books in the library, who has read more? The answer is once again a paradox, you cannot count to infinity, infinity is impossible, it doesn't exist.

Therefore 3. The universe had a cause.

The universe defined by science and philosophy is everything material, we can define and understand it using the laws of physics. When the universe didn't exist, no matter existed, that means that the cause of the universe can't be something material. The cause of the universe must be immaterial and TIMELESS, as there cannot be an infinite amount of time.

I CALL THIS IMMATERIAL AND TIMELESS CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE "GOD".




This has actually given me a logical reason to believe in God, what do you all think?


----------



## Stasis

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. God would need a cause to exist.

3. What caused god?


----------



## Tr6ai0ls4

^^^ 

Get ready for god exists outside of the universe and doesn't apply to our laws..


----------



## L2R

Cause/purpose and intention are two different things.

Unless you are speaking of the intentions of an omnipotent being. In which case, this conversation was part of their intention.

But how is that any different to "it is because it is"?


----------



## goatyoghurt

Stasis, the arument says that God didn't begin to exist, so therefore God doesn't fall under the first premise of the argument 




> The cause of the universe must be immaterial and TIMELESS



If God is timeless then it didn't begin to exist


----------



## Stasis

*Re: Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God*



			
				goatyoghurt said:
			
		

> *I CALL THIS IMMATERIAL AND TIMELESS CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE "GOD".*



Why do you call it "God"?  Why not call it something else?  A singularity maybe.  You need to ask that if this "God" wasn't around, would it have all happened anyways....


1. Everything that begins has an end, so everything that ends has a beginning.

2. The universe ended (crunched).

3. The universe began (expanded).

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?" - Stephen Hawking, _A Brief History of Time_


----------



## Tr6ai0ls4

Before I say anything, I do believe in god in some way. However my view of god is not a common theistic view of an omni-potent, omni-benevolent, omni-scient god and I do not like using the word 'god' to describe my beliefs any longer. That being said, I'm not an atheist, i'm not an agnostic, and i'm not a theist. There is no term which I'm familiar with that corresponds to what I am. 

To move on to the thread... 

The cosmological argument for gods existance is an extremely popular and powerfull argument for gods existance. I can see how it can lead a person to believe that they have found a logical argument for gods existance. 

The cosmological argument presents a couple of problems. Lets take a look at the points that were presented in this thread. 

*
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. If the universe never began to exist then time is infinite, and if time is infinite we would have never gotten to this moment. 
*

Problem #1

As allready addressed by stasis. If everything has a cause, what caused god? 

Problem #2

This problem addresses the 'if time was infinite we would have never gotten to now' argument. 

Think of it this way. If time can't be infinite that would mean that god is finite too and eventually he's going to die or maybe allready dead. The argument states that god didn't begin to exist and that he was always there. This presents a contradiction. If god was immortal and was always there he would have never gotten around to creating our universe according to this very same argument.  

Problem #3 

We only witness things within our universe. Because of this we think it might seem like its all well and good to say since everything within the universe has a beginning and an end, and a cause and effect, that this applies to the universe as a whole as well. This presents a problem because the universe is not an object within the universe. We cannot observe the universe from the outside, we can only observe it from within, therefore it is illogical to claim that the same rules that apply to what its inside the universe apply to the universe itself. 

Think of it this way. The universe is a box with stuff inside of it. Just because the stuff inside of it is a certain way, doesn't mean that the box which the stuff is inside of is that same way too. Make any sense? 

So even if everything within the universe has a cause and effect. Think about it what effect does the universe as a whole have on the things within it? The only things that have an effect on things within it, are other things which are also within it. The universe as a whole does not need to have an effect on things within it, although it could. Also, just because things inside of the universe have a cause doesn't mean that the universe itself must have a cause. 

Same thing applies to finite objects within the universe. Just because everything within the universe is finite and has boundries doesn't mean the universe which contains all these finite things is finite or that it has boundries.


----------



## Crimethink

To play Devil's advocate-  The big bang was an explosion of space and time.  It doesn't make sense to talk about 'before' outside of time.  (Concepts like causality tend to break down here, too.)

If you think of time as the '4th dimension'...a 1d line, 2d square, 3d cube, 4d hypercube...each extra dimension allows change in the previous, each is also a shadow of the previous- line is shadow of sqaure as a cube is a shadow of a 4d 'hypercube.'  The 4d universe would have change, an ordered expansion, but is ultimately frozen.  The concept was coined the Block-universe by William James and known to Einstein.

How fast does time pass anyway? 1 second per second?  Time is experienced differently by different people(brains).  The ordered expansion is experienced by people as an ordered series of 'nows,' none more special than another.

If this block universe exists in a multi-verse wherein all possible universes are realized -- and life has even the *most remote possibility of occuring regardless of how small that probability is non-zero.  In this timeless universe of universes all non-zero probabilities would be observed... the one with life selects itself for observation.

And here you find yourself.  Mirrors can be a trip sober, or on psychedelics.  When you look in the mirror you see the universe observing itself.


I've offered proof of nothing, only metaphysical blather...but maybe a different way of looking at things.


----------



## PottedMeat

The existence of God cannot be proven by an argument or a syllogism.  Secondly, inorder for a syllogism to be true and correct logic all the propositions must be proven unequivocably.  Which you have not done here.  E.G., I posted a thread some time back inquiring what the odds were that there are nine planets in our solar system and the odds that the planets formed randomly versus causally.  Obviously, the query has no definitive scientific or logical explanation.

Look at it this way.  If the existence of God could be proven logically or with scientific certainty, there would be no choice but for *everyone* to acknowledge the existence of God.  However, the belief in the existence of God is not mandatory it is of your own free will.  For, what would be the purpose of the concept of faith and free will if we had no choice but to believe in or acknowledge the existence of God?


----------



## modify

God was created in the ancient times used as control over the people... if u fuck up u go to hell, if u do well u go 2 heaven... These were based upon laws.. 
They say when u go to heaven, all u do second after second is praide God.. thats all u do... and if u do not believe in God, though u live a good life, never break a commandment etc u go to hell... 
I find this very unfair,, and a priest told me this


----------



## modify

and we also have catholic priests fucking little boyz... And they r supposed 2 be brothers of God.. 
I am not being too technical about this topic, although i am giving factual descriptions


----------



## modify

and we also have catholic priests fucking little boyz... And they r supposed 2 be brothers of God.. 
I am not being too technical about this topic, although i am discussing factual situations


----------



## JerryBlunted

Modify = This would be a good example of not believing everything you hear, and questioning on what authority people base their assertions.

Catholic priests (whether they are deviants or not) do not speak for the whole of Christianity, let alone all the other monotheistic or polytheistic religions out there.

The Cosmological Argument was proved false by David Hume, I'll dig out my Philo. of Religion book later and post the way he did it. That guy pisses me off, but you can't say he isn't a genius.


----------



## Space_dolphin

> Stasis, the arument says that God didn't begin to exist, so therefore God doesn't fall under the first premise of the argument



I define Pluto Juice to be the first cause, even the cause of Gods existence; it is immune to all logical arguments that we can possibly comprehend.

--

The human mind evolved to have a broad potential in understanding. This was to help aid us in understanding unexpected situations, thus increasing our chances of survival. There are many things that we can understand.

However, natural selection wasnt too picky on individuals who didnt have any knowledge concerning quantum physics, the nature of the galaxy or the first cause. Thus we did not evolve to understand certain concepts. Our small understanding of some of these issues is just a bonus... stemming from our broad potential. There are however, some concepts that maybe we just wont ever be able to understand, because our brains are just not wired for it. Personally i think that the first cause is one of these issues, it could be too complex for an organic mind to comprehend.

But humans tend to dislike unexplored areas of knowledge, our curious nature pushes us to understand the unknown. A concept of a god conveniently solves many problems in unknowable things, and i think that's why god is such a popular bloke. But one must remember that god doesnt solve the problem of first cause, it just adds another step. Surely you must admit that by saying "God was the cause of himself", is just as much a paradox as any other?


----------



## nowonmai

*Re: Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God*



			
				goatyoghurt said:
			
		

> *Like I said before the concept of an infinite doesn't make sense, it creates a paradox, and we all know that something paradoxical cannot be true. imagnie a library with an infinite number of red books and an infinite number of black books, if you took out all of the red books, how many would you have left? The answer is a paradox. Furthermore if all the books in the library had an infinite number of pages and you read one book and your friend read all of the books in the library, who has read more? The answer is once again a paradox, you cannot count to infinity, infinity is impossible, it doesn't exist.
> *



you should read some of Cantor's set theory before you believe this...


----------



## Stasis

COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

Hehehe.... from Three Hundred Proofs of God's Existence


----------



## psychoblast

I'd ask you to consider the distinction between (1) proving God exists (using your pre-existing notion of what "God" is) and (2) defining the term "God" as something that does exist.

I mean, what you said is no different than:

1.  Toast is caused by a toaster.
2.  Toast exists.
3.  Therefore toasters exist.

I choose to call toasters "God."  Therefore God exists.  In fact many gods exist, though they do not all hold the same number of slices of bread and they do not all toast with even consistency.  I think the God that toast the most bread the most even is probably the "supreme" god.

You are abdicating ALL CONCERN over exactly WHAT god is, merely so that you can feel secure that a thing labelled "god" exists.  Even if I agree that SOMETHING preceded and caused the universe, maybe it was the former universe?  Maybe each universe, at its death, explodes to create the next universe.  So congratulations, you are praying to a dead universe that has no sentience, no immortality, no present existence, no love, no goodness, etc., etc.  Is a dead universe really "god" just because it spawned our universe?

Or what if the big bang was an explosion that started the unvierse?  Now by your reasoning, you are now calling this explosion "god" even though it has no sentience, no morality, no goodness, no love, it does not watch over us, or care about us, or tell us how to be good, it provides no afterlife for us, etc., etc.

See, it is so obviously vacuous for you to try to prove god exists WITHOUT CONCERN for what god IS, what god's characteristics are.  God could be anything.  For all we know, our universe WAS created by a toaster.  Maybe there was another universe with a race of galaxy-size beings who loved toast so much they made a super-toaster, to make the toastiest toast ever.  But they didn't realize how much power this would take, and the toaster drew this power from the stars, all the stars in their whole universe, causing their universe to collapse and die.  And just at the moment all power was gone, and that universe died, the super toaster exploded with a shower of the most perfectly toasted particles that had ever existed.  An explosion so toasty it created a new universe, our universe.

You see how retarded it is to "pray" to something that you ONLY define as "whatever the hell caused our universe?

Here's another illustration of the problem with your proof:

Let's assume an omnipotent, benevolent, immortal, sentient Being exists and watches over us and loves us and guides our souls to another plane of existence to join him/her upon our death.  Now, let's further assume that this Being decided, one day, that there should be a universe full of sentient beings interacting, so that it could have companionship and diversity, etc.  And let's further assume that this Being wanted to be "surprised" by this universe, so this Being decided to remove itself one step from the creation process.  The Being created a servant, the "universe-maker," whose sole mission was to create the universe, and it was given the power to create matter and energy from thought, and it was given creativity, and it was given a level of randomness so that the Being would not know in advance exactly how the servant would make the Universe.  And so this dedicated servant created the universe, then it evaporated into nothingness, it's purpose fulfilled.

So the causal chain goes:  Supreme Being -> Universe-making Servant -> Universe.

By your syllogism, you have proved "God" exists, but YOUR GOD IS THE SERVANT, NOT THE SUPREME BEING!!!  Hell, the supreme being could have created a giant cockroach-like bug to spew forth our universe from its rectum, and you are calling the bug "God" rather than the bug's creator!!  So, your definition is SO FLAWED that even if there IS a being that we would all readily agree is God, your proof could have you worshipping ANOTHER THING ENTIRELY!!

See, it is utterly arbitrary to stop JUST ONE causal step back from the universe and call THAT cause "god."  Why not call god the thing that caused that cause?  Or the thing that caused the cause before that?  How do you know WHICH causal step involves a benevolent, sentient, omnipotent being and WHICH causal step involves exploding toasters, giant bugs or other things that, in fact, there is no point in worshipping?  (And you might consider why you are so desperate to find something to worship.  You can worship me, if you like.  I exist.  I cause stuff.)

In conclusion, this "proof" is so obviously flawed, it makes my teeth hurt.

Now, in order to avoid these problems, some past philosophers have revised your syllogism to say that God is the FIRST cause, rather than merely the cause that preceded the universe.  This seems to resolve the issue of whether this cause is "supreme" enough to be "god."  However, presuming the existence of a first cause violates the first premise that everything has a cause, so that proof does not work either.  And if you start with a premise "everything but the first cause has a cause" in order to salvage the "first cause" proof of god, then you are bootstrapping with circular and meaningless reasoning.

Did you really think it would be so easy to MEANINGFULLY prove god exists?  Anyone can MEANINGLESSLY prove god exists.  I can say, "I define god as my toaster.  See this toast?  This toast proves I have a toaster.  See this picture?  It shows my toaster.  See this object in my arms?  It is my toaster.  I have now proved -- with hard, irrefutable evidence -- that my toaster exists.  Therefore, since god (by my definition) is my toaster, and my toaster exists, then god exists."  See, you and I can prove god exists all day long if we don't miind that god's existence is meaningless because we have -- necessarily -- used a meaningless or trivial definition of god.  The definition "my toaster" is trivial.  The definition "whatever the hell caused the universe" is meaningless.

Anyway, if you figure out a way to prove that a meaningful definition of god exists...well, I'm sure you won't, so why bother finishing my thought?

~psychoblast~

p.s.  Is anyone else concerned with the concept of something outside the universe?  Isn't the universe properly defined as "everything"?  Can you say, "Here is everything.  Now, what caused everything?  It must be something that exists outside of everything."  Well DUH, everything necessarily excludes NOTHING, there is nothing outside of it!!  It is just a completely idiotic mental picture for people to keep going, "Uh, what if God exists outside the universe...duh..."  Well, then, wherever God exists is STILL part of the universe, just a part we did not know about.


----------



## psychoblast

Good one, Stasis.

~psychoblast~


----------



## WhyzFool

Here is another problem. Measurement is an illusion. 

For instance, let's take measuring a cube of wood. If we try to measure it exactly, we would end up measuring the dimensions of moving theoretical particles that are made of other moving theoretical particles, ad infinitum. 

In trying this, we realize that space is not really space, and time is not really time. Space and Time are names for our percieved experiential realm. Like CrimeThink said, how fast does time move? How spacious is space? We can create a unit to help us understand our level of experience, such as the kilogram, the hour, or the meter, but these things are not what make our realm. If we try to measure a point in space to absolute accuracy, we cannot, yet space is made of points. If we try to measure a moment to absolute accuracy, we cannot, yet time is made of moments. 

Even the objects and concepts we name do not really exist...for instance a bottle is a substance formed to a certain visible shape that does not disintegrate in our lifetime. If it is made of glass, and it breaks, it is now considered shards of glass, and glass is made of molecules, which are made from subatomic particles, which are composed of quarks, which are composed of somethingh that we have no idea of yet. 

How can we say that "god" or "space" or "time" even exist, but in our own minds? We give names to the visible, based on the limits we appear to detect. Simply because we name these things does not make them objectively real. 

For instance, can we measure exactly where the sky ends and the ground begins? Can we measure exactly the intervals between moments?
No, we can't. Therefore, there are no objects because we cannot measure the limits of the objects we appear to percieve. If there are no independent objects, then everything is inseperable, and therefore one. 

If there are no independent things, then there is no time, no space, no cause, no effect. The only reality is subjective experience, which is to say, "I am".

There are no limits because infinitely accurate measurement is impossible.
We will ultimately be misled if we try to understand and answer metaphysical questions using these false boundaries.

I have found so far that the answers are unable to be put into words. As far as I know, this is my thesis on the nonexistent metaphysics of Zen Buddhism, which asserts that everything is Void, or no-thing. I have found that no-thing cannot be fully understood except through meditation. It is impossible to completely communicate it due to its nature.

Logic and thought are based on assumed limits, and that is why they can get you to the shore, but it can't get you across the river.


----------



## Belisarius

<<You are abdicating ALL CONCERN over exactly WHAT god is, merely so that you can feel secure that a thing labelled "god" exists. Even if I agree that SOMETHING preceded and caused the universe, maybe it was the former universe? Maybe each universe, at its death, explodes to create the next universe. So congratulations, you are praying to a dead universe that has no sentience, no immortality, no present existence, no love, no goodness, etc., etc. Is a dead universe really "god" just because it spawned our universe?>>

Bingo.  The Cosmological argument makes no claims about God's nature, so even if it somehow entails that He exists, then for all we know He could be wholly amoral, or even evil.  If you want an abstract "proof" of God's existence, go for the Ontological Argument, although that one is contingent on an Aristotelian idea of existence being a perfection over nonexistence.

In any case, it is not the case that everything has a cause.  What "causes" virtual particles to pop in and out of existence?  What "causes" the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?  How do we know that the universe had a cause?  To call on Hume again:  how do we know we're seeing causes at all, and not an endless series of subsequent events?  Finally, the Cosmological argument rests on the assumption that God, if He exists, would actually create the universe--as opposed to merely existing--and it doesn't prove that at all.


----------



## alostlittlebird

the universe, an illusionary wrapped up package, assumed to begin, to end, to contain and to exist - because the human mind has an easier time imagining the goldfish in a bowl - but first i would think you'd need to know what the universe is, what god is, before you can suppose how they originated

can we even wrap our minds around that?


----------



## psychoblast

Well, I've often thought the one logical dilemma, for me at least, was the following set of what I perceive as truths:

1.  Something cannot come from nothing (i.e., appear without cause).
2.  Everything is caused by something else.
3.  If we trace the causal chain backwards from now, it cannot be infinite.  If it were infinite, then the causal chain would never have gotten to now (i.e., if you start counting from minus infinite to zero, you will never reach zero).
4.  We have gotten to now, therefore the causal chain that precedes now must be finite, it must have a beginning.
5.  If there is a beginning, then that means there is a cause that, itself, spontaneously came into existence (i.e., appeared without cause).
6.  But something cannot come from nothing.

This is obviously a contradictory set of perceived truths.  As near as I can figure, either the causal chain DOES go back forever (yet somehow still reached now) or at some time something did come from nothing.

The more I reflect on the idea of there ever being "nothing" the more I see that that is the true impossibility.  Nothing can't ever have existed because the very concept of existence presumes a thing existing.  I mean, you try to picture nothing existing, and you picture a big black empty universe, but that is not nothing, because if nothing existed, then the blackness would be gone, the bigness would be gone.  When you erase absolutely everything, you see how it is particularly unthinkable for such nothingness to ever spawn something.

So, choosing the lesser of two evils, I must concede that something has always existed and you can trace the causal chain of existence back forever.  I don't know how this is possible, but I think it must be.

~psychoblast~


----------



## ff3mwg

> the super toaster exploded with a shower of the most perfectly toasted particles that had ever existed


^^^trying explaining that one out of context, eh? 

I like what space_dolphin brought up about humans having an exceptional potential for understanding as part of nature's way to survive unexpected situations.  Most humans try to assert explanations for the mysterious just because it is in our best interest to do so, as part of our superior evolution.
But do the explanations matter?  Does coming to certain conclusions about the 'spiritual' world give some sort of essential satisfaction?  Any insights you gain about 'god' etc. are probably false (not that they can be verified), because our brains don't exist outside of the traditional time-space realm.  Essentially, 'god' wouldn't be able to explain itself to us.
I feel that the best way to be a spiritual person is to study the sciences to great lengths (as much as you want to until you get bored or senile, I guess?  ).  Then you feel personally connected to the wonders of nature and the universe, and you can be in great awe of them.  Explanations for the metaphysical need not apply.


----------



## Tr6ai0ls4

*
3. If we trace the causal chain backwards from now, it cannot be infinite. If it were infinite, then the causal chain would never have gotten to now (i.e., if you start counting from minus infinite to zero, you will never reach zero).
4. We have gotten to now, therefore the causal chain that precedes now must be finite, it must have a beginning.
*

I think the problem with that reasoning is that it takes on the axiom of time being something which is measurable to 100% accuracy and that there is some sort of actual precise unit of measurement for time. Stop thinking of time in the context of it being split up into an infinite amount of seperate moments which are each 0 seconds long, and think of it as a singularity and you no longer have this problem. If time is a singularity there is no need to get to now. Its just always now, no matter when it is. 

If you still want split the singularity of time into moments, you lose precision, and some momentary instances are left unnacounted for. Its like trying to say that time has some sort of frame rate and if you were able to take a video camera that can capture every single moment of whats happening if you were to slow it down enough it would appear as though reality is skipping frame by frame by frame. Does that sound as stupid to you as it does to me? The only way to split it up into moments is if all moments had a value of 0. Meaning they wouldnt' take up any space in time. 0 second long moments. 

I think the same applies to spatial dimensions, but i'll just leave that alone for now, because I have not yet been able to me to explain it to anybody successfully. Its just a ridiculously confusing concept.


----------



## trippingmonkey

i think god is drumnbass


----------



## rewiiired

^
Here, here.

and:


> Personally i think that the first cause is one of these issues, it could be too complex for an organic mind to comprehend.


No, the illusion of beginnings/ends are pretty easy for a human mind to comprehend. Look at books. The 12-month calandar. The 24 hour day split up into 12 hours. 365 days a year. Right and wrong, birth and death, good and evil, sleep and waking. As a matter of fact, I'd say we place these definite limitations on our perceptions of the world in order to make the world seem more comprehensible from our perspective. Without them we'd be in a mess of chaos. So god as a first cause, a big bang as the beginning of everything, the big crunch as the end, the fucking apocolypse, it's all the same to me. Limitations we place on the unvierse with our minds. `Dead End' signs or street names. Chapters. I think it's much more difficult for a human beginning to concieve of no end, no beginning. I think our dualistic concepts have more to do with the limitations of the human mind -- that the idea of god and a definite beginning were instinctively created because we need to think that everything began somewhere. But we say everything began somewhere, or with somewho, and don't apply the same questions that lead us to determine that never-before-proven somewhere/who exists to somewhere/somewho him/her/itself. We don't answer questions through belieiving in a god, the idea of god explains nothing. What we do by believing in god is throw all our questions to one central point and then secretly label questioning that point an act of raping the sacred; we instinctively find it a threat to the fundamental basis of all that is. 

The first cause is a simple issue: it makes no fucking sense at all. Not one solitary shred of sense. There is not one good reason to believe in a god. And there is not anything pessimistic or dreary about a godless, beginningless, endless universe. 

All the pain will never be gone, all the questions won't ever be answered. No god is going to save you. Get over it. Insipid ideas like the cosmological argument aren't going to change that.


----------



## Yggdrasil

Picture a circle, everything inside the circle represents all the knowledge humanity has.  Anything that exists outside the circle may or may not exist, we have no knowledge of it, therefore we can not say.  It is extremely possible to draw a dot outside the circle and name it God, which makes an unprovable statment that God may or may not exist.  Not only that, but the answer to the question and theory stated in the first post also may be a dot that lies somewhere outside the circle of knowledge.  Therefore anything and everything we know has no way of understanding it or knowing it.  It is unlikely that with our unfathomably small amount of knowledge we should be able to deduce the causality and "purpose" of the universe, or a being referred to as "God."


----------



## JerryBlunted

rewiiired said:
			
		

> *The first cause is a simple issue: it makes no fucking sense at all. Not one solitary shred of sense. There is not one good reason to believe in a god. And there is not anything pessimistic or dreary about a godless, beginningless, endless universe.
> 
> All the pain will never be gone, all the questions won't ever be answered. No god is going to save you. Get over it. Insipid ideas like the cosmological argument aren't going to change that. *



Your assertion that there is not one good reason to believe in god is pretty subjective and I'd personally say it is false. Arguments like the cosmological argument are never going to prove or disprove the existence of something transcendent like a theistic god, should he/she/it actually exist. But, because you can't construct an argument following the rules of symbolic logic to prove something doesn't necessarily disprove it. Can you prove the existence of consciousness, love, hate, or any of the other myriad ineffable elements of our subjective existances? No, but I'd be willing to bet these things actually do exist. 

You seem to presuppose that a person's belief or at least openness to the possibility of a conscious creative principle or figure automatically is related to a need to be saved. I'd be willing to bet there are many people who are interested in answers to questions like that who aren't appealing to some cosmic parental figure to put their lives in order. 

With all this said, I was going to post Hume's critical analysis of the cosmological argument, but I forgot I gave me philosophy of religion textbook to a girl I know so I can't do that. However, I bet you can look it up on the internet if anyone is interested in hearing what that ball buster has to say about it.


----------



## Stasis

JerryBlunted said:
			
		

> *Your assertion that there is not one good reason to believe in god is pretty subjective and I'd personally say it is false. *



And that good reason is?


----------



## psychoblast

Symbolic logic CAN disprove the existence of God.  It goes like this:

1.  God = ?
2.  Does ? exist?
3.  Well, unless you define "?" it is meaningless to say "? exists.
4.  So the existence of God is meaningless.

Well, that doesn't disprove the existence of God, so much as the meaningfullness of God's existence, which I think is close enough.

Alternatively, there IS one good proof for the existence of God.  It goes like this:

1.  Beings in the universe have varying degrees of intelligence, goodness, universal love, power, lifespans, and all other characteristics that are commonly ascribed to God.
2.  So some beings are more intelligent, good, loving, powerful, long-lived, etc. than others and some are less.
3.  Somewhere in the universe is a being who, based on whatever characteristics you ascribe to "god" and the importance you attach to each godly characteristic, there is a being who exists and is the most "god-like".
4.  We can call this being God.
5.  This being exists, as defined in step 4.

I call this the "somewhere there is a biggest chicken" proof of God.  Essentially, this means God is, by definition, the most god-like being that exists.  I believe in this being.  (In fact, I believe there are many beings who fit this bill, depending on all the variable ways you could perceive what characteristics make a being "god-like".)

~psychoblast~


----------



## Stasis

psychoblast said:
			
		

> *I call this the "somewhere there is a biggest chicken" proof of God. *



Sorry, I ate this god today, with a side of mashed potatoes.


----------



## JerryBlunted

Stasis said:
			
		

> *And that good reason is? *



Engagement with the subjective, experiential, mystical aspects of religious consciousness. This is a personal thing, and doesn't do well when you try to describe it within the bounds of normal language. Mystical writers have tended instead of trying to describe what "it" is, to describe what "it" is not. This is called apophatic theology. Mystical experience does not break down into symbolic logic. You can't represent an affectual state as a series of mathematical statements (at least not at the level of understanding we currently possess of mathematics).

The basic premise is that ultimate reality, whatever it may be, is beyond the limits of our current state of consciousness which insists on quantifying, categorizing and dissecting aspects of our field of perception. Most of the people who advocate this style of religious thinking would most likely be emphatic in their denial of God in the traditional theistic sense, however. 

I think the paternal figure sitting on a throne out somewhere in the clouds is obviously not a literal reality. Well, I shouldn't say obviously as there are a lot of people who don't see things that way. However, the denial of a theistic God does not preclude belief in the actuality of a nontheistic God. I've seen this often referred to as "the ground of being" or "godhead" or "unitive consciousness." This fits the criteria for "God" only if you qualify god as the greatest, most all encompassing being in existence. Not if you go by the theistic characteristics of omnipotence, omnipresence, all good, infallible, etc. 

As for psychoblast's "proof:"

1. God = ?
2. Does ? exist?
3. Well, unless you define "?" it is meaningless to say "? exists.
4. So the existence of God is meaningless.


I would answer with:

1. God = ? 
2. ? = the subjective experience of mystery
3. subjective experience of mystery = undefinable in objective terms
4. God = undefinable in objective terms
5. That which is undefinable is not inherently false or meaningless
6. The concept of God is neither inherently false nor meaningless
7. The concept of God is a mystery, meaning any number of possible answers can be correct.

Obviously that is a pretty sloppy way to say all of that, which basically boils down to: The existence of God is a mystery. A mystery does not mean something is meaningless, it means it is unknown. Perhaps this type of knowledge is beyond out current limits of understanding, perhaps there really is no God. Without any additional evidence this matter cannot be resolved in a formal, logical, objective manner. However, the existence or nonexistence of God is a pressing matter in the course of a human lifetime. Your stance on this issue will effect how you think and feel about various situations, people, and occurrences in your lifetime. So you must make a decision or at least entertain one or more possible perspectives. In the absence of concrete factual information it is allowable to use personal intuition, subjective experience, and unprovable beliefs to guide one's life. 

Another good reason to believe in God is the psychological evidence that having faith in some spiritual or transcendent beliefs is correlated with longer life and higher quality of life. There are many possible confounds in that type of correlational research, and of course correlation does not equal causation. But, nonetheless, it does seem to be a positive force in the lives of many people. If religion is not for you thats all well and good, but clearly for the vast majority of human existence it has been a very important and central aspect of life.


----------



## rewiiired

> Your assertion that there is not one good reason to believe in god is pretty subjective and I'd personally say it is false.


Subjective assertion versus subjective assertion. I see this argument getting somewhere. Really.


----------



## WhyzFool

psychoblast, are you saying that god is defined by the grandeur of its characteristics? If so, we are the ones who label and define characteristics, so whom or whatever we characterize as god will simply be that which sufficiently fits our expectations for god, which may or may not be god (aka ultimate truth).

how do you define a degree, or a maximum, or a minimum for that matter? what about characteristics that we are unaware or ignorant of? Ultimately, most of the characteristics we think of when pondering the question of a higher being are human characteristics viewed from a human perspective. 

the problem i find in the biggest chicken argument is that we assume that (a) there are a bunch of smaller chickens (b) we have the ability to discern the size of the chickens accurately (c) god can be defined (d) we know what a "chicken" is (chicken representing the fundamental description of a being).

not to say that your argument isn't rational, because it is, but that logic in general is insufficient for discovering ultimate truth because of axioms (assumptions) that create a false foundation for logic that are based on agreed subjective observations. 

I think that if we approach the question of god with expectations, we will fail to see the truth, because we have already defined it in our minds. 

In short, how can you fill your cup if it is already full?


----------



## JerryBlunted

rewiiired said:
			
		

> *Subjective assertion versus subjective assertion. I see this argument getting somewhere. Really. *



Well, the assertion that religion is correlated with longevity and healthier lifestyles isn't subjective. That got somewhere. Besides, I wasn't trying to argue for the existence of God, I was arguing against the assertion that there is no good reason to believe in God. There ARE reasons to do so, whether they are correct or not is at this point entirely subjective as there is no possible objective process to determine one way or the other. 

But, if you are so concerned about this argument "getting somewhere" why did you present your subjective experience or views as though they meant something more?


----------



## psychoblast

If "God" is not objectively defined, how do you know when you find him / see him / experience him?  Maybe what you THINK is God will turn out to be his younger brother Hank, who is also very powerful but not quite right in the head.

~psychoblast~


----------



## WhyzFool

^^^ nice one.


----------



## goatyoghurt

I must say that when I posted this thread I thought that the argument was damn near infallible (especially how my philosophy tutor explained it), but now I see the flaws in it  I would appreciate it if someone posted more about Hume's critique of the argument or told me which book I could find it in


----------



## JerryBlunted

goatyoghurt = I wish I still had the book I read it in (Introduction to a Philosophy of Religion, I don't remember the author's name). But, I bet you can find this on google or yahoo very quickly:


keywords: hume AND cosmological


He has pretty solid replies for all the traditional arguments for the existence of God except the teleological argument (the universe is orderly reflecting the mind of an orderly creator), in my humble opinion. But, Hume is also a reductionist and positivist of the worst sort (that which can't be measured is irrelevant or worse nonexistant), be warned he will probably frustrate the hell out of you.


----------



## goatyoghurt

Thanks, I'm actually looking forward to it, I enrolled in Philosophy of Religion for next semester, so I can't wait


----------



## beanergrl

*to struggle with God*

When i first came to this site i couldn't see past the Bible. I thought that i was special because i could see things differently. Because Jesus had revealed Himself to me in a way i thought was divine. I thought every other religion was wrong. They were all decieved by satan somehow in my eyes.
I would only post in T&A after the board started to divide into forums because i felt that posting anywhere else was meaningless to my life and everything i had to do had to be for God. Because if i wasn't for God then i was against Him. It was all black and white. No grey. Every move had to be in the Light or else it would be away from it.If you look at my posts from a few years ago especially the earliest ones you will see all of that reflected in it.

That wasn't the first time in my life i felt like that. I felt special when i was pulled out of my Catholic Church and saved, literally. It was a Baptist Church and i cried when i was saved and then felt the Spirit of Christ move through my body (even more powerful then salvation) when i was baptised.

When i started reading teachings from an SDA church in my early twenties and i again felt like i choosen and was revealed more secrets and understood more. I felt like i was special because i was pulled from my Baptist affiliations by the power of God for something bigger.

Funny thing about SDA churches is they trace back every single origin (that they want to of) of everything and take  passages and study it verse by verse in Hebrew and Arabic in the entire context. Many words in the Bible actually mean other words but since they didn't have a word for it during the translation it became a word with very loose meanings even though it does have an exact one. does that make sense? (kind of tounge tied) For example the word meat to us means animal flesh. Meat in the Bible was food. Depending on what the actual word was that they used for meat during the translation would determine if we are talking about flesh or fruits and veggies or bread. However, you wouldn't know by just reading the Bible what they were referring to. You'd have to look each passage up in Strongs.

So by my new church the "hell" i had always thought my beer drinking poker playing (evil cards) father would burn it being tortured by demons and fire became a grave. Passage by passage we went through the Bible. It isn't untill the end of the New Testament that hell is translated from Tartaros which is direct straight from Greek mythology.
For years i stayed with that church believing that they were the true church (as if there can really be). They didn't take the mark of the beast by taking on Sunday worship (that's what they teach the mark of the beast is). I had gone from believing in the Baptist beliefs of directly taking the mark in your FOREhead or FOREhand, to being shown that it actually translates to having foreknowledge (in your head) and being forced (hand) to do something. You talk about your totally different interpetations just by looking up a passage.

Ah, but heaven was different. Just as the Baptist before them the SDA's believed in heaven on earth eventually. You know, the whole John's vision in Revelation type of New Jeruselum?

*knock, knock* One day a Jehovah Witness came and she had a Watchtower Magazine on the New Earth. Being an SDA we actually have classes on how to take on a Witness and show them their "error". I invited her in and we sat down and she was impressed with my knowledge of the verses about hell as well as others. She seemed to think i was agreeing with her because we have alot of the common beliefs. But then i started talking about the Sabbath and why it is special and we got into a Bible discussion about that. She soon became my friend and came back every week. we never discussed where we differed in viewpoints (they don't believe in the trinity), we mostly discussed the New Earth.

Now this is where it stated to go crazy for me. The SDA religion was so into getting rid of all pagan traditions (birthdays, wedding rings, sunday worship, flesh eating, christmas, easter...) but yet they would only use the King James version of the Bible.. King James was a pretty evil man who didn't think anyone was worthy of reading the Bible but priest and kings. I wondered why my church would trust the man who murdered and supressed people.
(this was also around the same time the old spirituality forum on BL opened)

I thought if the church has done all of this and accepted all of the nonBiblical traditions then it doesn't sound like it was walking into the Light of God. For the first time ever i left my Bible for outside info.
The first place i started was finding out about how the Bible was compiled and what all went on with it. What i found out did not make me happy. I went on a quest for all these other missing books and documents. I discovered the Gnostics and the Essenes and all the paganism in the Jews in the OT. I discovered the Christ concept and the other Christ. (Later i would learn that some refer to this same evolving story as a meme which is a whole another thing for me really.) I saw Jesus in a different role with a different view in these other books. If these books were hidden and not discovered or rejected by the king, but yet the king incorporated pagan mythology into the Bible for his advantage in controlling and converting the pagans then why shouldn't i trust the books that stayed away from the king's hands. And Paul's hands too. I always considered Paul such a holy man but then reading about him and his greed and obsessions made me realize i couldnt trust him to determine what books or pieces of books belonged in the Bible either. I mean, how could they say that paragraph A from this church can be included in the Bible but not paragraph B.?

I wanted true christainity. I wanted to know what Jesus really wanted and what He really said and what his role really was without interference from contridicting books of the NT. The Essenes fascinated me, and still do. If there is one form of christainity that is most true the Essenes would have to be it. They knew of the Christ Concept and were aware of other Christ before that, but yet were waiting for their messiah as promised.

So through studing them i got into reading about Buddism which i believe Jesus was trying to show us. Somehow His posistion to me changed from the trinity concept into one of Him being born a regular man (the bible says he was born like me and you too, not knowing who he was to be much later), a messager of God, a Son of God, who lived a perfect life and achieved the ultimate- becoming one with God. To me then i saw He wanted us free from the bonds of religion and wanted us to devolop the God in ourselves. The Bible told me we were created to be like God. It says that we are created in His image and to reflect him in all ways. So the buddhist approach i do not knock.
From there i looked into the history of religions and how they all formed up. of, coarse, posting on BL did not help me any. I was tring to sort things out for myself and i all i ever heard was that God was created by man. That i was not ever going to accept. Religion was created by man. Everyone was equal and there were many paths. We all have the imprint of God in us, we just have to recogize (or deny) that.

So i liked the Essenes and i dug into old Jewish roots but problem was when i dug deeper i found out that the entire trinity concept was based on mythology. what's worse i discovered was all the same OT stories that i based alot of faith upon were taken from the pagans themselves. what made me madder was that i was always told that the first four books of my bible were the same as the Jewish Torah. They are not. There are certainly twist and omissions in the stories book to book. Many of the Psalms and Chaldean myth of the flood, the story of Moses and Abraham, as well as the Garden of Eden creation story can all be traced back to pagan mythology before they were ever recorded in a holy book. these stories are almost exactly the same except the names have been changed.
for example here is a piece of the flood myth:

"The deity Cronos appeared to him (Xisuthrus) in a vision and warned him that upon the fifteenth day of the month Desius there would be a flood, by which mankind would be destroyed. He therefore enjoined him to build a vessel, and take with him into it his friends and relations, and to convey on board everything necessary to sustain life, together with all the different animals, both birds and quadrupeds, and trust himself fearlessly to the deep. After the flood had been upon the earth, and was in time abated, Xisutrus sent out birds from the vessel. He therefore made an opening in the vessel, and upon looking out found that it was stranded upon the side of some mountain." 

The legends of Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egypt is a version of the story of Bacchus, the Sun-god. 

Bacchus had a rod with which he performed miracles, and which he could change into a serpent at pleasure. he passed the Red Sea, dry shod, at the head of his army. By the same mighty wand, he drew water from the rock, and wherever they marched, the land flowed with wine, milk and honey. 


~~~~~

I really had to sort things out. I am not and will not ever believe in anything less then a Higher Power. I have had too many things happen to me all my life like being saved by my angels and OBE's that nobody will ever convince me didnt really happen. Or that was my brain experiencing trauma or whatever. NEVER!
So what about these "myths"? I could say that they were planted here by satan to decieve people but that would be turning a blind eye and living in denial really. Some christains who don't believe the world is as old as it is think that dino bones were planted here too as deception. This is all just a wacked out way to think to me.

To put away these stories as pagan myths would be to put away my whole Bible and start over with a completly different religion. Or i can think about it, think about it. What if since we can trace these "myth" stories all the way back to Eden and since they predate the bible what if pagantry was the true religion? And then i thought if it all started in the Garden of Eden with just God and man, then wouldn't everything that comes between God and man be pagan? including all religion? If it was just God and man then, then it should be God and man now. But how would i serve God what about the Bible will i believe if any? How do i determine what is true and what's not for me? I think now that since time and stories started with the pagans, then pagans all are we. All religions formed out of it so therefore the truth has to be there too.

Of, coarse, this is the most difficult part because some myths are just not keeping in Gods law at all.
The trinity has also been disputed or believed in with other Christ before Him thousands of years ago. Some pagans believed it as too pagan.
I just don't know. 

I used to think that Satan was messing with my head by showing me these things to get me off track and away from Gods plan for me. I longed for a simpler way when i had a simple plan. I tried and tried to forget what i knew instead of making sense of it.
One day i was mediating on everything and praying for true light and i heard a voice inside me say how i was getting true light but i was accusing satan of delivering it. it said how i just want to denywhat i am shown instead of excepting it. the voice said "you can't always make it go your way. it is My way". It made  sense to me even though it doesn't to you.

My last name also posed to be a problem or a salvation for me. The name Saliba is the earliest Christain name ever recorded. It is Armenian and means "bearer or carrier of the cross", or the "the cruicified", it loses it's actual meaning in translation. It is a name directly descended from the Kings of Sparta andwas also sais to be the surname of King Saul (surname Sali.. the 'ba" made it christainfied when it was recorded in Malta a few years later), who later became Paul (of all people). So is my name a lie then? My husband's whole celebrated heritage for centuries all a sham?

Jesus doesn't want my salvation through an institution or any religion whatsoever. My salvation lies in beliving in God and beliving that Jesus came to show me who to be like. That is where i am at now. that is the message i have recieved at this point. I am my religion, no one else can join it. Jesus wants you to have your own. The kingdom of God is within you. I will keep the commandments as they are what Jesus did. they are right. I will listen to my teacher and i will pray to and honor my God. That's how i will grow and serve Him.

The Bible is still resourceful to me in many ways. And unlike many who abandon it's words because they find an inaccuracy or deception in it, i like to see it in seperate fragments. I still looking up origins.... taking some, leaving some. It wasn't all supposed to be one big book of truth. Just because someone told you it is dosent mean you have to believe them. That i have learned. but there is truth. the truth is good. the truth is love and light and i won't take anything less from my God. That could be a big debate in itself, but it's no longer about a debate with others. it's about living in my light i get. 

~~~ So i want to know... do you struggle like this with what is true and what isn't? How many times have you changed your beliefs? Are their atheist that struggle themselves ? Do you believe we must keep evolving or do you stop yourself from the places you could go?


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

^Holy crap!!! That is a looooooong post...LOL But i am going to read it, it BETTER be good!


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

To answer your questions at the end, YES, i struggle with what is true and what isnt. I am not going into it all, but trust me, i dont and didnt just blindly believe what i have come to believe in. It was a very long journey that i am still traveling on....

I have a lot to say about your post, but i wont...I want tp point out though, that these myths from pagans and all that that you say were before the bible. How do you know they were before the Bible??? You cant possible know that. What documents are older than the dead sea scrolls? You are going from info even more sketchy than what people claim the scritpures to be. 

What amazes me, is that while i may have not studied the same exact things as you are even as much as you have, maybe i have i dont know. But the point is, everything you see to work against the Bible i see to work for it. It is hard for me to explain so i wont even try.

I will end with saying this, you are completely contradicting yourself at points. You are believing in the commandment from writings you say came from pagans. You basically are trying to pick and choose your way through all of this and THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!! You (IMO) are letting your ownself get in the way of God. As much as you seem to have freed yourself from religion you have bound yourself up with your own "religion". 

I could say SOOOOOOO much more, but i wont. I dont feel it inside me to say anymore than i have...God Bless


----------



## beanergrl

yes, i do pick and choose. if i didnt then i would have to accept what i know not to be true and if i do then i also have to choose to believe the pagan origins too. the one thing that i adamantly hold though is the big ten. i have my reasoning behind it which i will explain.
i have a lot more to help explain this which involves theology more then it does my views and i am making another thread for you to explain.

as for the stories that predate the Bible they were found recorded already and archeology has proven them to be older as does the religion they served. like we know the sumarians worshipped and wrote what they did because we have historical evidence of them and their beliefs. we also have the story of Job which is the oldest story (i think) in the world. it is actually a Greek play. this we can prove because it is elsewheres in their history.

it's only natural that the Jews would take these stories with them because it's all they knew. so then maybe then it is true, you know what i'm saying?  if the Jews took say the story of creation with them (which is slightly different then the Biblical christainfied Genesis account) then who's to say that maybe they wouldnt have used it in their holy book if they didn't believe it was true? so therefore truth in paganism? because i believe in the story of creation. so i believe in a pagan story.
see, this is my struggle. so when i struggle that is when that voice just comes in and tells me that i know what i need to do here, i know my mission. and that's all i have to worry about. God gave His Law and as long as i am following it (and His law is similar in all religions) and following my soul then i am doing what is expected of me...the following my own religion.

the bible tells us we will all struggle with Him. or wrestle maybe it says? whatever, this is mine. it never puts me farther from Him though. it brings me closer. God Bless you too.


----------



## Stasis

I wrestled with god once, I managed to get him into a sleeper hold and he disappeared, never to be seen again.


----------



## skywise

I read your entire post and...I think you might be surprised to hear (considering our arguments aboug jesus existing) that I went through almost the very same thing you are right now.   i don't think i want to write a big post about it for everyone to read, but i'll pm you.


----------



## beanergrl

thank you , i would really love to read it. 

if i said it's been easy, i'd be lying.


----------



## InsideOut26

Here's my story...
I was raised in a christian family but not necessarily the kind that reads the bible and goes to church all the time. After my dad died I questioned god's existence for a while. Then when I was in middle school I also looked into other religions predominantly hinduism and buddhism. I was raised methodist and something told me to go to church I thought it would solve all my problems I guess. So I joined the youth group. I stuck with it at some points every sunday reading the bible and everything. I really think though that I was hiding myself I didn't want to find out what I really believed so I turned to a religion to tell me what to believe. Then as a junior perhaps when I was most into christianity things caused me to question it. I dated sideways_falling who was fillling me with all these new ideas and forcing me to be more open minded and accepting. In the midst of this along came skywise's Jesus paper. After reading it and looking at some pictures skywise had me the fundamentalist christian going is Jesus even REAL?! This led to me deciding not to go to church anymore untill I had things figured out but I continued to go to youth group. I had a really hard time thinking of God as something other than christian but the school year started and I read the conversations with god trilogy (thanks skywise) which was life changing to say the least also I took a particular class about all of this and I'm a different person now. I quit youth group as well it was like when I went I didn't belong there what I believed was different from what they were telling me to believe. And when I tried to talk to my youth leader about my new found spirituality I never felt like she really got it. Also I did sort get challenged by her husband I think I argued that god is in everyone or something and he was like oh so the Hindu's have it right? And at that point I'd had enough and decided to move away from christianity entirely. I'm still not very clear on my feelings about Jesus and whether or not he really existed but it's not especially important to me to determine if he did or not. I'm currently reading the 12th planet and plan on reading genesis revisited beanergrl I think if you haven't read those you might find them interesting. I really agree with you about moving away from a religion because you have to discover these things for yourself and return to your own spirituality.


----------



## quiet roar

Fantastic post beanergrl. Very much similar to my own thought processes, but again, with slightly different outcomes (so far). I will post more when I have time to compile my thoughts (i.e. after work)


----------



## Sir Jac

great post! gave me a better understanding of the mentality of people raised by religion... also helped me better understand what my friend is getting into... I can't say that I relate to any of it, but since I'll never be able to personally live that experience, reading about it is the next best thing :D


----------



## quiet roar

Started on my post and half an hour later realised that I have so much to write on this topic that it would take me 3 or more hours of writing (and rewriting - damn I wish I could write like psychonaut!).

I will just say that I applaud your endeavour because although I don't believe you can find certainty in this area your search will keep you on the right path. I think.

However, if you're ever in Melbourne I would enjoy chatting for a couple of hours


----------



## The HiVe MiND

Thanks for shedding light on those areas of life I have not experienced directly. My path is quite different, although it does involve some knowledge of Christs' light.

ALL  RELIGIONS  ARE  SLIVERS  OF  A  GREAT  TRUTH

..we got confused somewhere along the way,  probably with the destruction of the Tower of Babel or something..


----------



## Tranquil Soul

I highly commend the amount of research you have put into this beanergrl. It must have taken a hell of a lot of initiative, something which I could never dream of having so much of.

A very good read, and some great points raised. I love it. 

A+


----------



## psychoblast

This sounds a little like what I have come to believe about Jesus.  That he was misunderstood and Christianity is a great big misunderstanding.

Jesus is born, comes to an understanding that the quest for material wealth at the expense of others is harmful, preaches peace and love and service to humanity.  But the message gets screwed up

Jesus:  If you love your fellow humans as you love yourselves, there will be heaven on earth.

People:  Who are you that you know how to bring heaven to earth?

Jesus:  I am a child of God.

People:  So, will we all get into this heaven on earth?

Jesus:  If you believe me (intending this to mean "believe that you should love your fellow humans as yourselves").

People:  (Hearing "believe me" as "believe I am a child of God"), Great!  So we just have to believe you are the Son of God and we get into heaven!  What a simple way to be saved!  That's sure a lot easier than obeying commandments or sacrificing animals!

Romans:  (Being the wealthy and powerful, not liking Jesus' pseudo-communistic rhetoric.)  Let's kill that Jesus guy.  (They go arrest him, sentence him to execution.)

Jesus:  Well, shit, I guess I have to die to prove the sincerity of my pacifist philosophy.  But we are all children of God, so I believe in an afterlife where we return to our Supreme Father, God.  People, please note I accept this death for the greater good of humanity (intending this to mean "to prove my sincerity in the philosophy of universal love, as a lesson for others to follow").

People:   (Hearing "I accept this death for the greater good of humanity" as "by my death, humanity is saved.")  Hmm....so by being crucified, Jesus suffered to pay God back for our sins.  That makes sense because you need justice, an eye for an eye and all that...  After all, the Old Testament God is a vengeful god...  I mean, look at all his wrathfulness in those Judaic stories.  So we could not expect HIM to just forgive humans for their sinfulness.  So we could not expect HIM to just accept our belief that Jesus was his Son as enough to redeem us for our sins in God's eyes.  No, God the Father needs blood and suffering to appease him.  So this makes more sense now -- God exacted his punishment for our sins by making Jesus suffer, like punishing us by proxy.  Whoop-di-doo!  Better Jesus than me, that's for damn sure!  Yay, crucifiction!  Yay, making Jesus suffer for bad stuff I did (and will do), God gets appeased and I get off scott free so long as I merely indicate that, yes, I believe Jesus was literally the son of God rather than a mere mortal!  What a great system!  Now I can sin all I want, so long as I have faith that Jesus was the Son of God!"

Jesus:  You people just aren't getting it.  Oh, well.  Another version of me will come in the future with the message, perhaps at a time when humans are more ready for it.

People:  You will return?  Oh, yeah, you mean to bring heaven back down to Earth like you talked about before...  So I guess we have no reason to try to improve our world, or try to make Earth like a paradise, or to try to create a system of universal love down here.  It's just temporary, after all.  We are just biding time until Jesus brings heaven down here.

Jesus.  [Sighs with exasperation.]  Are you people going to just fucking twist everything I say to fit a "message" that abdicates from you ALL responsibility?  You want to believe I suffered for your sins, so you don't have to suffer.  You want to believe I'm going to come back with heaven on a silver platter for you.  You think that just embracing the single concept that I am somehow more than mortal is the complete and total price of eternity in heaven?  What is this, the bluelight special of religions?  You join because it seems to be the best bang for the buck?  The greatest religious bargain on the market?  Oh, God, I can't make these people understand ... my death is for nothing.  Shit, it may even have made things worse!  Finally, I despair...  [Jesus dies.]

Jesus:  (Now dead, and reunited with God as are all dead people)  Shit, I guess I didn't communicate my message very well, now, did I?

God:  Oh, don't beat yourself up about it, Jesus.  The people were looking for a way to misunderstand you.  The people in power perverted your words to suit their own ambitions and to fit their own selfishness.  Humanity just was not ready.  They kept focusing on their fear of death, fear of pain, not on their hope for humanity, hope for peace, hope for brotherhood.  So they twisted everything you said as if it was an escape from those fears, not a path to fulfill those hopes.

People (back on Earth):  Wow!  What a great crucifiction!  Let's call ourselves Christians and celebrate Christ's crucifiction every year.

Jesus:  [Still dead, but aware of what happens on Earth.]  This is really too much.  Here my crucifiction signified the great failure of humanity, that it was not ready to embrace a principle of universal love and, in fact, humans went so far as to crucify the guy suggesting such a principle -- an obvious sign of humanity's immaturity and unreadiness to create heaven on earth...   And now these people calling themselves my "followers" have twisted it into some kind of fucking VICTORY FOR HUMANITY!!  If I were still alive, I'd be sick to my stomach....  Declaring their love for me in one breath and then celebrating my crucifiction in the next.  So desperate for an easy and trouble-free escape from death and from the illusory spectre of Hell.  Oh, well, better luck to the next person who tries to spread the truth...

Christians (back on Earth, centuries later):  [A man starts telling people that they got Jesus' message wrong, that "faith" that Jesus was more than mortal is not the end all and be all of divine morality, that they should practice universal love to create heaven on earth.]  Blasphemer!  Put him on the rack!  Where'd I put those hot coals?  Hang him when when he's had enough.  Show him what happens to enemies of Jesus and enemies of the Church!

Jesus:  [Still dead, but still aware of what happens on Earth.]  Boy, is this ironic, or what?  Very sad, but very ironic....  I better apologize to that guy when he gets here...

END.

Now, that's not supposed to be a literal expression of how Jesus' message got fucked up.  But just a summarized version of the shift that may have happened over many centuries.  Jesus' intended message may not really have been as pure as I've stated it.  He may have contributed more to the misunderstanding by having his own mistaken preconceptions based on his Jewish upbringing (he was, after all, merely human).  But I think it is indicative of the absurdity of Christianity, and probably has some semblance of truth concerning how we got to where we are now with Christianity.

~psychoblast~


----------



## _high_life_

hey what makes u say jesus was trying to tell us of buddhism?? and what did u have to prove them wrong about,i find that very funny that u took classes on how to deal with jehovas witnesses.i was raised a jehovas witness and find there views very relevant and still use there understanding in everyday life,i dont attend there meetings anymore as my dad ditched me and he was a witness which i found very cowardly and im only 16 and cant help being a bad little fucker and just deal with the bullshit my own ways but i kno il have to grow our of my sinfull ways one day.also what do u think about buddhism i dont kno much about it but it sounds very clean and pure and not all currupted but thats the ways currupted things can look sometimes so i dont kno.....who kno satan might just be a man made concept of the ultimate scapegoat...


----------



## Belisarius

Just for Stase...

From a friend's lapel pin:

"God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the mountains and I had to eat him."


----------



## beanergrl

^^ hey, you >>>>>>> OUT!  

Inside Out- thank you for sharing your story. That is the second time someone has recommended that book to me so it must be a sign. I will look for it at the library this weekend.

Quiet Roar- Thank you for trying. i know how difficult is is. It took me four hours to write that and my hand has hurt all day. and i'm journal slacking because of it. I didnt even go into the metaphysical part of how i feel and how it all ties into what i believe. There is simply too much metaphysical that i could write all day so i won't even try. Maybe someday i will come to the Land Down Under and i'll let you know.

Tranquil Soul & Sir Jack _   thanks.

Hive - i know what you mean and you and i agree on alot of things i didnt even get into, but we've discussed before.

 Psychoblast - something like that. when you say:
 "God exacted his punishment for our sins by making Jesus suffer, like punishing us by proxy. Whoop-di-doo! Better Jesus than me, that's for damn sure! Yay, crucifiction! Yay, making Jesus suffer for bad stuff I did (and will do), God gets appeased and I get off scott free so long as I merely indicate that, yes, I believe Jesus was literally the son of God rather than a mere mortal! What a great system! Now I can sin all I want, so long as I have faith that Jesus was the Son of God!"

That's what i always thought was fucked up about most Christainty .My old church taught that faith without works was dead, that it wasn't just faith alone which i agree with but not the baptist ones. But i have never agreed with God needing to sacrefice a person who lived without blemish for the sake of "eternal" life for all the rest of mankind. Whacked. I didn't understand and it made me skeptical as an adult. Glad to know it's part of a pagan myth. My next thread i am working on talks about that.

The way i see it is kind of like you. Poor Jesus, a chosen teacher of God. vegetarian most likely. (that's why the fish were notable when He ate it once. they wouldnt just write about Him eating any food. He took the fish "with thanksgiving" because it was offered to Him.) anyways, Jesus is using reiki and giving special sermons (Bible says it, located in the Dead Sea Scrolls for real. ) teaching His disciples how to heal and drive out bad energy and practices divine meditation. And he was wise and so they were intimadated by him and must kill him. Jesus understands he must be killed because it has been prophecised. But He is not dying for their sins but of their sins. 
After his death the Romans need someone to fit the bill of this role that has always worked before to control the people as well as to establish order and gain converts.Jesus was just their man.  The people certainly knew about him enough at that point to see how he could be placed in this role. Jesus never wanted us to worship him. Jesus doesn't want to pray to him. 

in a thread awhile ago i wrote this that illustrates it (there was more verses but edited for size: )
Jesus believed and studied the old test prophets so i don't think He ever thought He was God. The prophet Isaiah writes of God speaking to him saying in 45:5-7
"I am the Lord, and there is NO ONE else : there is no God besides me;I girded thee, and thou hast not known me:
That they may know who are from the rising of the sun, and they who are from the west, that there is NO ONE besides me. 
I am the Lord, and there is none else : I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil;I the Lord that do all these things."

Jesus also only referred to him serving One God and told us to do the same. He never said to worship him. He quotes "The Lord our God is one Lord", from duet. and expresses the same thing in Mark 12:29, Mark 12:32, John 17:3, & 1 Corinthians 8:6.

He made Himself One with God by living this life of rightousness and understanding and encourages us to do our best at achieving the most we can too by living according to the Light we get.He is how God would live if God lived on earth.
I do not believe in the trinity though and if Jesus taught the belief in one God- monotheism, then the trinity would going against the very concept that He taught to us. This is why Jesus would not want us worshipping Him or praying to Him.He prayed to God and said we should to. He said say "our Father who is in heaven, hallowed be thy name".

anyways, it's nice we agree on somethings. *shakes hand*

high life- i wrote about Jesus and buddhism on this board somewhere and have been looking for a half hour for it. the search isnt giving me what i need. i'll try again tomoorw and post the thread link for you.


----------



## _high_life_

...u kno u cant always beleive whats u read after all it was writen by cursed humans. Do you beleive in the end of days for this world of things??? as in armegedon i dont kno if u read anything on jehovas witnesses but i find that the last days of this world of things as descibed in revelations quite cedible with our times,do u kno the significance of 1914???????and about the jesus thing where u he died for our sins,god had to sacrifice his body on earth because adam had disobeied god and ate from the tree of knowledge,its only a ballance of things as in an eye for an eye.dont kno if u knew anything about that,u have a vaster knowledge about religions than i so i might be repeating what u kno...who knos, anyways....


----------



## JerryBlunted

_high_life_ said:
			
		

> *...u kno u cant always beleive whats u read after all it was writen by cursed humans. Do you beleive in the end of days for this world of things??? as in armegedon i dont kno if u read anything on jehovas witnesses but i find that the last days of this world of things as descibed in revelations quite cedible with our times,do u kno the significance of 1914???????*



MY question for you would be that if only 144,000 are going to be saved in the Rapture, and there are more than 144,000 Jehova's Witnesses worldwide, then why do you they keep coming to my door? Aren't they worried I might take one of their spots?


----------



## _high_life_

whats are u talking about only 144,000 will survive the rapture?? ur probably talking about those truly worthy of being jesus christ wife when the descrution has happened.those truly riteouse to god will be in heaven with him and only a certain number of these will be lucky enough those like moses and abraham and noah.every jehovas witness will be saved and will live thru the destruction in the time of it and then the 1000 years will start and every living being that ever lived on earth will be given a second chance to trully see the world without satan there to influence them abnd once the thousand years is up and those who still wish to be on the side of evil will be thrown into the abyse along with satan and his demon followers.but those who live in these times and dont wish to acnowlege the true god(i kno this is hard to understand)when the descruction happens they will be destroid and wont be given the second chance.it says in the bibles to go out and preach the word of god and that those who dont kno him will hate jehovas followers and is this not true???in the last days of this world of things there will be great misery earthquakes famine and all religions,ALL religions will be supressed by babylon the great(thats the american government)and it will be great work of god himself.once our governments,the fools who try to control the world,announce that we have now acheived PEACE AND SECURITY thats is the very moment the descruction will be deployed.if u watch politics on tv there always talking about ahceiving peace and security,and we all kno this can never trully happen when cursed humans are in control so u see these are trully the final days.theres so much more that i dont even kno but thats as much as i can say and i have so much more to learn but i kno for a fact that these trully are the final days.....


----------



## Stasis

Jesus only saves those who believe in the 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt use punctuation!".


----------



## JerryBlunted

_high_life_ said:
			
		

> *whats are u talking about only 144,000 will survive the rapture*



Thats supposedly the number of people in the 12 tribes of Israel, and supposedly that is the number of people who will be chosen to ascend during the rapture. I didn't make it up a Jehova's Witness told me it (they come to my door ALL the time, because I told this lady once I am minoring in religious studies at college).

Nobody I know really hates Jehova's Witnesses, but they can be a bit annoying when they're knocking on your door when you're trying to do homework, take a shit, or watch tv.

As far as the "peace and security" leading to the end of days, what exactly do you believe this takes the form of? Seems to me like an end of war on Earth would be something God would be proud of us for, if there is indeed a anthropomorphic, semi-paternalistic deity who really does give a shit what is going on down here.


----------



## miamistu

First, Ill say that I am Jewish and so I dont have to worry about some of the issues christians do with jesus.  

I am pretty convinced that the messiah has not yet come, if there even is a g-d. I cant imagine that in a world where good people are bearly (if at all) making it, and others who are total shit have it all is a post messiah world.  Its hard for me to even accept its a world that g-d, if he exists has any hand in 

(I realize that ppl are always biased towards there religions, but its just inconceivable to me that we are living in any post messianic world) 

the bible/ old testiment is filled with horribles that happened to the righteous, so its not as if such a world is inconsistemt with judaism, in fact its totally consistent.   still, its hard 4 me to accept that g-d lets children be slaughtered while allowing dictators to flourish.


bottom line 4me, is that religion comforts me at times, (and I realize I am blessed or at least lucky--cant imagine how id feel if i didnt have the luxuries I do) so I practice my religion to the extent it comforts me.


----------



## nvr2old

The Bible can become so confusing to me. And I have also read many different views and discovered many similarities in all religions and beliefs. Like your quote above Beanie, about God creating evil.......hmmm I just don't understand that at all. Although I would have to think God as being evil to send his son to be humiliated and tortured on a cross.
But then I think....wait a minute. It seems all the prohets before the coming of Jesus where murdered, ridiculed and had to suffer many things, as we all do. And this applies throughout life, how many have suffered for standing up to others who may try to take away their way of life. Then I think was this a loving God?.... a God that knows that whoever spreads his message of peace and love and harmony, knowing that the ones who do preach or perform miracles would be made to suffer for it.
I guess in order for me to actually" love" a God who knows all this before hand, is a God that did not send these prophets or HIS son to die.. at the hands of those who want to maintain power over others intentionally...but this divine understands death in a different way...as in transforming from the matter to spirit...but still have a hard time grasping the reasoning behind the suffering part.  And the OT, yes I find it hard to accept a loving God, who honors one race or religion over another to furfill some kind of predestined plan.  Is our existence only in the hands of the people through choice and the proheses are furfilled because not a plan, but because God sees all that is and will come and understands humanity and how we will react to any given situation but still has hope in us to overcome things with time. So life comes back to choice? Was it predestiny? Was it all God's plan....or aren't we all part of a plan because we are part of God and God works through us. And we take power and wisdom and use it for our own gratification, sometimes and other times not...but only we understand when we are honest with ourselves and when we are not. Can any thing be given...if it is not willingly received?
The Trinity? Please explain what you mean by Jesus becoming one with God...I agree... To become complete, with clarity, with an inner peace, could not this represent the Mind, Body and Spirit coming to a ONE a wholeness??? For example, we live our lives through these aspects. We cannot live without a mind, or a body or a spirit. One cannot exist without another.....do you understand my pov? 
And then Jesus? Did he stay silent.....to show us that he cannot save us, that we have to look within to save ourselves? He could have denied God, and could have turned away and saved his own life.....but he did not.
The people at that time could have just accepted him as someone who was just a dreamer, and that his miracles where all illusions.
But there was something that scared the shit out of them about this man. They wanted his leadership, instead of looking within where his words where always directed.
Something I would have to think that radiated his light....weren't they just comfortable with livng the lives they wanted to... without someone telling them that they could make heaven on Earth. So therefore, I beleive Jesus knew that no matter what he did or what he said or how many miracles he would show them, that the only way they could discover their own true LIGHT, courage, imagination, creativity, loving, forgiveness, peace within, was to BELEIVE IN THEIRSELVES and the LOVE within and without....and then using their own discernment and guidance from this power within that I am sure we have all experienced in one way or another, and not abuse it. How did Jesus ever abuse anything....I don't beleive he did.
Had he all the powers to perform miracles why not use them to save his own life....as he was asked to save his own life. Did he realize that he could not give the people what they wanted...and yet they still followed him and eventually he would be killed because he proved that God does exist without...but people would only look to him and not within to make decisions and discover things that we discover and learn from throughout our lives.
Well, I have struggled with these same questions over and over again.
But when I just let go.... and pray...things have a way of revealing much....in my life and people you meet, as you Beanie, an inspiration, you are by bringing up these questions we all ask ourselves....we seek and and discover things about ourselves and others and the wonders of life....it's all good, keep up the good threads Beanie.
Peace


----------



## Void

Wow, thats pretty cool. I see nothing wrong with picking and chosing what seems right for you. I think its justified by the fact that most of the old traditions have been destroyed long ago, not only in christianity, and so the essence or sections of the path has been lost. Also, cause each person is on their own path.

Anyway, its cool how you have been developing. It sounds like your on the verge of going beyond the dualistic view of the world, which is kind of what buddhists teach. I'd recomend that. The world is the way it is meant to be now, and the whole one thing vs another thing isn't healthy. I think its better just to accept things as they are, and to accept the perfection of reality.

Though you are not struggling against God, you are struggling against yourself. There are different aspects of your self you are fighting against, growing beyond, and thats all good. I havent been digging into the bible and its history though as you have, so I cant really comment much on the origins of it all and how the story's fit into reality. Maybe some do not outside of the context they were originaly writen for, maybe some do. I dont think it really matters, and I am not the type to argue for hours about technicalities.

I also got out of the whole paranoya 'sin', devil after us kinda crap a long time ago. Although on the topic of heaven/hell, the buddhist view is very interesting. They say that individuals can make the choice themselves to go into either one, to learn the lessons there, and whats more, as a person progresses up or down, they will eventually choose to leave, no matter how far they progress in it. That the only final place is nirvana.


----------



## The HiVe MiND

> whats are u talking about only 144,000 will survive the rapture??


I heard that it would be GROUPS of 144,000 gathered at sacred sites around the world ,at the point of ascension.



> But then I think....wait a minute. It seems all the prohets before the coming of Jesus where murdered, ridiculed and had to suffer many things, as we all do. And this applies throughout life, how many have suffered for standing up to others who may try to take away their way of life.


I also heard that Earth is the hardest college in the universe, and those here are blessed to be. No matter how hard life gets, you have learned something valuable for your soul.


----------



## wendisoul

Beaner... haven't really posted much lately thanks to firewalls at work and all, but here are my thoughts about what you said and others replies.  
I think that a sign of a healthy relationship is to have some doubts and questions about the other person in the relationship... it allows you to "dig" into that other person deeper and really find out who they are and what makes them tick.  I think that the same applies to God.  
"Feed your faith and your doubts will starve to death." 
I know that when my sister died, God kept me together.  I never doubted his goodness at that time because I totally blamed her death on the world and our desire to destroy it and change it from the perfect place that He created.  When I was in college, I questioned how I was taught to WORSHIP God, but I always have felt very sure that He IS.  
Now that I have chosen to worship God in a differnt way than what I was taught, my life is more difficult  (parent's won't talk to me, losing all my old friends, etc...) but my life is also more honest and spiritual and closer to God.  I could easily just throw my hands up and say... ok, no God in His right mind would put me through this madness of ostraciziation that my old church family has done... but then I remember that that church was created by men and is imperfect because we (men) are not perfect.  God is perfect and if we strive to be more like him, then one day we may be able to reach that Heaven, where all is right and the imperfectness that humanity (and our sin) has brought into the world will be done away with.  

If you can't see God in all, then you can't see God at all.


----------



## kewl

for bg


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Beanergrl, you know I am right there with you.
I think you should look for God in everything...and I don't think it's contridictory at all to take what you will from the Bible and leave some things behind. God is in me...and I believe what is in my heart.
There are messages of truth everywhere, especially in all the major religions. Why limit your soul to just one? 
Staci I applaud your research and passion in your spirituality. It reminds me that there is sooo much out there I need to read and learn about in order to understand my spirit and the higher power better.


----------



## antinazi77

"everyday, peaople are straying away from the church and going back to god"  - lenny bruce


----------



## psychoblast

You can't look for God and see God at the same time.  You must be doing one or the other (maybe it is impossible to do neither?  That would be weird.)

When you reflect on something, you separate it from yourself.  You hold it out there (mentally) as separate from yourself.  In a way, reflection is a method of distinguishing something from yourself rather than assimilating something into yourself.  The alternative to reflection is being.  So, I guess if you want to find God, be God.  If you be God as best you can, I think understanding may come.

Oh, the above may all be bullshit.  I am sort of writing for myself to figure stuff out (eek!  relfectling on God!) as much as anything else.  I write things that, to me, SOUND good and then I try to see truth in them based on the assumption that if they sound good, that means there is truth (or at least usefulness) in the idea.  But maybe ideas can sound good if they are merely clever, but neither true nore useful.  If so, then I've probably got a lot of clever, but false and useless, crap written down.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Kermit

I think it is quite possible to live a righteous life without complicating it further by trying to find meaning in the sacred texts.

I'm not saying that noone should do it though.  That's why humans can have a diversified workforce.  Everyone can do different jobs at different times.

As for me I build computing machines.  Perhaps I walk in the path of the creator without even realising.

At the end of the day, one should not be overly concerned  whether god exists or not, whether such-and-such religion is right or wrong.  These things are inherently personal and can never be proved or disproved.  It is like two blind people arguing over the colour of a balloon.

What matters is the real world.  The most important things in your life should be the people you love.  That is where the meaning of life comes from.


----------



## antinazi77

you should not try to be what many think god is.  I supose you should have a "what would a good god do mentality". However, while many think you can't find got unless you believe in him. I think psyco blasts vision sounds more acurate. If there was not a pile of useless crap at mans side there would be no truth. On the bush lovers highway or internet such beauty multiplies.

If god is a mentality of what man globally exepts to exist, god does exist. If your god can not be measured in any form of it's physical manifestation by any measurement of scientific existance then is it worth worrying about? surely you were not suposed to, such a plan would be inhumane. There is a group of people who worship an animal that gets to be tens of times our size and out lives us often because they know we are really insignificant animals, at least the ones who want to be gods do. Do they want to be the god that is equal with this beautiful animal they have shamed? OR is thier god THE ONE WHO THINKS IT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED? IS it a question of mortality? Why do I like the tortus?


----------



## beanergrl

Nvr and Void, thank you for your post. I know that the both of you have been here for my transformation and i appreciate you taking the time to write your beautiful replies to me.

Leah - my heart really goes out to you and all you have overcame and are still dealing with. If there is anyone who has been tested or has the right to question anything it would be you. Thank you for writing that, i was very touched. Bless you much and i hope your journey is a smooth one.

Deja -  

Hive- that's what i believe too

To everyone else, i do see religion as a seperate from God, but i do think that there is some truth there too. The truth being God that is.
There's a verse in the Bible which i think sums everything up so nicely. It says "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. "

I think that verse is quite fitting as it applies to all religion. It takes all religions to provide paths for all of God's children to reach Him by despite what man brings into it. The religion is really irrelevant when the road leads to God.

sorry, i have taken so long on my other thread too to finish myself. i have been so busy but it's almost done.


----------



## goatyoghurt

Just wanted to bump this before the prune, I needed to know how to prove the argument wrong.


----------



## Turbo Monk

It's impossible for our created, finite minds to completely understand and justify an infinite creator.  We are programmed with start/end points to our existence, we live/we die.

We can't mathematically explain God nor can we fit him into a box. If we could, it would be even easier to disrespect him.


----------



## zorn

I think Hume made most of the criticisms mentioned in this thread; but also he (famously) rejected the idea of causality itself.  The basic idea being we never see causation, we just see two things that always seem to happen together -- so all we can say is that "these two things always seem to happen together." What's more we can never know we won't shown to be wrong later (the one thing will happen without the other happening in some circumstance.)

IIRC he also pointed out that you can't assign properties to the universe based on the properties of its constituent parts.  For example, it's true that all Americans were once fetuses, but America was never a fetus.

---

A big problem with this I think is the whole notion of time.  One thing which causes people learning relativity lots of problems is that they seem to assume a universal idea of time.  That is, as if there's a master clock off somewhere and we can say "OK, the universe was like so as 5:20" and "a minute later at 5:21 the universe was a little different, like so."  But this is just wrong.  Relativistic effects show that time can only be defined meaningfully for individual observers, and the times so defined will not usually match up.  I might have event A before event B, and someone else have event B before event A.; assume some universal clock leads to contradiction.

So our intuitions about time and beginnings are quite suspect I think, often based on this demonstrably erroneous conception of time.



			
				psychoblast said:
			
		

> *Well, I've often thought the one logical dilemma, for me at least, was the following set of what I perceive as truths:
> 
> 1.  Something cannot come from nothing (i.e., appear without cause).
> 2.  Everything is caused by something else.
> 3.  If we trace the causal chain backwards from now, it cannot be infinite.  If it were infinite, then the causal chain would never have gotten to now (i.e., if you start counting from minus infinite to zero, you will never reach zero).
> 4.  We have gotten to now, therefore the causal chain that precedes now must be finite, it must have a beginning.
> 5.  If there is a beginning, then that means there is a cause that, itself, spontaneously came into existence (i.e., appeared without cause).
> 6.  But something cannot come from nothing.*


 I see a number of problems here... for one, step 3 is faulty.  It tacitly assumes there must be a point in the causal chain somewhere infinitely back you can start counting from.  But there need not be... all points in the causal chain are some finite number of steps back.  In your numbers analogy, "minus infinity" _is not a number_.

It also assumes taking a causal step must always take some minimum amount of time.  There's no reason to think causal steps must take any finite amount of time at all.  Even if we assume they do, consider:  Let now be step 0.  Let the step from -1 (to 0) take 1 second, the step from -2 (to -1) take 1/2 second, -3 to -2 take 1/4 second, and so on.  Then the whole series of steps till now took only 2 seconds.


----------



## JTNOLA5211

Space_dolphin said:
			
		

> *I define Pluto Juice to be the first cause, even the cause of Gods existence; it is immune to all logical arguments that we can possibly comprehend.
> 
> --
> 
> The human mind evolved to have a broad potential in understanding. This was to help aid us in understanding unexpected situations, thus increasing our chances of survival. There are many things that we can understand.
> 
> However, natural selection wasnt too picky on individuals who didnt have any knowledge concerning quantum physics, the nature of the galaxy or the first cause. Thus we did not evolve to understand certain concepts. Our small understanding of some of these issues is just a bonus... stemming from our broad potential. There are however, some concepts that maybe we just wont ever be able to understand, because our brains are just not wired for it. Personally i think that the first cause is one of these issues, it could be too complex for an organic mind to comprehend.
> 
> But humans tend to dislike unexplored areas of knowledge, our curious nature pushes us to understand the unknown. A concept of a god conveniently solves many problems in unknowable things, and i think that's why god is such a popular bloke. But one must remember that god doesnt solve the problem of first cause, it just adds another step. Surely you must admit that by saying "God was the cause of himself", is just as much a paradox as any other? *



Wow.....You pretty much summed up my views on God....But written much better....

This is kinda off topic to the thread but ill post it anyway

The atheistic 1/3 of me thinks that faith or the feeling of God is a placebo type effect. As u said b4, its an easy way to describe the unexplainable. 

But the spiritual 1/3 of me thinks that our brains are still evolving and some of the unexplainable may come closer to being explained w/ time(thru our minds, nonscientifically). 

And then the scienctific 1/3 of me thinks that science will eventually (way long time) explain it all. 

OR the scientific may intertwine w/ the spiritual and the spiritual may eventually be studied scientifically.....

8( 8(


----------



## Cpt. Pink Pants

^ you guys make this too complicated...  Clearly, some people are so impressed by the nature of their own existence that they assume there must be a creative force behind it.

"OMG!!1 That sunset is SOOOO AWESOME!!!!!1 It can't be by accedant!!!1 LOL!!!1 It must be GOD!!!!1"

You can debate the proof/disproof of the god concept all day...  My question is, how would you arrive at the god concept had it not been presented to you?  If the god concept did not already exist and carry remarkable social prevelance, how would you begin to propose the concept as a solution to a problem?

Someone touched on the social foundations of religion earlier...  That's sort of interesting...


----------



## JTNOLA5211

^^^

Well i agree......I wonder who the first human was that initally questioned his existence and attributed it to God....

And how the earliest of religions fromed......


----------



## scottodoit

First of all. As Far as Cause and Effect. It is a law pertaining to the workings of THIS universe therefor cannot be applied outside it and therefor to the universe itself.  
  Actually many scientists hypothesize that If all the positive and negative energy in the universe was counted you would get 0. 
 ( -1 + +1 = 0 ) 
  As to the argument that this universe is orderly therefore It shows an orderly mind.
     The main problem is that this is only opinion not fact. The only way one could prove that this is true is to have one universe created by random processes and another created by an orderly mind so that we can therefore judge our universe against them.
     We just simply have no reference to judge such a claim.  This universe could be typically chaotic for all we know. Our perceptions is hardly any reference as it has nothing to compare against.


----------



## Cimora

The cosmological argument is flawed. It relies on the assumption that an infinite cause can avoid an infinite regress of finite causes. An infinate cause is exactly as problematic as a regress of finite causes. 

For examples see st augustine on time and god, in confessions. The problem is that either the first cause, so named by christians as "God" is unchanging, is outside of time and thus unable to create the world, or experience thought or memory (all changes, and products of time - for further research read modern physics definations of time, maybe hawking, or "the arrow of time") 

- OR God is changing, thus finite and mortal and unable to furfill any christian defination of omnipotent, omni-benovelent and omni-scient (sp?).  

Further modern philisophical delimnas are the problem of evil (if evil exists, and god created everything he is either limited in power, good or knowledge), and the issue of where morality is derived (if it comes from "God" then it is arbitrary and has no absolute value, if it comes from elsewhere it undermines god).

Fortunately there are definations of a first cause that do not rely on sentience, memory, morality, power or knowledge. Look into those to retain your faith without it being continually challenged by reality (beleifs are important, but they are useless to us if they are always being called into question)

Peace,
Cimora


----------



## alasdairm

let's say it's not...



alasdair


----------



## Cpt. Pink Pants

^ thank you.

I love the way the whole religion argument rests on "Well, it could have happened that way!"...


----------



## Pomplemous

I was thinking that yesterday when I was looking around and people are often looking for signs that God exists by a million pounds falling in front of them, or by world peace suddenly being.  

Nah, good and bad, its everywhere you look.  Surely God doesnt have to focus all of his attention at man alone?  How selfish are we to expect that?


----------



## Cpt. Pink Pants

^ as selfish as we appear, I would guess.


----------



## jpgrdnr

I'll find out when I die/check out/cease to exist/see you on the flipside. 
Hopefully I'm right. Otherwise its gonna be sh*tty.


----------



## The Word

I think a better question is where did the material world come from?  Everybody talks about the big bang, cosmos, forces etc. but the point is no matter how you slice it all this "stuff" came from somewhere or something. 

It seems to me that something had to be present at the "beginning" of the processes that resulted in the world being the way it currently is, and that are still continuing.  For instance, life creates life, but could life originate from non-living substances?  Could life suddenly spring up on Mars?


----------



## scottahit

The word, you are forgetting that all matter is energy (E=mc2). There is nothing in this universe that isn't energy. Energy can be looked at as the splitting of 0 into -1 and +1. I believe in quantum physics the spontaneous creation of energy from 'nothing' is an accepted and studied phenomenon. For the life of me thats about all I remember on the subject it was a good 10 years ago that I read about it. Can anyone who knows about this subject better than me explain it better?


----------



## yougene

Cpt. Pink Pants said:
			
		

> *^ thank you.
> 
> I love the way the whole religion argument rests on "Well, it could have happened that way!"... *



Whatever view/information you present isn't any more valid/invalid.  Just because your view is based on something you believe many people find to be the truth doesn't mean shit.


----------



## psychoblast

> 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
> 
> 2. The universe began to exist.
> 
> 3. Ergo, the universe had a cause.





> Just wanted to bump this before the prune, I needed to know how to prove the argument wrong.



I.

Okay, the simplest and cleanest way to destroy this "proof" of God (to me) is that there is no requirement that a thing that creates a universe should be God-like.

I mean, let's say galaxies were caused by the Big Bang.  Now you want to say, "Okay, so something caused the Big Bang.  Let's call that God."  But why call it God?  Is it intelligent?  Is it morally good?  Does it love?  Is it alive?  Does it watch over us?  Does it grant us life after death?  Does it judge our lives to determine what sort of afterlife we are worthy of?

See, none of those things -- common attributes of most versions of God in popular religions -- are necessarily characteristics of a universe-creating thing.

Basically all you prove is that SOMETHING pre-existed the Big Bang.  Then you do a huge fucking unsupported leap to say, "Oh, that's God."

I mean, if you want to define the word God as "Whatever the fuck preceded and directly caused the universe" that's fine.  If we can agree on that definition.  Now, care to explain how we get to proof that this total unknown causal factor has any more importance to our daily lives than, say, the Big Bang?  Or why, in fact, should you pray or worship this causal factor any more than you pray or worship the Big Bang?

II.

A second glaring flaw is the presumption that the Big Bang was the second causal factor ever.  Meaning the proof presumes that whatever caused the Big Bang was the FIRST cause, and itself was the one uncaused thing that has always existed.  Hmmm...  But who's to say the Big Bang wasn't the 5,243,444,001 thing in the causal chain leading to now?  Whose to say the thing that cause the Big Bang wasn't number 5,243,444,000 in the causal chain leading to now?  And who's to say that thing that caused the Big Bang wasn't a totally unintelligent, unloving chemical process?  And, in fact, even if you could go back 5,243,444,000 causes BEFORE the Big Bang, to that "holy" First Cause, consider just how fucking far removed we are from that cause.  Who's to say we were the intended result of that cause, rather than a mere by-product?  We could be so far removed from the First Cause that, even if it is an intelligent, immortal entity, it gives absolutely no thought to us or to how we behave and, in fact, it could be so alien from us (and almost inevitably would have to be) that it could not possibly understand our behavior enough to stand in moral judgment of us, or even communicate with us on any meaningful level any more than you could morally judge or communicate with some microscopic bacteria living in the stomach lining of an ant.

III.

If you want to be more logically nitpicky, you can tear apart the basic assumptions:



> Everything that begins to exist has a cause.



a.  Note this does not say that everything has a cause, or that everything that exists has a cause.  It says that everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.  Think about that.  It is totally circular.  Great.  And everyone who wears a hat has a hat on.  Whoop-di-doo.

b.  I wonder if anything really does ever begin to exist.  Isn't there some law about conservation of mass and energy?  Does anything really BEGIN to exist, or are all things that exist merely transformations of things that previously existed.  We are not a human popping into existence.  We are an ape transformed through evolution into a human.  Or on a more immediate level, you are your parents' genes combined with food molecules and oxygen molecules which react and transform into YOU.

If everything is seen as a transformation of its predecessor, then you don't have a universe of causers and causees.  You have a universe which is, itself, eternally transforming.  Right now it is expanding.  Way long ago, it was a tight ball of matter and energy compressing until it got so tight it exploded outward.  Before that it might have been expanding.  Sort of like a universal yo-yo going up and down.  Only in this case it expands and compresses.  Isn't that the nature of life?  Isn't that what your lungs do throughout your life?  We are just transformed fragments of the universe, embodying its basic characteristics.

Anyway, for stuff to transform (rather than "come into existence) you need no outside causes.  Things can transform based on their own internal promptings.  Like a caterpillar transforming into a butterlfy.

c.  You can also poke at the assumption that nothing can spontaneously come into existence from nothingness?  While I tend to agree with this idea, I don't think it can be proven.  It comes back to the problem I pointed out earlier:  If nothing cannot lead to something, then for us to exist there could NEVER have been nothing in the universe.  Meaning something has ALWAYS existed.  Which means time goes backwards infinitely.  But if time can go backwards an infinite distance, then we could never have gotten to NOW.  Like if you had a timeline and put the present at "zero" and you start counting forward from minus infinite, you will never reach zero.  So assuming that something cannot come from nothing leads to its OWN logical dilemma.  Which dilemma do you prefer, the dilemma of an impossible infinite past, or the dilemma of something coming from nothing?  The proof implicitly chooses the first dilemma over the second, but then it gives no solution to the dilemma.

The solution, in fact, is that time is not linear.  We humans trapped in our three dimensional universe, seeing a near infinitismal fraction of reality, have a skewed view of reality.  Clearly, the paradox above, presuming that we must accept one of those two impossible dilemmas, is necessarily false.  If we are left to choose between impossibilities, we must go re-thiink our framework that led to our formulation of our choices.  In this case, that framework is the idea that time is a linear path of cause and effect.  That simply MUST be wrong.  And that undermines the whole proof.



> The universe began to exist.



d.  WTF??  Where'd this assumption come from?  Who the hell says the universe "began" to exist?  Initially, I refer back to my point that stuff doesn't spring into existence, but rather transforms from one aspect to another.  So to speak of the universe "beginning" to exist is using imprecise terminology that injects a high level of bias into the proof.

It has also been pointed out by others that it is entirely conceivable that the big bang was not an explosion set in place by some outside force, like a boy setting off a firecracker, but could rather be seen as the continuing process of a universe that continually expands and contracts.  It contracts till all matter and energy is pressed as tightly as it can be.  Then it tries to contract a tiny bit more and KABOOM.  Too much energy and matter in too small a space, one subatomic particle is forced to bisect an atom and whammo, nuclear explosion.  Which sets off a chain reaction.  I think I've heard a nuclear explosion sets of a chain reaction whose breadth is directly proportional to the density of surrounding atoms.  Well, obviously in this scenario you've got the densest collection of atoms theoretically possible in all the universe (i.e., all atoms as close together as they can possibly be) which should create the mother of all nuclear explosions.  A very big bang.  And all atoms that are lucky enough NOT to get split by subatomic particles (i.e., all the surviving matter) flies outward at superspeed.  The expanding universe is back with a vengeance.  While the gravitational pull of matter on matter pulls like a person pulling on the reins of a runaway horse.  Eventually, it will have an effect, slowing down the expansion.  Eventally, it will lead to a contracting universe.  And the whole process starts over again.

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than some immortal father figure waving a hand and declaring "Let the universe form."

The bottom line is that the ideas that the universe had a "first cause" and that that "first cause" is WORTHY of the term "God" simply because it was the "first cause" (without regard to its intellect, motives, or present day affiliation with humanity) are both fraught with problems.

You want a counterproof that proves that the universe was NOT created by God?  How's this:

1)  God is perfect.
2)  A perfect being has no needs or wants.
3)  Intentionally creation by an intelligent being is always an attempt to satisfy a need or want (i.e., if you did not need or want the created thing, you would not have had the motive to create it in the first place.)
4)  Therefore, if an intelligent being created the universe, that being cannot be perfect.
5)  Therefore, if an intelligent being created the universe, that being cannot be God.

This creates a proof from a common criticism I have of religions that claim their God is "perfect" even while their own religious texts are full of examples of their "perfect" God having needs and wants, getting mad, getting sorry, seeking vengeance, changing his mind, and doing a host of other things that are quite simply contradictory with the idea of a "perfect" being.

I also think that there is something misguided in seeking to proof the original proof wrong.  You do not disprove a proof.  Rather, you show how the alleged proof is, in fact, not a proof at all because of internal flaws, unwarranted assumptions, etc.  Once you call it a "proof" you have gone too far.  If it really is a "proof" it cannot be proven wrong.

~psychoblast~


----------



## The Word

E does = mc2, but... that doesn't satisfy me.  I'm thinking along the lines of "not all matter/energy is created equal."  That's not meant to suggest creationism necessarily, just to point out that at a very basic level life CAN come from, say, stem cells - life CANNOT come from iron ore.  

To interpret the matter-is-energy relationship too loosely is to suggest that perfect alchemy of any substance is possible, (even life) and I really can't buy that it is.  

But even so, like a 5 year old asking "why" I can continue saying something like, "if matter is energy, so what.  where did energy come from?"  For me, the rub is that mathematically, logically, by all rights the universe should not exist.  Everything needs a cause, so to have a  universe at all you need the infamous "first efficient cause," but by definition this can't exist.  

Yet it DOES exist, or something akin to it does.  Thus the whole universe exists as a continuing impossible paradox, which I why I'm open to believing just about anything.  Since I'm surrounded every day by the impossible, who am I to say what can and can't exist?

Usually the case, I agree with psychoblast about the original "proof."


EDIT: 
It's interesting that energy can "come from nothing" under quantum theory, but I think that points to holes in the theory.  I mean, if we're still thinking about where all this energy/matter came from, you could say at first there was nothing but according to quantum theory energy spontaneously appeared.  Well then, where did that quantum theory come from?


----------



## alasdairm

_Originally posted by The Word _
*Everything needs a cause...* 

a number of posts in this thread, and elsewhere, have show that this is not necessarily the case.

alasdair


----------



## scottahit

How many times do we have to repeat, That every effect has a cause is a law of this universe and therefore cannot be applied outside it.


----------



## yougene

scottahit said:
			
		

> *How many times do we have to repeat, That every effect has a cause is a law of this universe and therefore cannot be applied outside it. *



By definition Universe embodies all that exists.  If there is something that exists outside the "universe" than it is by definition a part of the univerese.  This seems more like a lack of definition for what we really consider to be the universe.  A more accurate term I think for all that possibly exists is the multi-verse.  If it does exist causality may or may not be appliable.  It really depends on how mouldable the properties of each "universe" is.  For all we know things down to mathematics are moldable.  maybe there is a universe where 1+1 doesn't equal 2.  Maybe there is a universe where there is a completely different system so bizzarre it is beyond comprehension.


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

ok ok i may read all of this sometime 

but lets get to the basics of this whole subject shall we

correct me if i'm wrong as always i love to see what people come up with these days lol


There is A God plain and simple right, You would think that but no, there are plenty of non believers so we must come up with proof, well scientific proof ok 

first off lets go thru some of the stuff i did notice when i came in here

the first post showed a well good point but you people tried so many times to blow that out of the water with many different excuses 

God Made the Universe and the Universe has a cause, it's the place where God's Children reside in,

what caused God, well God is the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last God is all Sees all he is just that he exist cause he exist, he created all there is no what's ifs about it lol 

he has no time of existance he don't live by time he don't rotate around a sun Like we do, or expand from a center point Like the earth does

so how is there supposed to be  a beginning to God in the first place

now as for something else very interesting i have seen and also heard

some people say God is only to control people, that ancient people used god to control, like if you don't serve god you will go to hell or so forth as well i seen this in here



> Bluelighter
> 
> POSTS:  164
> JOINED:  Sep 2003
> 
> 
> 
> 21-10-2003 06:15  (#1346138)
> and we also have catholic priests fucking little boyz... And they r supposed 2 be brothers of God..
> I am not being too technical about this topic, although i am discussing factual situations



that there proves that Not all Man that say they follow God accuacually know what god wants them to do, you got many and millions of people out there that will exploit God for there own personal ususage especaly nowadays

it's hard to find a good church that is honest and knows exacaly what god wants, 

as the good book says, don't Judge thy other people or thou shalt be judged as well

thank you have a blessed day  i'm open to any comments any time


----------



## The Word

Hmmm "cause" was an unfortunate word choice...the point is that "stuff" exists, but everything that exists CAME from somewhere, or from something else.   To me, existence itself is a paradox.  But because existence exists, we really can't bat an eye at any other smaller paradox.  ( I know that was really unclear)

Hume's argument for pure induction does not convince me, I actually find it pretty ridiculous.  It's essentially arguing that you can never be 100% sure of any effect, because you never have the complete total population of all the effects.  I believe it's true you never have 100% certainty, but only because you can never perfectly define all the causes, NOT because the idea of "cause and effect" doesn't work or is "wrong."

This is actually really cool because it gives us things to keep exploring.  So if we have some theory that defines 99.999% of behavior, there's something causing that .001% that we can focus on next.  I read an article once where scientists call this "job security."

Oh, the cosmological argument clearly is insufficient as a proof of any specific god, and probably of any general idea of god.  I'm simply saying that we really don't know what the hell is going on.  Because we don't know what the hell is going on, we can't be certain there is a god, but we also can't be certain that there's not.


----------



## yougene

The LeGenD of DanieL said:
			
		

> *
> There is A God plain and simple right, You would think that but no, there are plenty of non believers so we must come up with proof, well scientific proof ok
> *



You have showed no scientific proof.  Your post was a more like a bunch of personal ranting.


----------



## scottahit

*B97 6PY*

well the  legend of daniel said it so it must be true. stupid me.


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

yougene said:
			
		

> *You have showed no scientific proof.  Your post was a more like a bunch of personal ranting. *



lol that last part is a sarcastic joke, towards people who think they need one  but once i find the right site that has that scientific proof i will show it to you 

now to "scottahit" wow that was very enlightening yourself there 

i didn't say it to make people believe, just stated some facts it's still is and forever will be your choice wether you believe in god or not, were just here to let you know what is out there if you believe it or not, just need to open your eyes

now lets go with something i have heard from people that were nonbelievers 

they first thought this, it's safer to assume there is a God as the good book says so you can make it into heaven, then it is to not know or deny god n thinking there is no god n end up realising your wrong n then go to Hell for eternity burning for the rest of your afterlife,  

now if the truth is there is no god but you still live your life trying to be what God ask of you, you won't go to no hell or heaven once you die right, but if the truth comes out that there really is a god you were right about it you end up in heaven 

some have taken it as gamble at first but for the ones that know don't really on what i just said

that is all for now thanks for your replies


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

The Word said:
			
		

> *Hmmm "cause" was an unfortunate word choice...the point is that "stuff" exists, but everything that exists CAME from somewhere, or from something else.   To me, existence itself is a paradox.  But because existence exists, we really can't bat an eye at any other smaller paradox.  ( I know that was really unclear)
> 
> Hume's argument for pure induction does not convince me, I actually find it pretty ridiculous.  It's essentially arguing that you can never be 100% sure of any effect, because you never have the complete total population of all the effects.  I believe it's true you never have 100% certainty, but only because you can never perfectly define all the causes, NOT because the idea of "cause and effect" doesn't work or is "wrong."
> 
> This is actually really cool because it gives us things to keep exploring.  So if we have some theory that defines 99.999% of behavior, there's something causing that .001% that we can focus on next.  I read an article once where scientists call this "job security."
> 
> Oh, the cosmological argument clearly is insufficient as a proof of any specific god, and probably of any general idea of god.  I'm simply saying that we really don't know what the hell is going on.  Because we don't know what the hell is going on, we can't be certain there is a god, but we also can't be certain that there's not. *



now this right here i can respect here is something accually thought thru

unlike this from this scottahit guy


> well the legend of daniel said it so it must be true. stupid me.



that was just Lame 

now back to the origonal person i want to reply,

true no one can really be 100% sure of either way, but there are alot of Unexplained things in the Universe only one being can possibly do, 

and that being is God or for anyone else's benifet God Like someone that has powers that are only thought to be possesed by God,

Even thou i will forever believe in GoD i just use that as an example there,


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

CZ-74 said:
			
		

> *Unless one wishes to blindly accept the idea that the universe is God, I doubt looking for God from a cosmological standpoint will bear any fruit. *



one last post towards you

i don't believe that The Universe is God 

Tell me What Created the Universe, 

many theories i know Big bang Theory, 

but something had to set that bang off


----------



## alasdairm

_Originally posted by The LeGenD of DanieL _
*but something had to set that bang off * 

i suggest reading this thread from the beginning. it may shed some light on that...

8)

alasdair


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

mind you that in my first reply to this thread i stated one day i will read this whole thread when i get bored enouph n end up replying to other parts in it, if you have a point  towards that question already stated in this thread what page is it on


----------



## ebola?

this may prove fruitless, but...
what is wrong with an infinite regress?

ebola


----------



## sexyanon

Infinite regress would be ultimate enlightenment. It's an ideality, perfection, something that is unattainable.


----------



## psychoblast

> Unless one wishes to blindly accept the idea that the universe is God, I doubt looking for God from a cosmological standpoint will bear any fruit.





> i don't believe that The Universe is God



Duh...  It's easy to prove that IF there is a God, then the Universe MUST be part of God (an extension if not the entirety).

I mean, how do you define what is PART of you versus what is SEPARATE from you.  Why do you define your hand as part of you?  Because it does what you will it to do (i.e., you control it)?  Because you can sense what is happening to it?  Sense its pain or pleasure?  Because it came from you (i.e., when you grow hair or fingernails, when you grow a fat gut, etc.)?

I'm open to any other suggestions on appropriate criteria for determining if something is part of you or not.

Anyway, I have a hunch that WHATEVER criteria you come up with, the universe satisfies that criteria vis a vis God.

Consider:

God as omnipotent master of the universe has complete control over it.  He will a planet to go left, it goes left.  He wills a sun to extinguish, it extinguishes.  He will you to turn into a gnat, you turn into a gnat.  God has more control over the unverse than you have over your own hand.

God as omniscient being senses everything happening to every part of the universe.  He senses when a fly gets swatted, the flight of a meteor, each bolt of lightning, your own laughter at a good joke.  God has complete sensory awareness of the entire universe more so than you have of the nose on your face.

So picture a reality where an intelligent singularity that we will term God exists and is the only thing in existence.  Then this God does an act of will and galaxies and suns and planets spring into existence around the singularity.  Now it seems to be a matter of semantics if you are going to say those things sprang up separate from God, or if those things GREW out of God like like leaves sprouting off a tree branch.

But, in considering this matter of semantics, it is important to remember that all parts of the universe inherently satisfy every conceivable criteria (at least, all I have conceived of) for measuring whether they are PART of God's body.

So I ask those who casually chimed out opinions that the Universe is not God to reconsider...did you really reflect on this deeply and do you have some rational basis for your opinion, or is that just a knee-jerk position?

Oh, I also refer back to my prior post which includes a proof on why God could not have created the Universe (though the proof leaves open the possibility that God IS the Universe).

~psychoblast~


----------



## scottahit

To the legend of daniel.
First of all, you bring up the whole wager argument that you may as well believe because you loose nothing to believe but could loose everything to not believe (hell). In response.

A) The main problem with this argument is that there are not only two possibilities. There are millions. Even within Christianity the JW's believe only they are saved same as protestants. Not to mention all the other religions that claim if you don't follow them you lost. So even if I do believe, what if i believe the wrong religion.

B) You can not 'make your self believe' you either do or don't. You can't decide that "hey I'll believe in all this stuff about Jesus and the bible and miracles because if I'm wrong I'm lost". If it doesn't seem plausible to you thats it.

C) It is a misrepresentation of christianity to say if you believe and are wrong you have lost nothing. Christianity demands a whole way of life. the bible and the church has thousands of said and unsaid rules that christians try to follow. Most of them make life quite a drag if you ask the average non believer.

 Next. My statement in my last post, was to point out to you that the point of this discussion board is to reason with one another, and to learn and test our way of thinking against our and others logic. Not to state our beliefs and that we are right and everyone else wrong. That is a monologue, not a dialogue, which is the aim of these discussions. A statement of faith may be enough to convince you but not everyone.


----------



## SomeOneElse001

There's a site called EBTX.com, which has a section on the nature of existence.  Now, some of this guy's other writings are a little bit sketchy, but the section on the nature of existence is mind-blowing in it's simplicity and approachability.  His basic argument is that the universe, as we observe it, is the unique consequence of the impossibility of a state of nothing.  Really good reading.

I hold the belief (which some of you may share) that the universe - existence itself - is an infinitely repeating cycle that goes something like this:

1.  Singularity
2.  Big Bang
3.  Big Crunch
4.  Singularity

repeat ad infinatum...

This universe - the one we presently exist in - may have, as research has suggested, begun 15 or so billion years ago.  However, if my infinite-cycle model of the universe is correct, then our current universe is but a link an a never-ending chain - an infinite cycle of death and rebirth.  In other words, the  present universe may very well have a beginning and an end, but existence itself has no beginning and no end, due to what I feel is a completely valid argument that a state of nothing is indeed impossible.

I won't go any further than this in this post, but I have a bunch of stuff I've written which I hope to, at some point, put on my yet-to-be-finished website, http://xigma.us.  Right now the site remains unfinished because I'm always tied up with either college or work, two institutions of which I have also written numerous rants that I hope to add to my website.  As for the site itself, anybody who visits will clearly see that I took some color-scheme cues from good ol' Bluelight , although I am happy to say that the XHTML and CSS on my site validates perfectly (except for the contact page...).  There's something about light-blue on white that my eyes find incredibly relaxing - maybe that's why I spend hours on end reading posts here on BL.  The whole thing (xigma.us) is kind of an experimental platform for me - my next objective is to provide a mechanism from which to choose from several different stylesheets.  It's something I know how to do, just haven't had the time... although if anyone would actually ask me to build a site for them, I would FIND time to do that... but I understand this is not the place to solicit business, so I'll end it right there.

Anyway, the ultimate truth - the reason why there is 'something instead of nothing at all' may be stranger than we can presently imagine... every time I read something new about this topic, it tends to stick in my mind for the rest of the day.  At any rate, I think I should be getting my skinny ass downstairs to go lift some weights, so for now... peace out people.


----------



## psychoblast

^^
Why don't you go look at my proof on the prior page before you start criticizing it.




> Not to mention all the other religions that claim if you don't follow them you lost.



I'm curious as to how many religions actually make this claim.  I mean, originally religions were not exclusive.  Meaning the Greeks had their gods, the Vikings had their gods, the Druids had their gods, the Aztecs had their gods, the Egyptians had their gods.  Each culture believed its gods favored and watched over THAT culture in particular.  A Greek did not disbelieve in the gods of the Egyptians.  Rather, they believed their gods were STRONGER.  The whole concept of faith in the existence of one's god (or gods) as a prerequisite to mercy from that god (or gods) was a non-issue.

As far as I know, the ONLY religions to ever switch to a presumption that you must believe THEIR god was the one and only god in order to receive that god's mercy and salvation after death are (1) Christianity, and (2) Islam.

I mean, even Judaism does not seem to include this kind of thinking, at least not originally.  Many passages in the Old Testament seem to be written from the standpoint that the Jehovah was the God OF THE JEWS.  I mean, just look at the first commandment:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.  This phrasing implies there ARE other gods, and Jews should remember to put their god first in their loyalty and worship.  Otherwise, the commandment is meaningless and should have read, "There are no other gods than me, and thou shalt not worship false gods."  I mean, sure, Jews and Christians nowadays INTERPRET the first commandment to mean that.  But obviously that is a stretch.  That is the same sort of pretzel-twisting on Bible passages that they do all over the place in order to keep the Bible from contradicting itself.

Also, look up how people got saved in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament.  The O.T. does not set forth a system of salvation that required exclusive belief in Jehovah as God and nonbelief in other gods as a prerequisite to salvation.  In fact, it is my understanding that present day Jewish belief includes no hell whatsoever.  Rather, Jews believe nonbelievers go to purgatory for a period of time to pay for their sins and then eventually get elevated to heaven.  If anyone knows differently, please post it because I'm a little iffy on this.

Anyway, so you have a world where only 2 religions ever required exclusive belief in that religion's truth in order to avoid eternal torture and in order to achieve eternal paradise.  Hmmm...  Not surprising that those 2 religions ended up having the most rabid, violent followers or have taken the firmest hold on their followers or spread the quickest among their followers.  I mean, an apparently learned man tells peasants that God has spoken to mankind and said that he will send people to eternal torture unless they specifically believe this book (Bible or Koran) is the only true word of God and that all other gods are false myths, what do you think the peasants will do?  In those days, that was how news spread -- by some guy coming around and telling people about it.  That's how you learned about wars, about plagues, about all manner of current events.  To them, that guy was their equivalent to CNN.  How many Americans would buy into a religion if CNN reported that God had revealed himself to man again and given new laws?  I bet a hell of a lot of Americans would think, "Shit, if CNN is reporting it, it must be true."

Also, if you are at all familiar with memetics, you can see how a religion that requires exclusive faith as a prerequisite to avoid eternal torture and achieve eternal paradise would be insidiously powerful in spreading.  See, ideas are like animals that live within our brains and fight with other ideas to fight, to survive and to grow.  Over time, you get a form of evolution of ideas where some go extinct and others flourish.  An animal that evolves a poisonous bite may suddenly flourish compared to its counterparts with no comparable weapon and that animal may start spreading like wildfire thanks to its newly developed offensive weapon.  Similarly, you can look on the idea "You must believe this book is the true word of God and all other gods, or books on gods, are lies, or you will suffer the worst fate imaginable after death...oh, and if you do believe, you will be rewarded with the best fate imaginable after death" as an incredibly powerful tool / weapon for helping the ideas in that book spread and defeat any opposing ideas that are not so armed.

In a way, this "faith" requirement to avoid hell and achieve heaven is sort of like gun powder for the mind.  The old religious views were fighting with swords and arrows.  They had no hope.

So, anyway, the spread of Christianity in the Western World and Islam in the Arab world, and the firmness with which they clutch the minds of people in those areas despite all the absurdities within those religious texts, all the sexism, racism, brutality, contradictions (within the texts, with historical evidence, archeological evidence, and modern scientific knowledge) is not a testament to their truth, but rather is a testament to how powerful a insidious a weapon it can be to link faith to the most extreme system of reward / punishment conceivable (I mean, can anything be conceived that is worse than eternity in hell, or anything better than eternity in heaven?  Those notions were specifically designed to be the max bad and max good, so that no new religion could come along and offer a worse threat for nonbelief, or a better reward for belief.)

Now, Buddhism and Taoism and other "universal oneness" type spiritual paths seem to be taking an interesting approach -- one that I hope will triumph in the end.  Rather than fight the mental armory of Christianity and Islam with their own weapons, they practice a form of peaceful, non-aggressive resistance, akin to Ghandi against the British in India.  They fight hateful, divisive thoughts (like, "You will burn in hell if you do not bow down to my god") with love and kindness and gentle refusal to embrace such a hurtful assertion.  Rather than send missionaries to scare nonbelievers into accepting their faith, they merely allow their own lives to serve as examples for those who care to notice.

So you can look around and see priests fucking little boys, you can see the Catholic Church committing atrocity after atrocity to expand its power base, you can see the majority of Christians greedily clawing their way to greater material wealth and refusing to worry about the welfare of strangers...and then you can see Buddhists quietly tending their gardens, meditating, living simple lives of compassion for others, with little concern over material wealth, striving to embrace a path of moderation in all things.  If a tree is in the way of a path they are making, they put the path around the tree while the Christian chops it down.  And, if you are openminded, then the solution is obvious as to which path will lead to a better future world for humanity, which is truly the path of love and light.

Yeah, sure, some Christians are swell, compassionate saintly people.  And some who claim to be buddhists or taoists may be greedy motherfuckers (though I don't know of any of the latter).  But, from my own experience, the above generalizations seem to hold true most of the time.

Anyway, in Buddhism you do not achieve heaven by believing in Buddhism.  There is no hell.  Arguably, there is an equivalent based on the form in which you are reincarnated (ant = bad, stud pony = good, for example).  But faith in Buddhism does not get you a better reincarnated form.  Rather, your form of reincarnation is determined by the level of personal growth you achieve in life.  It is completely merit-based, not belief-based.  Personally, I don't believe in this teaching (which is only in some schools of buddhism, not all).  However, my point remains:  It is the exception, not the rule, for religions to require exclusive belief to avoid eternal damnation.  It just happens that those 2 exceptions (Christianity and Islam) have an insidious power that has propelled them to the forefront of world religions.

But you can escape it.  Look at me.  I was raised Lutheran my whole life, from both sides of my family.  I went to Sunday School, then confirmation classes and was "confirmed" Lutheran in a ceremony at 16.  So I had all the indoctrination.

Plus, I am pretty smart (high school valedictorian, top 0.1% on all standardized tests, full acacemic scholarship to college, etc.)

And I can tell you I have spent a lot of my brainpower looking at this issue, and I now stand here absolutely, 100% certain that Christianity and Islam are both bullshit.  I have absolutely no speck of fear at all that when I die, I will go to some place of torture for my failure to believe the Bible or the Koran were true.  Surprisingly, coming to this place of 100% certainty on the falsity of these 2 religions has allowed me to reach a place where I have little or no fear of death.

I did not even realize this before, but even when I was a firmly believing Lutheran, I still wondered if I would get into heaven or end up in Hell.  I mean, we all sin, right?  Exactly what sins would be forgiven?  What if I sinned and died an hour later, before asking Jesus for forgiveness?  What if the Baptists were right and some tiny nuance of my version of protestantism was wrong?  What if God really was a stickler for details and my pastor didn't keep his flock to the straight and narrow as much as he should have?  What if I was not quite respectful enough of my parents?  What if God really didn't want me doing chores on Sunday and was ready to send me to Hell for it?

Forget heaven, people in Christianity and Islam are motivated by fear of hell.  Christianity -- even for the devout believer -- brings with it a huge weight of fear that abides deep in your psyche, because it requires you to believe there is an omniscient, omnipotent being who is willing to send humans to eternal torture if they don't meet some rather vague standard of behavior and belief.  Geez, how scary is that?  How does that compare to living in a world where no one has any belief that some omnipotent being is judging them and sending those who fail the judgment to be set on fire and cut into pieces and have their eyes poked out and genitals stretched and generally tortured in all horrible ways imaginable for trillions of years?  I hope you are starting to get some idea of how stressful daily life is for Christians.

Frankly, I think the only Christians who do not live in perpetual fear and stress are those who, on some deep level, have had a nervous breakdown.  They just can't take day after day living in fear that they might fail God's test and end up suffering the kind of horrible fate that awaits people in Hell.  So one day they just snap.  Oh, externally it may not be obvious, but internally as a form of self-preservation their mind broke in its ability to think rationally.  And, in breaking, it left them with a deep and unshakable certainty that not only was their chosen school of Christianity the true school, but they were going to heaven FOR SURE.  Snap goes the mind, "Ahh..." goes the spirit.  How good to lose the fear of eternal damnation!!  What a blessed relief!  Yeah, I can see how those types of Christians think they have had some kind of miraculous, uplifting revelation from God.  It feels so good to not be in fear anymore!!

These are the people -- slightly insane by any clinical definition because they have a mental block against thinking rationally about religious or spiritual matters -- who are the bedrock of Christianity.  Their dullwitted grins of peaceful pleasure are craved by the masses who still live in that state of fear.  Their assurances that the KNOW deep down that they are saved, that they are on the right path, soothes those who do not feel such certainty with the hope that maybe one day they will get a similar revelation of God's truth.

Revelation?  The only revelation is the mind's refusal to keep living with the kind of perpetual fear that Christianity fosters in any sane mind.

I think there is still a deep fear within these people.  A fear of returning to a state of doubt.  Lord knows they don't want to go back there!  Better ignorant certainty than intelligent doubt!  Like my mother, who firmly believes in her church and yet won't discuss religion with me, her own son, even though it is apparent that under her view I'm going to hell and only by changing my mind can she save me...She does not try.  She refuses to discuss the issue.  And I can sense a fear underlying her refusal.  A fear that if she opens the door to discussion, I might shake the certainty it has taken her so long to achieve, that she values more than truth.  More, even, than her own child's soul.

Then there are those who have that ignorant certainty and DO discuss religion.  But those discussions either run in meaningless circles or the other person runs away.  They refuse to be pinned down in any way that might result in a true evaluation of the rationality of their beliefs.  And you can even stick in their face a clear and rational reason why their beliefs are wrong-headed and irrational and they will look at it and not see it.  They will call a duck a chicken before they will allow their faith to be shaken.  What is better, to see a duck as a chicken, or to risk living in a perpetual state of fear that you might be destined to suffer eternal torture when you die?

The ironic thing is, these people think they must cling to their irrational certainty to stave off that horrible, deepseated fear of hell that they lived with for so long.  They think that if they come to doubt, or even disbelieve, in their version of Christianity, they will be right back where they started.  Because they don't realize, on a conscious level, that their past misery was based on a subconscious fear of hell.  So they assume that if you decide Christianity is all wrong, but are not sure what is right, you will be back to that state of fear of hell.  They do not realize that, in rejecting Christianity and rationally seeing what a crock it is, you will also realize what an absurd and irrational idea it is for some omnipotent God to send humans to eternal damnation. The concept of hell goes away with Christianity.  And, as a result, even if you are left in a state of spiritual uncertainty as to what really DOES exist, that deep fear of hell does not return.  It is gone.  So they can feel the same sense of relief and peace by rejecting Christianity as they feel by snapping their brains in order to have full faith in their own salvation through Christ.  Alas, they do not realize any of this, and I'm not sure how they can be made to realize this.

I look around and I see a lot of people in this world wandering around with self-inflicted brain damage.  I can even link it to the deteriorating state of world affairs.  When you have to embrace faith over rationality, what kind of decisions are you going to make in the democratic process?  Believe everything the government tells you, failure to critically analyze what is being said.  The Christian influence in America is linked to the stupid, sheeplike behavior of Americans.  To their refusal to see the destruction of the environment, their growing control by heartless corporate interests, their habits forming a slow suicide.  Americans keep obsessing more and more over looking good, while getting more and more obese every year.  How can the mightiest people on Earth be so ineffective in achieve such a simple goal, the goal they seem to want more than any other, to be physically fit?  And why the hell don't they have the sense to reflect on that?  Because we are not in charge!  Because our own happiness is not the goal of our present leaders.  Because corporations have stolen our money, our minds and our hearts and have left, in their place, some a box with flashing colored lights that we can stare at all day and all night.

And we let ourselves be distracted, even though it means the death of the human spirit, like a deer trading its life for a good look at bright headlights.

Did I mention that faith in the notion that incorrect belief leads to hell is insidious?  Perhaps evil would be a better word.

~psychoblast~


----------



## sexyanon

If I'm not mistaken psychoblast, the Koran is accepting of other people and does welcome other religions. Unfortunately, the Islam fundamentalists who are in power are spreading the message that there cannot be other religions. People aren't educated enough to know the difference, so they just accept whatever the fundamentalists tell them.

And yes, Christianity is a prime example of humanity's hypocracy and weakness.


----------



## psychoblast

Well, I'm not as familiar with Islam as Christianity.  However, it was my understanding they were fairly similar, parallel schools of thought.  I mean, don't the Islams believe in Jesus and Moses and all that stuff?  It seems as if Islam is sort of a spin off of Christianity.

If anyone can clarify the Islam belief as to the afterlife (heaven / hell / standards for entry to either) that would be great.

~psychoblast~


----------



## zorn

Lo! Those who disbelieve, and die while they are disbelievers; on them is the curse of God and of angels and of men combined.

They ever dwell therein. The doom will not be lightened for them, neither will they be reprieved. 

-Surah 2:161 (al-Baqarah)


If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good.)  How shall God guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but God guides not a people unjust. 

Their reward will be the curse of God, of His angels, and of all mankind.  In that will they dwell; nor will their penalty be lightened, nor respite be their lot --  Except for those that repent (even after that), and make amends; for verily God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

-Surah 3:85


----------



## Christian Soldier

psychoblast said:
			
		

> *Well, I'm not as familiar with Islam as Christianity.  However, it was my understanding they were fairly similar, parallel schools of thought.  I mean, don't the Islams believe in Jesus and Moses and all that stuff?  It seems as if Islam is sort of a spin off of Christianity.
> 
> If anyone can clarify the Islam belief as to the afterlife (heaven / hell / standards for entry to either) that would be great.
> 
> ~psychoblast~ *



They believe Jesus to be a prophet, but they deny He is the unique Son of God. They also deny His crucifixion and resurrection. ( Most claim He was somehow rescued by Allah and was taken up to heaven without dying.)
They believe Mohammad is God's messenger. We think of him as a false prophet. God sent us Jesus.


----------



## alasdairm

my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no, my prophet is better than your prophet. no...

alasdair


----------



## alasdairm

QED



alasdair


----------



## Christian Soldier

hehe you don't wanna go there  Jesus and Mohammad comparisms..

btw both christians and muslims think of Jesus as a prophet


----------



## DigitalDuality

^
Yup.. and if i'm not mistaken.. Jesus is the most quoted in the Koran..


----------



## psychoblast

> Point 3 is where it falls down. It is possible to do action without motive. I can blink my eyelids for no other reason than I can. God could have exploded itself for the same reason.



You need to focus on the distinction between "cannot" and "would not."  I never suggested a perfect being CANNOT (i.e., lacks the physical ability) to create something.  Rather, a perfect being WOULD NOT.  When have you ever blinked your eyes except to satisfy a need or want?  A blur comes at your eye, you blink for safety.  You're eyes dry out, you blink to moisten them.  You decide "Hey I want to show I can blink whenever I want" so you blink your eyes to prove a point.  All of these -- even the last -- show examples of you having some need or want that was fulfilled by the eye blink.

Name for me one thing you have ever done in your life that was not to satisfy a need or want.  Oh, and if you want to resort to unmotivated behavior (like dropping a glass and breaking it -- something you didn't want or need, but have certainly done) then I would ask you to reflect whether you really want to suggest that the Big Bang, the universe, and life on this planet (including humans) are an unintentional, unwanted, unforeseen mistake by God.  And, further, note that a perfect being would not make mistakes like you.  And an omnipotent and omnicient being does not have bodily functions that it is not aware of or that are beyond its control.  God cannot drop a glass if he is perfect, nor can he accidentally create the Universe.

So my proof still stands.

As for buddhism, I will check out your link when I have more time (unless some one else debunks it first).  However, just generally it is my understanding there are many different schools of buddhism.  Some more closely resemble a religion, some more closely resemble a philosophy.  I would hazard a guess that if any buddhist sects discuss a hell, that those are the more relgiously skewed sects with which I would probably disagree.

Without checking out the site, I am also left wondering how having a hell (or hells) can be consistent with a spiritual path that preaches reincarnation.  It would seem to be contradictory, or at least redundant.  But, again, I will look into it.

~psychoblast~


----------



## The Word

^exactly, you can't get to a belief in god or religion via rationality.  Irrationality exists all over the place.  But how do you believe in a god or gods through irrationality?  Without reason, isn't your choice doomed to be arbitrary?


----------



## Turbo Monk

psychoblast, intriguing posts. 

*I did not even realize this before, but even when I was a firmly believing Lutheran, I still wondered if I would get into heaven or end up in Hell. I mean, we all sin, right?*

Yes.

*Exactly what sins would be forgiven?*

All sins except one are forgivable.

*What if I sinned and died an hour later, before asking Jesus for forgiveness?*

Great question,  "dying with a sin on me".

If we were judged on living perfect, sinless lives... none of us would make it to heaven. The belief that Christ was both God/man, lived a sinless life,  rose from the dead, and turn to him for the absolution of your sin is what saves you (note: this doesn't mean you'll never sin again). Ephesians 2:8 states "It is by grace through faith which we're saved, not by our good works, so that no one can boast."  

*What if the Baptists were right and some tiny nuance of my version of protestantism was wrong?*

If you believe Christ is both God/man, rose from the dead, and turn to him for absolution of sins... you have the ticket.

This causes debate amongst Christians by the question: did Jesus come here so I could keep sinning or did he come here so I could stop sinning? 

This spawns variations of denominations and lifestyles. Yes, the grace of God actively pursues us through Christ which covers our sins if we choose to accept it. Unfortunately, this gets abused by the practice of, "I can go ahead and do whatever I want cuz Jesus will forgive me." vs. Jesus giving me the power to overcome my temptation to sin, striving to lead a more Godly life. 

*What if I was not quite respectful enough of my parents?
What if God really didn't want me doing chores on Sunday and was ready to send me to Hell for it?*

What matters is whether we believe that Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments for us and forgives us when we break them.


----------



## sexyanon

Which sin is unforgivable?

And why must we believe that Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments in order to get into Heaven? Seems like a bit of propaganda and brainwashing to me.

God will only let the people who believe in him into heaven. Anyone else can die and go to hell.


----------



## Christian Soldier

^ hehe well Satan certainly believed in God. He's not going to heaven


----------



## sexyanon

So how do us hedonistic creatures get into Heaven? Not defy God, ask for forgiveness, and believe in JC?

Why didn't God give Satan a second chance. Sounds like a punk holding a grudge..


----------



## Turbo Monk

*Which sin is unforgivable?*

Please research that one. 

*And why must we believe that Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments in order to get into Heaven? Seems like a bit of propaganda and brainwashing to me.*

It's not propaganda. I've never heard any church say, "you gotta believe Jesus fulfilled the 10 commandments to get into heaven." However, if you study scripture to any depth, it's easy to see how Christ fulfilled them.  My response to psychoblast's post pointed out that God's not gonna send anyone to hell for breaking the Sabbath or dishonoring their parents. Those are forgivable sins.

*So how do us hedonistic creatures get into Heaven? Not defy God, ask for forgiveness, and believe in JC?*

Believe that Jesus is both God/man, lived a sinless life,  rose from the dead, then turn to him for forgiveness.

*Why didn't God give Satan a second chance. Sounds like a punk holding a grudge..*

Satan's pride and power trip complexes  make him want to be God, not be forgiven by him.


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

CZ-74 said:
			
		

> *^^ I wouldn't bet on that.
> 
> 
> 
> The matter and energy from the singularity became the universe. Both are a closed system, just the universe as we see it now is in an expanded form.
> 
> I don't see a point where something was 'created' - it was always there.
> 
> Although I can't prove it, I believe God, the singularity, willed the 'Big Bang', and moments later it happened.
> 
> To me, the above is just as plausable as the best science can come up with:
> 'the singularity became unstable at some point (for unknowable reasons) and exploded.' *



^^never said that didn't happen, but as i stated, something must have made the big bang, you want to go into details how god did it,

he makes the singularity he puts unstable cells in it then BOOOOOOOOM there you go man simple 

but you don't have to take my word for it


----------



## The LeGenD of DanieL

scottahit said:
			
		

> *To the legend of daniel.
> First of all, you bring up the whole wager argument that you may as well believe because you loose nothing to believe but could loose everything to not believe (hell). In response.
> 
> A) The main problem with this argument is that there are not only two possibilities. There are millions. Even within Christianity the JW's believe only they are saved same as protestants. Not to mention all the other religions that claim if you don't follow them you lost. So even if I do believe, what if i believe the wrong religion.
> 
> B) You can not 'make your self believe' you either do or don't. You can't decide that "hey I'll believe in all this stuff about Jesus and the bible and miracles because if I'm wrong I'm lost". If it doesn't seem plausible to you thats it.
> *



Christian Soldier said it so well

Satan certainly believed in God. He's not going to heaven 

it's not just believing in god to get to heaven i would quote some of these other post on the last page but i'm not going thru it all

but you got a good point n i never disagreed with this, not everyone that believes in God believes in the same one, 

me personally i have thought of this theroy not 100% sure on it but listen to this

all Religions do have some simulariies in them, they could all believe in the same god, just  call God by a different name 

like every Lanuage has a different way how to say Hello or Yes or whatever word,

some religions protray there god in many different forms as well and contradict some of the other religions ways of thinking ofcourse 

there is even a few religions that believe in many gods, for that i think they are just splitting up God's Powers into many thinking that one being can't do all the work as many would be able to, 

that's one bit of theroy to think about


----------



## Christian Soldier

sexyanon said:
			
		

> *So how do us hedonistic creatures get into Heaven? Not defy God, ask for forgiveness, and believe in JC?
> 
> Why didn't God give Satan a second chance. Sounds like a punk holding a grudge.. *



You need to accept the Holy Spirit into your heart. Satan rejected Him for his own pride, alike to non-believers. My POV ofcourse


----------



## psychoblast

> The concept of anything existing beyond the universe cannot be confirmed nor denied by evidence, as nothing can be observed outside the boundaries of the universe.
> 
> Here is an equally useless distracting illusion:
> 
> 1) We are imperfect beings.
> 2) We exist within the universe
> 3) The universe is another word for God
> 4) Imperfect components exist within God.
> 5) Therefore God as a whole is imperfect.



So, you can't see any flaws in my proofs, so instead you call them "illusions."  Um...  illusions can be seen through.

As for your proof, above, that God is imperfect, it works if you believe humans are imperfect, it works.  Except that perfection is a meaningless concept.  It is entirely subjective based on who is applying the word, what they are applying it to, why they are applying it and when they are applying it.  What one person perceives as perfect, another may not perceive as perfect.  For me, the perfect chair would be a different shape and size than for a child.  And even for me, the perfect chair would be different 10 years from now than whatever it would be today.  If my feet hurt, a perfect chair would have to include a foot massager.  If my feet feel fine, it would not.  People should just stop fucking wasting time with a meaningless concept like perfection.

Now, I believe in a conscious universal oneness of which we are all fragments.  You can call that "God."  I sometimes do for simplicity, but I don't mind just calling it the conscious universe or something like that.  Anyway, I would point out that I do not insist that the universal oneness is perfect.  I would not assert any such thing because asserting such a thing is meaningless.

My proof that a perfect being would not create the universe is just one more logical nail in the coffin of religions that are all fluff and no substance, that are spectacles to frighten and enslave the weakminded.  Like Christianity and Islam, for example.  These people insist that God is perfect and it is blasphemy to suggest otherwise.  Much like early Christians insisted the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Oh, your proof also works to show that only if everyone and everything is perfect, can God be perfect.  Which is also true, if meaningless.  The bottom line is that any religion that insists that God is perfect and humans are imperfect is PROVABLY illogical and should be discarded by any rational human.  You must decide everything and everyone is perfect or that nothing (not even God) is perfect.  Either way is fine and logically consistent.

------




> All sins except one are forgivable.



Forgivable or forgiven?  If a Christian does NOT have to ask for forgiveness to have a sin forgiven, then that Christian's sins are FORGIVEN not FORGIVABLE.  Forgivable implies you have to do something after the sin to get the forgiveness.

Also, I believe the one except is suicide.  And note that suicide is the one sin where you do not have any opportunity to ask for forgiveness after you sin, because you are dead.  So the very fact that suicide is the one unforgiveable sin is even further proof that, under Christian doctrine, you MUST ask for forgiveness after you sin in order to receive forgiveness.

Isn't this the whole basis for the Catholic's confessionals?  The protestants did away with confessionals, but not the need to confess.  Rather, they took priests out of the middle-man position and created protestant religion in which the masses were told the ask God directly for forgiveness.

Anyway, it appears you have to do some contorted twisting of Christian dogma to come away with a version that does NOT require you to ask for forgiveness after you sin in order to have Jesus' sacrifice wash away that sin.

Then we get to the nice, but dumb, idea that God looks at the DEGREE of sin in deciding who gets into heaven.  I mean, there are sinful souls and sin-free souls (because the soul's owner asked for forgiveness after the last sin).  The former go to Hell, the latter go to Heaven.  That's the black and white of Christianity.

It is only because Christian dogma is so retarded that Christians themselves usually water it down and hem and haw and compromise on their own dogma so that they can stand to stick with it (arguably changing the dogma is NOT sticking with it, but that's another issue).  So, you get Christians say, "Oh, you have to believe and ask for forgiveness and you will be saved....  But if you don't ask for forgiveness for a sin, it will stay on your soul.  So if you die after stealing a car, God will send you to hell unless you repent before dying.  What?  You want to know what if you stole a pencil from work but never asked for forgiveness?  Oh...uh...well, that's such a minor sin, God surely would not send you to Hell for it."

Where does the Bible spell out this "God overlooks the little sins" doctrine?  I've heard it said, but never seen anything in the Bible to support it.

Anyway, it seems like suicide is the most minor form of murder you can commit.  Yet Hitler could have asked for forgiveness for his genocide of millions and been saved, while a depressed teen is supposedly condemned to eternal torture for offing himself one sad night.  A common sense nail in the coffin of Christianity.

~psychoblast~


----------



## Turbo Monk

psychoblast, 

Are you familiar with the new covenant that was formed with Jesus Christ? It replaced the old covenant of the Passover where the Israelites smeared the blood of a lamb to protect them from the passing over of the angel of death.

The differences between the old/new covenant: instead of a lamb, it was Jesus's blood that was shed. Instead of the lamb's blood being smeared on doors, the blood of Christ covers one's heart. 

This was done in genius fashion. The people of Jesus's day didn't even know they were selecting the new passover lamb when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. They examined him for 3 days, found him to be without fault, then killed him at sunrise, not a bone in his body was broken. (the same procedure was used for Passover lambs, and no more animal sacrifices were used after Christ's death) If you wanna go deeper, the pattern of blood stains for the lamb's blood on the doors matches the blood stains on the cross:

X = blood stain

--------X------- top of door/crown of thorns

X--------------X sides of door/nail holes through wrists




--------X-------  bottom of door/nail holes through feet


The Holy Spirit is at work in all of us, urging us to seek a relationship with Jesus Christ.  When we accept that relationship, the blood of Christ covers our hearts. 

Yeah, we're gonna sin and God knows it. Fortunately, He doesn't judge us based on our performance. He looks for whether or not we have the blood of Jesus Christ on our hearts which is a result of our submission to the Holy Spirit.

The eternal sin is closing one's self off to the Holy Spirit until death.


----------



## psychoblast

> Are you familiar with the new covenant that was formed with Jesus Christ? It replaced the old covenant of the Passover where the Israelites smeared the blood of a lamb to protect them from the passing over of the angel of death.
> 
> The differences between the old/new covenant: instead of a lamb, it was Jesus's blood that was shed. Instead of the lamb's blood being smeared on doors, the blood of Christ covers one's heart.



Uh...it seems like their are some gaps in your "genius" solution.  You provide the mechanism for how people are saved post-Jesus (Jesus' blood sacrifice cleanses their sins), and you provide the mechanism for how, before Jesus, the particular Jews who happened to be in Egypt the night the Angel of Death came around avoided death (though not necessarily Hell) on that particular night.

See how the later does not parallel the former?  The blood smeared on doors did not apply to generations of Jews who lived and died before that night, and it did not apply to generations of Jews born after that night who died before Jesus came.  Further, nothing in the Bible indicates that the blood-smears-on-doors that first Passover night was a sacrifice that cleansed away the sins of the Jews who partook in that ritual.  And even if it did, what about their sins the following day, week, month, year?  Was putting a smear of blood on their door enough to get all their sins forgiven for their whole life?

I also note you seem to have no problem with your God demanding blood sacrifice to atone for sins.  Uh...that sounds rather gruesome, evil and barbaric to me.

On a last note, consider which is preferable:  A God who reveals himself to you and displays his existence and his power with daily miracles, and demands you sacrifice animals to be saved, or a God who refuses to prove his existence and asks that people believe in him and his son to be saved.  Given the choice, I would rather have the certainty of what power oversees the afterlife and what the conditions are of entry, even if it means having to jump through a few more hoops, rather than have the current state of affairs in which hundreds of competing religions give conflicting versions of what you must believe and how you must behave to be saved.

The bottom line is, in the Bible, Jesus (1) took away some hoops we must jump through to be saved, (2) added a new hoop we must jump through to be saved, and (3) then refused to provide any concrete proof of what the true hoops we must jump through really are, leaving future generations to live and die in uncertainty, doubt and fear.  Sound like a good deal to you?  Sounds like shit to me.

The New Testament ought to be called "The Curse of Jesus."

~psychoblast~


----------



## Turbo Monk

*See how the later does not parallel the former?*

See how the latter prophesizes the former?

The Passover has become a symbol of great proportion. Egypt has come to symbolize the state of sin that we each find ourselves in. Held prisoner in bondage to sin, we experience the angel of death passing through our lives to wreak a horrid vengeance upon us. Through the blood of Jesus, God passes over those who are a part of the new covenant relationship. 

*I also note you seem to have no problem with your God demanding blood sacrifice to atone for sins. Uh...that sounds rather gruesome, evil and barbaric to me.*

Actually I have thought about that, thinking it's extreme and morbid, but that's what it finally took to convince Pharaoh to let the people go. 

*On a last note, consider which is preferable: A God who reveals himself to you and displays his existence and his power with daily miracles, and demands you sacrifice animals to be saved, or a God who refuses to prove his existence and asks that people believe in him and his son to be saved.*

God does reveal himself to us and displays his existence by his power with miracles and asks that people believe he took the form of man in Jesus.

*The bottom line is, in the Bible, Jesus (1) took away some hoops we must jump through to be saved, *

Agreed, by living a sinless life.

*(2) added a new hoop we must jump through to be saved, *

I take it you're inferring our believing him to be both God/man and placing our faith in him.

*and (3) then refused to provide any concrete proof of what the true hoops we must jump through really are,*

Examine how the Pharisees beckoned Jesus to perform miracles, so they would believe. Concrete proof negates the need for faith. 

*leaving future generations to live and die in uncertainty, doubt and fear.*

Faith is what replaces uncertainty, doubt, and fear.


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

PB, who said the unforgivable sin is suicide but you? Unless imissed it, you are the one applying your views to the christian faith! Dude, as smart as you are (seemingly) when you try debating the subject of christianity you look so stupid. You really are as ignorant as it gets to what the Bible says...Why not go and read it then come back and talk, untill then you really are a waste of time and energy. 

Funny thing is, you try SO HARD to come off like you know what you are talking about, yet, for someone who does know what the Bible says you come off looking like a complete moron. Sorry, but it is true. Eiter study up, or discuss something you actually know something about.


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

Turbo Monk said:
			
		

> *The eternal sin is closing one's self off to the Holy Spirit until death. *



Thank-you! I didnt even read this post before i just informed Psychoblast of his ignorance. Yeah, PB, it is suicide because YOU say so! 8)


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

psychoblast said:
			
		

> *Uh...it seems like their are some gaps in your "genius" solution.  You provide the mechanism for how people are saved post-Jesus (Jesus' blood sacrifice cleanses their sins), and you provide the mechanism for how, before Jesus, the particular Jews who happened to be in Egypt the night the Angel of Death came around avoided death (though not necessarily Hell) on that particular night.
> 
> See how the later does not parallel the former?  The blood smeared on doors did not apply to generations of Jews who lived and died before that night, and it did not apply to generations of Jews born after that night who died before Jesus came.  Further, nothing in the Bible indicates that the blood-smears-on-doors that first Passover night was a sacrifice that cleansed away the sins of the Jews who partook in that ritual.  And even if it did, what about their sins the following day, week, month, year?  Was putting a smear of blood on their door enough to get all their sins forgiven for their whole life?
> 
> I also note you seem to have no problem with your God demanding blood sacrifice to atone for sins.  Uh...that sounds rather gruesome, evil and barbaric to me.
> 
> On a last note, consider which is preferable:  A God who reveals himself to you and displays his existence and his power with daily miracles, and demands you sacrifice animals to be saved, or a God who refuses to prove his existence and asks that people believe in him and his son to be saved.  Given the choice, I would rather have the certainty of what power oversees the afterlife and what the conditions are of entry, even if it means having to jump through a few more hoops, rather than have the current state of affairs in which hundreds of competing religions give conflicting versions of what you must believe and how you must behave to be saved.
> 
> The bottom line is, in the Bible, Jesus (1) took away some hoops we must jump through to be saved, (2) added a new hoop we must jump through to be saved, and (3) then refused to provide any concrete proof of what the true hoops we must jump through really are, leaving future generations to live and die in uncertainty, doubt and fear.  Sound like a good deal to you?  Sounds like shit to me.
> 
> The New Testament ought to be called "The Curse of Jesus."
> 
> ~psychoblast~ *



It has been told to YOU SPECIFICALLY, many times how salvation was "obtained" prior to Jesus. You are either retarded, or are skipping over everything we say and repeating yourself over and over again. Which is it?


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

Turbo Monk said:
			
		

> *See how the later does not parallel the former?
> 
> See how the latter prophesizes the former?
> 
> The Passover has become a symbol of great proportion. Egypt has come to symbolize the state of sin that we each find ourselves in. Held prisoner in bondage to sin, we experience the angel of death passing through our lives to wreak a horrid vengeance upon us. Through the blood of Jesus, God passes over those who are a part of the new covenant relationship.
> 
> I also note you seem to have no problem with your God demanding blood sacrifice to atone for sins. Uh...that sounds rather gruesome, evil and barbaric to me.
> 
> Actually I have thought about that, thinking it's extreme and morbid, but that's what it finally took to convince Pharaoh to let the people go.
> 
> On a last note, consider which is preferable: A God who reveals himself to you and displays his existence and his power with daily miracles, and demands you sacrifice animals to be saved, or a God who refuses to prove his existence and asks that people believe in him and his son to be saved.
> 
> God does reveal himself to us and displays his existence by his power with miracles and asks that people believe he took the form of man in Jesus.
> 
> The bottom line is, in the Bible, Jesus (1) took away some hoops we must jump through to be saved,
> 
> Agreed, by living a sinless life.
> 
> (2) added a new hoop we must jump through to be saved,
> 
> I take it you're inferring our believing him to be both God/man and placing our faith in him.
> 
> and (3) then refused to provide any concrete proof of what the true hoops we must jump through really are,
> 
> Examine how the Pharisees beckoned Jesus to perform miracles, so they would believe. Concrete proof negates the need for faith.
> 
> leaving future generations to live and die in uncertainty, doubt and fear.
> 
> Faith is what replaces uncertainty, doubt, and fear. *



Great post!


----------



## psychoblast

> Also, I believe the one except is suicide



As you will see, this was a very qualified assertion.  I in no way claimed to be certain what sin this supposedly was.  Way to jump on it, Sohi, and call me "so stupid" for suggesting this might be the case.  You really can be "so stupid" when you try to debate me.

Anyway, I have heard suicide identified as the one unforgiveable sin because you cannot confess and be forgiven for it.

As for the assertion that the one unforgiveable sin is not letting the Holy Spirit into your heart (or whatever)...source please?  Where is this "sin" even listed as a sin in the Bible?

What about the fact that Jesus did miracles in front of SOME people, and God has revealed himself to SOME people in physical form (ala Moses)?  Aren't those people getting an unfair advantage compared to those of us who are supposed to believe some absurd tales in a 2000 year old collection of documents which have been edited to hell and back for political purposes of the Catholic Church?

If God reveals the truth of the Bible through stuff like a flower blooming or if the words inherently ring true on a deep spiritual level that cannot be denied...well, I've seen flowers blooming and I've read the Bible and heard sermons and I still don't believe.  So obviously that stuff does NOT reveal the truth.

~psychoblast~


----------



## psychoblast

> The bottom line is, in the Bible, Jesus (1) took away some hoops we must jump through to be saved,
> 
> Agreed, by living a sinless life.



So, you are saying that before Jesus' coming, everyone who lived and died could only get to Heaven and avoid eternal torture in Hell by living a perfectly sinless life?  I'm curious because I've asked before on here how people got saved (or condemned) before Jesus' coming, and I don't recall any one -- not even the Christians on here -- gave a clear and concise answer such as this.

~psychoblast~


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

psychoblast said:
			
		

> *As you will see, this was a very qualified assertion.  I in no way claimed to be certain what sin this supposedly was.  Way to jump on it, Sohi, and call me "so stupid" for suggesting this might be the case.  You really can be "so stupid" when you try to debate me.
> 
> *



You said: Also, I believe the one except is suicide. And note that suicide is the one sin where you do not have any opportunity to ask for forgiveness after you sin, because you are dead. *So the very fact that suicide is the one unforgiveable sin is even further proof that, under Christian doctrine, you MUST ask for forgiveness after you sin in order to receive forgiveness.* 


Nice try *took out ad hom*.  

Go ahead and just apologise for trying to twist things around to look right as usual.


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

psychoblast said:
			
		

> *So, you are saying that before Jesus' coming, everyone who lived and died could only get to Heaven and avoid eternal torture in Hell by living a perfectly sinless life?  I'm curious because I've asked before on here how people got saved (or condemned) before Jesus' coming, and I don't recall any one -- not even the Christians on here -- gave a clear and concise answer such as this.
> 
> ~psychoblast~ *



You are really pissing me off today man! You think because you are talking to someone new that i will forget how this topic HAS been explained to you already??? Many times. What is your problem?


----------



## scottahit

SoHiAllTheTheTime
   Why the arrogance. Can I ask you, do you believe it is possible that mayby someone has openly looked at all the facts, thought about all of the arguments to the best of there ability, and just does not see any validity in christianity?. You act as If it all must be so obvious. Which is bizarre considering your talking about an opinion that is based upon faith not knowledge. 

       Also can I ask, do you say you know christianity is right or believe that christianity is right. Please explain your answer.


----------



## psychoblast

Sohi:

You are an idiot.  My whole discussion of suicide as the unforgivable sin FOLLOWED my statement "I believe the one except is suicide" and was thus inherently limited in that I was just conjecturing off what I thought might have been the unforgivable sin.  What, you want me to preface each sentence in the same paragraph calling it "what I believe is the one unforgivable sin" because you are going to look for any nitpicky, stupid-ass way to read the later sentences separate from the first sentence and then jump up and down like an idiot shouting "Hey, you said it was a fact that suicide was the one unforgivable sin!  You're dumb! You're dumb!"

Geez, get a clue.

By the way, I just did a google search on suicide and unforgivable sin, and there is a ton of discussion on whether suicide is an unforgivable sin, including many references to how a lot of Christians mistakenly call suicide the unforgivable sin.  Which supports my claim that I have heard suicide called the unforgivable sin, even if the people I heard saying this were wrong.  Apparently it is a very common misconception.  Yeah, I'm so dumb I made a mistake that many Christians make on a regular basis.  Whoop-di-doo.

~psychoblast~


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

scottahit said:
			
		

> *SoHiAllTheTheTime
> Why the arrogance.  *



Because me and PB have had more of these discussions than you can even imagine, and i have seen him at work too many times to try and be civil with him at times.  I respect his knowledge and views on most things he writes, but the way he twists things and tries t ocome off like he knows about Christianity pisses me off. Because, for those who dont know any better - they may believe his garbage (referring specifically to Christianity and the bible)! I wont let him get away with it, which is why i give him an attitude. This isnt our first discussion by any means.


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

PB, the first part of your last post was utter nonsnese and backpeddling...We will leave it at that as far as i am concerned, and yes i admit i was being nitpicky - with you especially. 

The second part i do agree with you on, that there are a lot of people who think just like you do, and a lot ofthem are christians, but those christians arent basing their views off of what the bible claims, they are basing it off of what seems logical (at first thought), just like you did.  I have no problems admitting that to you, you are right on that account. The rest - way off dude.


----------



## sexyanon

How can you two argue logic vs faith?    ?!?!

Christianity is built on faith. You then use logic to reconfirm that faith.

PB is placing logic before faith, in that first you logically prove or agree with something, then you put faith into your conclusion.

Quick question SoHi, but which version/interpretation of the Bible is correct? I'm sure there are a myriad of interpretations, but are any of them correct? Is there a such thing as a correct interpretation?


----------



## scottahit

Thats easy, his or his church's interpretation. Thought you would of figured that one. From his answers I'm guessing thats a middle of the road baptist slightly fundamentalist but not completely anti intellectual denomination or something similar. Of Course most of these beliefs have only been around for 100 years. (yes I know baptists have been around a lot longer but your modern type of baptist with its embrace of dispensationalism interpretation style of bible exegesis is only 100 years old.)


----------



## slyvan wanderer

*Why doesn't God do more miracles to alleviate pain?*

This question was brought up in my philosophy class and it stumped the professor (he brought it up because we were discussing Hume).  

Anyways...

Why doesn't God do more miracles to alleviate pain?

I really don't know, all I can say is, He has a reason.


----------



## wanderer21

^God works miracles everyday to alleviate pain....most people just don't recognize them


----------



## RyanM

maybe because he is sleeping or a  huge cloud is in front of his face and he can't really see right now so he is trying to get this huge cloud out of his way

Which reminds me I am going to put on my brand new socks *jumps*


----------



## vegan

because there is no god?


----------



## RyanM

*hides* You do know that you just caused a riot again? *waits*  runnn from the sheep


----------



## RyanM

He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see
He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity
He dreamed a god up and called it christianity
Your god is dead and no one cares
If there is a hell I will see you there
He flexed his muscles to keep his flock of sheep in line
He made a virus that would kill off all the swine
His perfect kingdom of killing, suffering and pain
Demands devotion atrocities done in his name
Your god is dead and no one cares
Drowning in his own hypocrisy
And if there is a hell I will see you there
Burning with your god in humility
Will you die for this?


----------



## RyanM

see you you there 
see you 
see you there 
do you believe in miracles 
not really 
god is dead 
your god is dead 
no one cares 
and no one cares 
drowning in his own hypocrisy 
see you you there 
see 
i'll see you there 
you there 
god is dead


----------



## Ozymandias0811

Sylvan:

In my opinion this is the most damning evidence against the idea of a Christian model god.

If I understand their theology correctly their god has three attributes (among others)...

1. Omniscience
2. Omnipotence
3. Benevolence

An all knowing God is cognizant of suffering in the world and has the power to put a stop to it but doesn't - thus making Him not very nice and nixing attribute number three.  Theologians go on about free will and mysterious ways but it seems like equivocation to me, especially considering all the evil around us.

Ozymandias


----------



## Void

Ah, why blame God? We create this world, though god created the fundementals we build society, economics, class systems, and the conditions in which starvation and war reigns. Putting aside the need for free will, in this world we not only make decisions that effect others but everyday we see the results of those decisions. Just cause we cant be fucked making a better world, it aint down to God. If you see pain as such a problem then consider what you yourself have done to help solve the problem. Your not powerless.


----------



## slyvan wanderer

Ozymandias0811 said:
			
		

> *
> In my opinion this is the most damning evidence against the idea of a Christian model god.
> 
> If I understand their theology correctly their god has three attributes (among others)...
> 
> 1. Omniscience
> 2. Omnipotence
> 3. Benevolence
> 
> An all knowing God is cognizant of suffering in the world and has the power to put a stop to it but doesn't - thus making Him not very nice and nixing attribute number three.  Theologians go on about free will and mysterious ways but it seems like equivocation to me, especially considering all the evil around us.
> 
> *



This is exactly's Hume's argument we were goign over in class and my professor, a priest, said it was the best evidence and that even he had trouble with it at times.   

I think Void has an excellent answer, but I just woke up, am hungry, and have to study for a mid-term, so I will try to respond more thouroughly later.


----------



## Pomplemous

God already creates miracles everyday but people just look for bigger and bigger things - He says dont expect or look for miracles, they are not going to be done to order you know.

If one day we all woke up and there was world peace adn you had a wad of cash magically in your bank account - would you put that down to the love and will of God - a miracle? pain alleviated?  Or would you put that down to humans and a stroke of luck???


----------



## L2R

*life hurts-pain indicates life & stimulates growth*

Why don't youl cry about it? That might get his attention.  

n.b. For the miracle, see void's post.


IMO Pain sensation is the price you pay for thinking about it.


----------



## Ozymandias0811

> _Originally posted by Void _
> *Ah, why blame God? We create this world, though god created the fundementals we build society, economics, class systems, and the conditions in which starvation and war reigns. Putting aside the need for free will, in this world we not only make decisions that effect others but everyday we see the results of those decisions. Just cause we cant be fucked making a better world, it aint down to God. If you see pain as such a problem then consider what you yourself have done to help solve the problem. Your not powerless. *


 
Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that humans get the world that they deserve because of the choices that they make and I tend to agree.  But is everyone responsible?  Right this second there is a child somewhere in the world being abused.  What sort of deity is this that knows and could stop it but chooses not too?  He/She/It must *want* that child to suffer, no? 

Ozymandias


----------



## Pomplemous

I know this isnt the right answer at all ok? dont quote me on this, but... certainly in school when one person is bad and the teacher keeps everyone behind as punishment, sure makes them all behave....???

giggle - I am sorry - God is not like that and I know it and I love and worship Him and He and I are friends.

just a flippant remark


----------



## slyvan wanderer

----> look at my next post: Void


----------



## L2R

slyvan wanderer said:
			
		

> *
> Natural evil is what is at issue (tornados, hurricanes, earthquake). *



What makes those things evil?
The same laws that cause them brought us into existence.
IMO the complete removal of such phenomena would be a greater evil because it would make natural law distorted, opening up the potential for much worse.


----------



## deviate

my theory is that our suffering is caused by our mistaken belief that we are our physical bodies and our ignorance of our true nature as pure consciousness or spirit. suffering is god's way of forcing us to turn away from the unreal world we create in our minds and back to our true nature as pure being.


----------



## David

^^^ Put the vials away, you starting to be delusional. 




> _Originally posted by Void _
> Ah, why blame God? We create this world, though god created the fundementals we build society, economics, class systems, and the conditions in which starvation and war reigns. Putting aside the need for free will, in this world we not only make decisions that effect others but everyday we see the results of those decisions. Just cause we cant be fucked making a better world, it aint down to God. If you see pain as such a problem then consider what you yourself have done to help solve the problem. *Your not powerless. *


 
That's thing I hate the most about religion. It makes people think they can't solve society's problems. Even though that is society's problem. 

Religion has succeeded in making people reliant on something else, other than their own abilities. That is not natural, and not innately human. We are creative problem solvers, that's how we got this far. We can't progress, unless we leave behind the useless ideals, that hold us back. 

Either way there is no GOD. Unless you speak in terms of Spinoza.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

there is no god

that's it

that's the answer


----------



## punktuality

I dont believe in "god" perse but I still think we can find a simple answer...

If the world was full of "good" how would you know that the good was "good" without ever having experienced "bad"

Our whole world is constructed of comparisons...
If you doubt this idea try and describe anything (including yourself) without making reference to something that is not the thing you are trying to describe. You simply cant. Our whole world as we understand it is based on comparing the differences of things and the good/evil notion is no different.

We cannot have good without first defining evil...

Any Taoist literature is good reading regarding this concept, as is Huxleys Brave New World which makes the point that even in a perfect world the grass is always greener...


----------



## duneonthemoon

Why don't you do something  to alleviate pain?


----------



## L2R

Many animals in the wild can continue living (close) to normally after serios injury. 
I saw a doco about these elk like creature but with two long pointed horns on their heads. Like many other species the males butt heads and they saw one that had been speared through the abdomin and had some intestine dangling beneath it. It was acting no different to the healthy others.

My point is that animals have the same senses that we do to survive, except when they get injured, they tend the wound the best they can with the time they have but DO NOT dwell on the injury like we do. Being in the wild there is no time.

I repeat my earlier point:
Pain sensation is the price you pay for thinking about it.


----------



## nvr2old

Jesus also said ASK and you shall receive...sometimes it is hard to ask God for what you really need...because you may not get what you want and that means CHANGE....which takes effort. and faith that the miracle has happened because you asked...Jesus is always there with open arms into his Holy embrace. Ask for a miracle! Pray with faith and conviction that what you have asked for has already happened. I think that many times people are afraid to ask. It's like do you make yourself vulnerable, humble enough to ask someone else for help? It seems pretty evident here on BL or in society we merge our ideas and opinions and have faith through mostly the majority rules....but what about the little piece of the puzzle that you cannot find through anyones advice or love and sharing. Seek God first and you will know.
 We all want our independence and sence of furfillment of spirit in our lives. But just when you think you have obtained all the wisdom and all the knowledge that you may think has brought you to balance...WAMMMMMM something stirs inside your heart knowing that LOVE is all that matters....without it we are empty. If you can find a love that feels more like RELEASE and not Possession...you are very
very fortunate. God doesn't want to place hisself Above us or enable our decisions and manipulate our moves...he wants to BLESS US. but who will ask to be blessed... it may mean responsibility to the divine purpose of life...which is then left to each individual to inact.
I think the prayer of Jabez is quite evident:
In biblical times Names where very important...and you couldn't change your name. Jabez means Pain, and his mother told him she bore him in pain.   
So you can imagine the harrasment he may have gotten from his friends and family.
So Jabez CRIED OUT TO GOD:
"Oh, that You would bless me indeed, and enlarge my territory, that Your hand would be with me, and that You would keep me from evil, that I may not cause pain! "So God granted him what he requested (Chronicles 4:9-10)
Peace


----------



## wendisoul

TECHNICALLY.... According to the Bible, miracles of miraculous nature would have stopped when the last of the first disciples of Christ died, because they were given the power by the Holy Spirit to do the things that would "wow" people to believe that they had God in them.  Everyone else has to believe that those guys did perform miracles and follow what Christ said based on that recorded account of those miracles.  So, based on that logic, God won't do MIRACLES to alleviate pain.... because there is no need for miracles to prove that God exixts anymore.  
However, if you also believe that God gave us Christ as  a model of how to live, then you will see that pain is a part of living for God, because Satan (evil force) will always be tryin to get you to follow a different path.  
Also, something that I have thought about many times is that WE create all the pain in the world... through pollution, hate, our desire to be instantly satisfied, etc.... Most of the pain we feel is selfinflicted because we do not allow God to rule our life... we let our desires rule us, and then we get hurt.  So God gave us solutions... a way of life... a hope of Heaven to relieve us from pain.  
Just some thoughts.


----------



## Pomplemous

duneonthemoon said:
			
		

> *Why don't you do something  to alleviate pain? *



I am passionately reasonable about this post.
ie
it stands to reason and I am passionate about that.  

 I agree completely.

I can also fairly say I am distinctly unsober and cannot tell you the number of typos I have had to go back and correct.

 Alleviate your own pain and the pain of everyone you know & love if you can and those you meet, and if you can smile at a preson on the street and maybe it makes them feel good and maybe they see fit to smile at someone else and it feels good and so it goes on and just for a second, over the course of the whole day, somebdoy smiles and for that second, the world is a better place, for you, and  for the world as a whole as somebody out there is smiling..

did I say unsober?  I meant *glazed* too. 8(   hee - I mean that to show my head is mince now! giggle.

But I still believe that deeply. I dont care what you say.


----------



## Void

slyvan wanderer: err, sorry pressed edit rather then qutoe and destroyed your post. That hasnt happened in ages. Sorry.

I cant call anything in nature 'evil'. It follows a set pattern that maintains life on this planet. Just because we create global warming that makes natural disasters more extreme and common, its hardly natures fault. I am completely against the mentality of man vs nature which has styles our society and culture, without it we may have actually desgined cities and farming practices that are balanced with the environment they are in.

Us humans on the other hand play a direct role in the patterns our society maintains. Those starving children on the other side of the world are a result of many failed actions. First came colonization which destroyed their culture, leaving them as slaves, then foreign countries came in to plunder their natural resources while leaving them destitute. We live in a one-world economy and just because we chose to style parts of it like a pyramid scheme, well that isnt Gods fault.


----------



## Turbo Monk

*throwing pearls.............*

_*Why doesn't God do more miracles to alleviate pain?*_ 

From  2 Corinthians 12:7-10, regarding Paul's pain:

..."To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ's power may rest on me."

Through our pain, we draw closer to God - after man's defiance in the Garden it was introduced so we wouldn't swell up with too much pride.

I'm not too particularly fond of this btw since I have a very painful physical ailment myself.  For years I said "f- you God for letting this happen to me." 

Since I accepted Christ, my pain has subsided tremendously.


----------



## deviate

> ^^^ Put the vials away, you starting to be delusional.



were you talking to me? if so could you provide an argument instead of calling me delusional? my argument is simple. in deep sleep you were not aware of your body and there was no suffering. similarly if you take a drug that turns off the higher functions of your brain there is no suffering. yet you don't deny that you were still yourself in deep sleep.  the conclusion is obvious, we cause our own suffering by thinking it. we suffer the ills of our phyiscal bodies because of the ego which connects our consciousness to our bodies. if we get rid of the ego and exist as consiousness alone there is no more suffering. i thought this was what buddhism was about (loss of individuality = nirvana). please correct me if i'm wrong.


----------



## Belisarius

Maybe, in some unfathomable way, pain is metaphysically useful.  An unpleasant thought, but possible?...


----------



## slyvan wanderer

void, alls chill

Nature isn't itself evil, the pain and misery is.  In this case evil is defined as something painful and bad with no good resulting.  

*i thought this was what buddhism was about (loss of individuality = nirvana). please correct me if i'm wrong.* 

Buddhism is about that.  Let go of wants and desires and pain is avoided.  It seems like a balance scale to me.

I have a paper to right on evidentialism and its challenge to religion, later.


----------



## Turbo Monk

Belisarius said:
			
		

> *Maybe, in some unfathomable way, pain is metaphysically useful.  An unpleasant thought, but possible?... *



natural morphine release


----------



## Pomplemous

*Re: throwing pearls.............*



			
				Turbo Monk said:
			
		

> *
> I'm not too particularly fond of this btw since I have a very painful physical ailment myself.  For years I said "f- you God for letting this happen to me."
> 
> Since I accepted Christ, my pain has subsided tremendously. *


* 

^  I am happy for this - that you made your peace with God - you have a sore thing - look to Him to help you through it, not blame Him and that goes to everyone.*


----------



## The HiVe MiND

The reason we are suffering is because we are all looking after our OWN self-interests, but we cannot be happy unless we are serving the greater whole.
The arm co-operates with the stomach by bringing food to the mouth, and in this way that arm is also nourished. But if the arm tries to feed itself it will only suffer.

Further reasoning finds that our TRUE nature is spiritual but we are currently experiencing the MATERIAL world, like a fish out of water. This is also the cause of suffering.

God lets us.. nay, God MAKES us suffer in the material world until we realise that we are compeletely dependant on Him for everything and then surrender to Him. We are like a child run away from home, who soon finds that he cannot make it out there on his own and then comes back to his parents (who receive him with open arms).


----------



## Pomplemous

I dont know if I 100% agree with that - or maybe with the concept, but maybe not exactly as that was put.


----------



## XTC4EVA

Because there is no god.


----------



## Pomplemous

not for you maybe.


----------



## dr seuss

/preaching mode on

but god does do miracles!! all the time, all around us, everywhere! unless you're a 4 year old _resistola_ in brazil, addicted to glue, unable to speak properly, and destined to be hunted down by the cops and murdered! or an iraqi child who's been hit by shrapnel from illegal cluster bombs. in that case god is not happy with you at all! 

you must have sinned in a previous life. 

after all, if you worshipped 'our' god, and loved Jesus, then and not an 'idol', then your pain would also subside! you'd be surrounded by happenings that are certainly pre-ordained and in no sense coincidental! 

/mode off


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

^Pathetic dude. Seuss, you are way above that, i thought. you are stooping to my level now.  Seriously though, quite being an idiot.  How can you knock something you have never experienced? For being so "opene minded" you arent very open at all.


----------



## wanderer21

I am a firm believer in the fact that God speaks to each of us in 3 different ways. 

We have the bible, which is his word and his instructions for us.  (also the bible should inspire us, teach us, and comfort us among various other things.)

Then we have the holy spirit.  The holy spirit is what most people call the conscience...But this is God trying to help us onto our path.

last but not least, if we cannot and do not learn what God wants us to, he teaches us with circumstance.  The saying is true "God only gives us what we can handle", but for most of us we cannot handle the situations given without his help. 

I don't believe that god lets us suffer until we bow down to him.  That's not his nature.  He wants us to choose him, not think we have to surrender to him in order to be happy and painless.

But, God does give us crappy circumstances where we have to overcome by learning what he wants us to learn.  For each and every person in this world, it's different.  But this is how it works.


----------



## dimmo

yeh seuss .. I've noticed you're being a bit of an idiot on other threads as well.  Chill matey! 

Btw: did I see a pic of you and ur cute boyfriend in SL&R recently?  cute couple!


----------



## everythinginside

I think pain has it's purpose for survival is functionably dependant on it as well as it's polar-opposite.. pleasure.....

for without either.. there is neither.


----------



## The HiVe MiND

wanderer21 said:
			
		

> *I don't believe that god lets us suffer until we bow down to him.  That's not his nature.  He wants us to choose him, not think we have to surrender to him in order to be happy and painless.
> *



I guess Surrender is too a strong a word for you.

Our mind, intelligence & ego drags us through the material word constantly searching for sense pleasure. But we have forgetten that the source of this pleasure is the Supreme Lord.
We need to surrender our mind, intelligence & ego to the service of God. This is to prove to him that we are serious about going back to the spiritual world. Otherwise we can just stay in this world of suffering forever, if we want to.
False ego is identification with the physical body, true ego is realisation of yourself as a servant to the Supreme Personality.

Why is this world full of suffering?  birth, death, old age & disease..
Anyone subjected to the material world is also affected by the three modes of material nature: goodness, passion & ignorance. Any action in any one of these modes has strings attached, KARMA, the reaction to your actions. This is the material world.

_'You shall reap what you sow'_


----------



## dr seuss

> ^Pathetic dude. Seuss, you are way above that, i thought. you are stooping to my level now.  Seriously though, quite being an idiot.  How can you knock something you have never experienced? For being so "opene minded" you arent very open at all.



fuckin hell - if you can't tell when i'm tongue in cheek and when i'm not, i should give up completely  that's what the preachy-mode thang was all about. 

i don't know what you mean by 'something you've never experienced' though. 

what do you mean - christianity, or miracles? 

if you mean christianity, i'm afraid i have to disagree. not only have a devoted (no pun intended) a not inconsiderable amount of my life to the study of christianity (you haven't met me on christianforums yet, have you?) and its evolution (want to chat about the evolution of medieval heresy? the reformation? the contemporary social relevance of the book of kells?), but i have also experienced most flavours of christianity on a first-hand basis; from practitioners, teachers, and believers. i've just got back from a holiday with my in-common-law family; a minister and two church elders... 

if you're talking about miracles, i'm afraid i haven't witnessed any. have you? 

i have seen an awful lot of suffering, though. first and secondhand... 

dimmo,  



> yeh seuss .. I've noticed you're being a bit of an idiot on other threads as well. Chill matey!



i shall try. i am all too guilty of allowing emotional responses to override sensible posting intentions. please note that my response in this thread was firmly & absolutely intended as non-serious. but hey - it's all good. this is a learning experience for all of us. if i have been somewhat tetchy recently, it could be linked to the personal difficulties i'm going through; if you need to know, i'll pm you. 



> Btw: did I see a pic of you and ur cute boyfriend in SL&R recently? cute couple!



it seems not, as i don't have a boyfriend. i do have a girlfriend, however


----------



## Void

I dont think you can just think about disattaching yourself in the world and reaching nirvana instantly, theres stuff to work through. Pain and suffering is a natural part of life, and can be largly overcome by having a supportive community and by being emotionally strong which comes by learning how to deal with lifes issues. Most people who dont learn how to deal with lifes issues most likely end up in jail or medicated for years.  Sociaty is at least partly responsible IMHO in teaching people who to deal with lifes issues, emotions, disapointments etc. Pick up any pop culture material and you wont find anything about it.


----------



## Pomplemous

dr seuss said:
			
		

> *
> 
> want to chat about the evolution of medieval heresy? the reformation? the contemporary social relevance of the book of kells
> 
> if you're talking about miracles, i'm afraid i haven't witnessed any. have you?
> 
> *



firstly, I would talk to you about the evolution of heresy, the reformation and the change in religion in UK over that period from that angle - that is my interest subject.  (more the history of the country and its effects on the people andthe dramatic change in religion according to the whims of those in charge)

and I have witnessed miracles - everywhere I look thre is another.  Maybe some people (in general) and just too closed off to seeing things like that.


----------



## dr seuss

> that is my interest subject.



tis also one of mine. 

i'm fascinated in particular by the flexibility of belief systems when confronted with arising issues, or dramatic social changes; by the willingness of spiritual leaders to divert themselves from basic tenets of their faith in pursuit of noumenal aims/goals; and by the effective utilisation of repression (be it through state, aristocratic, economic or social means) as a means of enforcing orthodoxy. 

as for this: 



> and I have witnessed miracles - everywhere I look thre is another. Maybe some people (in general) and just too closed off to seeing things like that.



i've seen wonderful things happen. i think there's a difference between being 'too closed off to seeing' things which you would denote 'miracles' and merely ascribing them to something other than divine intervention. 

i guess it depends on your definition of a miracle; i've not seen any classic biblical water-into-wine or walking-on-water incidents, whereas i have seen remarkable examples of survival against the odds... personally i'd find it easier to accept a classical dualist interpretation: i.e. that the noumenal world is indebted to an evil god for its creation.

lots of great things happen around the world every day. but there's also an incredible amount of pain & suffering, and for every committed religious person who works to help others, there's a pope who blathers about condoms' inability to prevent the transmission of HIV, or a church lobby group insisting that the US withdraw funding from clinics that perform abortions on AIDS infected mothers in africa, or people rabbiting on about god's 'punishment' of homosexuals, etc. etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Pomplemous

dr seuss said:
			
		

> *tis also one of mine.
> 
> i'm fascinated in particular by the flexibility of belief systems when confronted with arising issues, or dramatic social changes; by the willingness of spiritual leaders to divert themselves from basic tenets of their faith in pursuit of noumenal aims/goals; and by the effective utilisation of repression (be it through state, aristocratic, economic or social means) as a means of enforcing orthodoxy. *



Ah yes, well in many cases (depending on the period we are talking, but in the case of the reformation) it was do or be punished.  In a feudal system, all followed their lords, who followed the king, who followed the church, who followed the pope, who followed God. And then suddenly it changes, the King bypasses the church and pope altogether and forms his own church and his own direct link to God and says you will follow me because I am king and head of the new church of england.  Take the oath to swear against the old religion, the old ways, the catholic church and all that it was all wrong, and swear allegiance to me or go to war. What are you going to do then?  the lords had to change because he was still the king, holds all the favour and they want to be in favour too - so they swap, they make their tenants swap or get turved out, the poor land owners, they cannot openly practice christian rites as its heresy, cannot say heretical anything - there were spies and tattle-tales everywhere and many many many were hanged as heretics.  In those times people were controlled by those above them as explained above - not many were able to live as their own people to make their own decisions - they were kept under a strict hand and so it is fascinating that as one or a few high up change direction, a ripple effect occurs, as compared to todays times, if some up there change direction, we all argue about it and take a vote.


----------



## _high_life_

god doesnts do any miracles for anyone because its simply a question of humans ruling humans, can it be done...

clearly the answer is no and thats is why there is so much pain.because human governments are like children leading children, they dont know anymore than us but still choose to tell us what to do and not to do as if they had a more defined conscience then the rest of us.

so if you want your pain alleviated you wont find the answers here on earth because the next guy doesnt know much more than yourself.


----------



## The HiVe MiND

dr seuss said:
			
		

> *i guess it depends on your definition of a miracle; i've not seen any classic biblical water-into-wine or walking-on-water incidents, whereas i have seen remarkable examples of survival against the odds...
> *



Probably the same amount of people have been killed in 'miracle incidents' as those who have survived against the odds.
This is just my speculation though.

It does not matter too much if we suffer in this life, because God knows that our souls are eternal and we will never die. All your suffering should be considered a character reform 


Bhagavad Gita
Chapter 2

TEXT 11 

sri-bhagavan uvaca 
asocyan anvasocas tvam 
prajna-vadams ca bhasase 
gatasun agatasums ca 
nanusocanti panditah

SYNONYMS 

sri-bhagavan uvaca--the Supreme Personality of Godhead said; asocyan--that which is not worthy of lamentation; anvasocah--you are lamenting; tvam--you; prajna-vadan--learned talks; ca--also; bhasase--speaking; gata--lost; asun--life; agata--not past; asun--life; ca--also; na--never; anusocanti--lament; panditah--the learned. 

TRANSLATION 

The Blessed Lord said: While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief. Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor the dead. 

PURPORT 

The Lord at once took the position of the teacher and chastised the student, calling him, indirectly, a fool. The Lord said, "You are talking like a learned man, but you do not know that one who is learned--one who knows what is body and what is soul--does not lament for any stage of the body, neither in the living nor in the dead condition." As it will be explained in later chapters, it will be clear that knowledge means to know matter and spirit and the controller of both. Arjuna argued that religious principles should be given more importance than politics or sociology, but he did not know that knowledge of matter, soul and the Supreme is even more important than religious formularies. And, because he was lacking in that knowledge, he should not have posed himself as a very learned man. As he did not happen to be a very learned man, he was consequently lamenting for something which was unworthy of lamentation. The body is born and is destined to be vanquished today or tomorrow; therefore the body is not as important as the soul. One who knows this is actually learned, and for him there is no cause for lamentation, regardless of the condition of the material body.


----------



## Pomplemous

What do you people WANT!?!??!!

It is like that joke I remember as a kid:

A man goes out in his boat fishing and while out in the open seas came under a storm.  He prays to God and asks that he be kept safe and his boat is buffeted and capsizes and he is stuck on top onthe hull holding on for dear life.  A boat passes by and they say, come aboard! get safe!  The man replies, No, My faith is with God, He will provide.  and the boat moves off.
He clings on and continues to pray.
A helicopter passes overhead and they go to rescue the man - grab my hand! I'll pull you up! you'll perish there!!
No, thank you, I am under the wing of the Lord, He will keep me safe!  and the helicopter leaves and a final HUGE wave washes over the man and he is washed away and drowns.

Up in Heaven, he talks with God and says, I was in trouble in that water, I prayed to you, why did you not save me?
God says, well I sent you a ship and a helicopter, what more do you want!??!


----------



## dr seuss

pomplemous, there is an extent to which pain and suffering are relative. i don't know what life experiences you may or may not have, but dark times can affect us all - even for different reasons. and i think i knew i would never believe in a higher being - let alone a benevolent one - when i experienced real tragedy.


----------



## L2R

^^^
amen

(in reference to pomplemous)


----------



## Pomplemous

Ok, I accept that - but what I am saying is that I can understand how some might believe and then tragedy strikes and some might be unable to continue believing - I understand that and it is a sad thing, but you cannot take that away from someone, that right to believe or not, to lose belief or gain it - that is a person's personal faith.

We have all had times in our lives when we maybe felt were the blackest in our lives, and I respect that and people's need to reach out, or to lose faith - i cannot say how I would react - I have always had a faith through my black times, but maybe my bad times werent all that bad afterall - I dont know.  I dont believe my faith to be stronger than anyone else's - again, that is a question of personal stuff - but one way or the other, it has never left me, throughout

but that was not the question I was answering - I was answering the question of why doesnt God do more to alleviate pain.

what do you want him to do?  for SOME, no matter what He does, it goes unseen beause people are lookng for miracles, and yet they dont even know what kind of miracles they want to see.  well I am asking - what is it you want to see?  
an end to famine? world peace?  well of course we all want that, but He put man on this world to run it, and so maybe every one of us can help out a little, why cant we all put money in the charity boxes to help relieve starvation?  why cant we all give clothes to charities to help clothe those who shiver with cold?  why cant people do more?  

MAYBE IF PEOPLE DID MORE TO HELP ALLEVIATE THE SUFFERING AND PAIN, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE MIRACLE YOU'RE ALL WAITING FOR!!!!

oops - caps lock incident - sorry!


----------



## SoHiAllTheTime

^That is exactly how i see it, but you put it into words a lot better than i can, thanks!


----------



## dr seuss

> an end to famine? world peace? well of course we all want that, but He put man on this world to run it, and so maybe every one of us can help out a little, why cant we all put money in the charity boxes to help relieve starvation? why cant we all give clothes to charities to help clothe those who shiver with cold? why cant people do more?



well, i try to do more. we try to do more. the people i work with try every day to do more to help those around the world - but particularly in africa - less fortunate than us. i'm not talking about $2 a month to 'save the children', i'm talking about active involvement in running, promoting and organising charities, fundraisers, and awareness drives - and guess what; a LOT of people simply don't want to know. by working to change their opinions, even through basic education, we are making a difference.... 

but i don't see this as the 'miracle' that we've been waiting for - i see it as a determined effort by a group of multi-faith (including atheist) multi-racial multi-class people to do something for others... altruism aside, can't you just ascribe this to human decency? are we (as people) that flawed?


----------



## Pomplemous

^  stop stop stop.  wait.  I dont want to sound like i am taking away your human decency, it fills me with warmth to read you are actively looking to help - you are one of the gems.  
I dont think it is a miricle to have you and others actively helping -even if some do just do the £2 a month to help the children, it helps, but what I am saying is that there are many out there, who say why doesnt God do miracles, when they walk past a charity box without putting anything in. Who would rather buy a brand new book to read once and lose, rather than buy a second hand book in the charity shop and have even just a little money go towards those who need it, 
who sit and say why doesnt God help, when all they do is sit and procrastinate.  

if EVERYONE - and I mean everyone can do just one thing or even clubbed together to collectively help others less fortunate, then that would be a miracle.  and if that helped the world and eased pain , then that would be  a miracle - not a miracle as in it would never happen but a miracle as in a wonderful thing, a gift, a miracle.


----------



## nvr2old

Praying for our "so called enemies" would be a miracle.....and praying period... would be a miracle. I truely beleive if everyone where humble enough to get down on their knees and pray for a miracle and beleive that God does answer....that amazing things could happen!!!!!!!!!!
Haveing total confidence in God's pure love to overcome suffering...which by the way he did on the Cross....having complete trust in not what God can do for us....but by beleiving in him that we can do much through God. 
Not by might....but by God's grace alone. Imagine if everyone for one second across this world where to Pray for God's power of Pure Light to overcome our spirits and renew our wills to be his humble servant....and I don't mean killing in the name of God!!!!!!!!!!! 
Peace


----------



## mr_p

just think, here in australia ... if we all set aside ONE DOLLAR !!! each day, then we would have 20 million dollars to help out around the world, every day .... but we're all stuck in the loop (ALL OF US, to varying degrees!)

peace, love, light and a healthy release from the loop !


----------



## dr seuss

> if EVERYONE - and I mean everyone can do just one thing or even clubbed together to collectively help others less fortunate, then that would be a miracle. and if that helped the world and eased pain , then that would be a miracle - not a miracle as in it would never happen but a miracle as in a wonderful thing, a gift, a miracle.



i entirely agree. 

however, i would not classify that as a miracle as in 'God did this', but as in 'people did this'. 

i guess i'm kinda like a Bogomil, except without the ban on sex :D


----------



## Pomplemous

These last three posts are great! ''having complete trust in not what God can do for us....but by beleiving in him that we can do much through God.''
I love that and am happy you said it

''if we all set aside ONE DOLLAR !!! each day, then we would have 20 million dollars to help out around the world, every day .... but we're all stuck in the loop (ALL OF US, to varying degrees!)'''
you see? I think it is wonderful that we are saying that.  let's get others to say it too - to help to just do it. what's a dollar? you can lose that on the street!

and above: yes 'people did this'  you are right, and whether you believe in God or not, you can still make a difference, whether you say God did this, or People did this - if it is done, then it is a miracle.


----------



## DJwilliamC

"miracles" happen

its funny though, christians don't step outside the box to notice miracles happen in every religion, and in every spiritual belief.

why is that? is everyone else's miracles the work of *satan* or what?

i have an idea, perhaps it is _faith_ and _faith_ *alone* (not in God, Shiva, Zues, Mother Nature ect ect) that phenomena happens.

just my opinion, but i think that people should give their minds ability just a wee bit of credit.


p.s. why would someone need to ask somthing that is supposed to be pure light/good to do a good act.  especially if this perfect thing knows all, would not need to grant wishes to prove its goodness, rather do good because its nature is good.

then again, ive read in a book where God is a jealous and vengeful being.

p.s.s. no disrespect intended, im sharing my personal views only


----------



## Pomplemous

well that's just it, they shouldnt be asking, because it's about faith.  

I cant see what you have written so I have completely forgotten why I came back in to edit this.

And let THAT be a lesson to you! ha!


----------



## Void

Faith has little to do with it. There is a science behind spirtuality and miracles, about getting into states of being that are more aligned with God, ourselves and our environment. The actual practice exists and has been coloured around many different ideologies over the years. The very fact that each person is cabale of enlightment shows that we all have been given the option of a greater lifestyle outside of pain.


----------



## Raas

Void said:
			
		

> *Faith has little to do with it. There is a science behind spirtuality and miracles, about getting into states of being that are more aligned with God, ourselves and our environment. The actual practice exists and has been coloured around many different ideologies over the years. The very fact that each person is cabale of enlightment shows that we all have been given the option of a greater lifestyle outside of pain. *



I've read this through several times and still can't grasp exactly what you're saying.

A science behind spirituality and miracles? How do you know this?


----------



## DJwilliamC

yes of course, but speaking on a level of understanding, it is faith that causes people to get in these states.


----------



## deviate

DJwilliamC said:
			
		

> *yes of course, but speaking on a level of understanding, it is faith that causes people to get in these states. *



not for me. i got into such a state by asking myself who i was.


----------



## David

Labels are a wonderful thing. You can apply them anywhere, and put meaning to them.


----------



## nvr2old

The Liberation of Drones by Tutto Tre, posted by TiberCross makes sense.


----------



## L2R

Void said:
			
		

> *Faith has little to do with it. There is a science behind spirtuality and miracles, about getting into states of being that are more aligned with God, ourselves and our environment. The actual practice exists and has been coloured around many different ideologies over the years. The very fact that each person is cabale of enlightment shows that we all have been given the option of a greater lifestyle outside of pain. *



If there's a science behind getting into "the state" then you need to have faith in science to practise it.

It's _all_ about faith. 

While walking you have faith that your legs will make every step. It's just too easy to lose faith and take things for granted. So all it takes is thought to pray. And the mere thought of anything attracts it both in your mind (so you notice it more) and in reality (creating/manifesting).

Hell, if I didn't have faith in better times ahead, i'd end me right now.


----------



## Larr_E

I'll put the fact that I do not believe in "god" aside for now. If I did believe I'd think god gave us obstacles in life to see the construct of our character. In doing so he/she finds our worth in the possibility to be let into the everlasting ecstacy that is heaven...



... I should be a money grubbing clergymen...


----------



## Void

One of the major fuckups of our society IMHO is the great effort we goto not to feel even the slightest bit negative or in pain. If you sneeze near a psychologist and remark that you hate having a cold you might be put on anti-depressants for the next few years just so the quack meets his monthly tablet sales quota. Ok so maybe its not that bad, but in some areas I bet it is.

Pain can be a good thing, it tells you that you have your hand on a hot stove or if you feel negative it may be a sign that you need to re-evaluate something or focus on something more in your life. Being completely numb or completely 100% high all the time high doesnt ncessasarily lead to a well balanced and healthy life style. Though I think its a lot to do with the escapism that is a daily part of our culture. Why deal with things if you can just zone out for a while, or put your mind on something else. You also have high flying corperate execs who treat life as a chess game, completely de-void of emotion and out of touch with the reality of their actions. Which is kind of like an addiction to 'win', adrenaline junkies kinda thing.


----------



## L2R

Void, I absolutely agree with you there.  Safety consciousness has been blown to ridiculous proportions.

Pain is always good. I've found the worst moments of my life always end up being the best. My next silver lining will be fucking stunning.


----------



## dr seuss

i'm not sure what your worst moments entail, but i've found the worst moments of my life remain the worst moments of my life.


----------



## L2R

Worst = Painful 

When overcome become the most productive of times.

to me


----------



## The HiVe MiND

www.asitis.com
Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized
TEXT 14 

matra-sparsas tu kaunteya 
sitosna-sukha-duhkha-dah 
agamapayino 'nityas 
tams titiksasva bharata

SYNONYMS 

matra--sensuous; sparsah--perception; tu--only; kaunteya--O son of Kunti; sita--winter; usna--summer; sukha--happiness; duhkha-dah--giving pain; agama--appearing; apayinah--disappearing; anityah--nonpermanent; tan--all of them; titiksasva--just try to tolerate; bharata--O descendant of the Bharata dynasty. 

TRANSLATION 

O son of Kunti, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.


----------



## bGIveNs33

Void said:
			
		

> *One of the major fuckups of our society IMHO is the great effort we goto not to feel even the slightest bit negative or in pain. If you sneeze near a psychologist and remark that you hate having a cold you might be put on anti-depressants for the next few years just so the quack meets his monthly tablet sales quota. Ok so maybe its not that bad, but in some areas I bet it is.
> 
> Pain can be a good thing, it tells you that you have your hand on a hot stove or if you feel negative it may be a sign that you need to re-evaluate something or focus on something more in your life. Being completely numb or completely 100% high all the time high doesnt ncessasarily lead to a well balanced and healthy life style. Though I think its a lot to do with the escapism that is a daily part of our culture. Why deal with things if you can just zone out for a while, or put your mind on something else. You also have high flying corperate execs who treat life as a chess game, completely de-void of emotion and out of touch with the reality of their actions. Which is kind of like an addiction to 'win', adrenaline junkies kinda thing. *



best answer so far.


----------



## bGIveNs33

Pomplemous said:
			
		

> [B
> 
> if EVERYONE - and I mean everyone can do just one thing or even clubbed together to collectively help others less fortunate, then that would be a miracle.  and if that helped the world and eased pain , then that would be  a miracle - not a miracle as in it would never happen but a miracle as in a wonderful thing, a gift, a miracle. [/B]



not to sound mean... but you are dreaming if you think that is going to happen.  i'm sorry, i just don't have the blind faith that you do in humanity... humans are selfish by nature.  even down to the basic level of helping out another human, you get a good feeling for doing that.  people strive to feel good about themselves, some find it in money, power, sports, glory and others find it in serving, humility(mother theresa), but in the end... it's all about feeling like you've accomplished something.  Altruism doesn't exist, or at least, I haven't found it yet.


----------



## L2R

A dollar doesn't corrupt, but a million does. If a million people all pass a dollar to someone to do "good" with it, they will take a cut for the responsibility, which cancels the whole point.


----------



## vegan

> Pain can be a good thing, it tells you that you have your hand on a hot stove or if you feel negative it may be a sign that you need to re-evaluate something or focus on something more in your life


 it can also tell you
"you're fucked! you have cancer even though you haven't done anything bad"
"you're fucked! no one's ever loved you. too bad you're ugly!"
"you're fucked! your mom was just raped and killed and there's nothing you can do about it"
...


----------



## Xherrus

^^^ That's where the question of karma comes into it. _St. Paul says: "Brethren, be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap."_

http://www.blavatsky.net/theosophy/judge/articles/theosophy-in-the-christian-bible.htm


----------



## flashco

if God were to alleviate pain, then everyone would be happy

if everyone were to be happy, why would anyone want to go to heaven?

sheesh


----------



## DarthMom

*St Anselms "proof" of God*

I don't have the most intellectually stimulating crowd of friends, nor the luxury of going to school and having a fun round of philosohpy classes...so You bluelight can help me out here  The theologians and their so called arguments for god are just absurd. I need to know what I am missing, and we can just start with this one. The idiocy in St aquinas and others' even exceeds this one, imo, but, you gotta start somewhere  See to me, the glaring errors in the conclusion are so apparent, I need to know where I am in error. Because either centuries of philosophists who entertain this, and teach this are either the biggest idiots, or beyond my realm of understanding. 

Here is a quick summary...

1. God is defined as a being that which nothing greater can be conceived. 

2. only 2 possible alternatives

A1 god is only a concept in the mind or
A2 god also exists in extra mental reality

3. (St morons conclusion) Alternative 1 is impossible because it leads to a contradiction.
For, to exist in extra mental reality is greater than to exist only as a concept in the mind, so to say that god exists only as a concept in the mind is to say that a being that which nothing greater can be conceived is NOT a being that wich nothing great can be conceived. And this is clearly a contradiction therefore god exists in extra mental reality.


Huh/ No I just don't get it one bit. Aside from making my mind run in circles, by the time I think I figured the point, it was still absurd. Just stating the existance of god in alternative 2 doesn't in any way establish it as a real alternative. And doesn't substituting God with  Invisible pink unicorn or Minnie mouse kinda show the insanity in it's entertainment?

When my husband and I were discussing it last night, he actually used this argument to DISPROVE God at all, and I will have to get back to you to show how I saw his point as glaringly obvious once he pointed it out. 


Anyway, just wanted a little light shed, and others' opinions. 

thanks amy


----------



## War Pig

u need Jesus in your life


----------



## DarthMom

i need jesus to wash my car and do my dishes but that is about it.


----------



## Belisarius

You're not looking at it the way Anselm looked at it.  Like Aquinas, he was functioning on an Aristotelian paradigm, in which mere existence is a superior quality to non-existence.  In our very post-Aristotelian world, few people reason like that.

Personally, I love his "ontological proof."  It may not prove God, but I remember that the first time I got it, it hit me like a thunderbolt, which is more than can be said in my case for any philosophical idea before or since.

Personally, I recommend reading Anselm's original argument, his colleague Gaunilon's (also _Gaunilo_, IIRC) rebuttal--which incidentally, is still the most common one used against the ontological argument--and Anselm's response.


----------



## fungus44

DM, is it really fair to say that nothing greater can be conceived than Invisible pink unicorn?  

Not that I'm bigoted, some of my best friends are IPUs.

  Did St. Anselm not conceive of God as virtues or an essence, and not as a "thing"?


----------



## Leg

*Re: St Anselms "proof" of God*



			
				DarthMom said:
			
		

> *3. (St morons conclusion) Alternative 1 is impossible because it leads to a contradiction.
> For, to exist in extra mental reality is greater than to exist only as a concept in the mind, so to say that god exists only as a concept in the mind is to say that a being that which nothing greater can be conceived is NOT a being that wich nothing great can be conceived. And this is clearly a contradiction therefore god exists in extra mental reality.*



by that argument...he is already assuming God exists, and then is just trying to figure out what he is

he comes to say that god exists in external reality, however...really, all he has proven is that god does not merely exist as a concept in the mind.

however you are still left with 2 possibilities:
1. God exists in external reality
2. God doesn't exist at all 

he seems to have forgotten about the second option if he is trying to prove that "God exists" 8)


----------



## protovack

> You're not looking at it the way Anselm looked at it. Like Aquinas, he was functioning on an Aristotelian paradigm, in which mere existence is a superior quality to non-existence. In our very post-Aristotelian world, few people reason like that.


That doesn't rememdy the inherent flaw in his logic, unless he wasn't trying to prove god's existence at all.

All he did was re-affirm what everyone who believed in God already assumed about him.  I think that was what he was trying to do.  

Trying to recruit some of the pseudo-intellectuals! 

He was going after those rich university kids from respected families and raised in cities....who lost their connection with folk, agricultural tradition and thus lost their respect for the backward "religious" folks out in the country.

If they could just find some way for theism to be clean, modern, and philosophical, they could recruit more robots...


----------



## PGTips

*Re: St Anselms "proof" of God*

In less strange words it sounds like :

"1) We made him up
2) He exists
Since "We made him up" to me sounds worse than "He exists", He therefore exists."

This is no more a proof than "Because I said so!". 


			
				DarthMom said:
			
		

> *And doesn't substituting God with  Invisible pink unicorn or Minnie mouse kinda show the insanity in it's entertainment?*


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Jhon

^ 

Premise: God is the limit of conceivable greatness

1) We made up
2) He's real

If (1) is true then he really wouldn't be all that great so therefore (2) must be true.

Logical enough, but the premise is absurd! To assume that, you have to assume God's existence in the first place.


----------



## protovack

> Versions of this argument have been defended and criticized by a succession of philosophers from Anselm's time through the present day (see ontological arguments). Our concern here is with Anselm's own version, the criticism he encountered, and his response to that criticism. A monk named Gaunilo wrote a "Reply on Behalf of the Fool," contending that Anselm's argument gave the Psalmist's fool no good reason at all to believe that that than which nothing greater can be thought exists in reality. Gaunilo's most famous objection is an argument intended to be exactly parallel to Anselm's that generates an obviously absurd conclusion. Gaunilo proposes that instead of "that than which nothing greater can be thought" we consider "that island than which no greater can be thought." We understand what that expression means, so (following Anselm's reasoning) the greatest conceivable island exists in our understanding. But (again following Anselm's reasoning) that island must exist in reality as well; for if it did not, we could imagine a greater island--namely, one that existed in reality--and the greatest conceivable island would not be the greatest conceivable island after all. Surely, though, it is absurd to suppose that the greatest conceivable island actually exists in reality. Gaunilo concludes that Anselm's reasoning is fallacious.


----------



## PGTips

Jhon said:
			
		

> *Premise: God is the limit of conceivable greatness *


 I'd also argue with that premise. If God is so amazingly super-dooper, and we're just just mortal inferior reflections of him, then surely we cannot conceive how great He is, and that his abilities are not bounded by our minds. 

Since we have limited abilities, then our conceived notion of God also has limitations, but then I thought God was supposed to be omnipotent and omiknowing and omnipresent. While we have those words to reflect the notion, we cannot ourselves concieve what it is like to be those things ourselves.

Therefore the notion that God is the greatest thing conceivable comflicts with the notion he's all powerful, all knowing and ever present.


----------



## Jhon

^Bloody hell that was difficult to understand.

[meant for protovack's post]

"that that than which" just hurts!


----------



## Jhon

AlphaNumeric said:
			
		

> *Therefore the notion that God is the greatest thing conceivable comflicts with the notion he's all powerful, all knowing and ever present. *



Definitely true, though I assumed what was meant by this was that God is still supposed to be the greatest thing that can be possible. If that was the case then He would still fill up the human mind's "greatness-conceivability buffer" and go over the top of it.


----------



## j33buscr1p3s

Protovack beat me to it with the island analogy.


----------



## Meshuggah

Properties can either exist or not exist, but existence isn't a property. Any attempt at deriving existence a priori from definition alone is a categorical error and assumes the conclusion. The ontological arguments are interesting but are all completely invalid.


----------



## protovack

Note: I didn't write that thing about the island.  Should have put in the url.  It's http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/


----------



## DarthMom

Sorry i haven't responded back, been on vacation. will read up on the info bel shared and get back if I have any more questions. So far, I am still in shock that this drivel has actually been entertained by scholars and philosophers across the world in our universities. It just seems to be so obviously NOT an obvious conclusion.


----------



## zorn

^^ Yeah pretty astonishing isn't it?  Medieval theologians and philosophers came up with tons of astonishingly bad, inane arguments...  in fact they've become sort of a byword for terribly silly arguments.


----------



## David

Spinoza has a good argument on what God really is.


----------



## skywise

When reading very old literature whether it be philosophy or otherwise it is important to put oneself in the context it was written and take it on its own terms.  Sure, looking at St. Anselm's "Ontological Proof of God" as if it were a text designed to hold up against the countless skeptical attacks that can be made on the existence of "god" does make it seem like a ridiculous argument written by, as DarthMom put it, "St. Moron."

However, St. Anselm wasn't trying to prove the existence of God to non-believers.  He was trying to make an ontological proof, or rather "layout" of God for people to better understand a God (as given in scripture) that they already believe in.  In fact, his first move in the proof is to establish that their can be no understanding of God without belief in God first.  So everything he lays out in the proof is contingent on belief in God as laid out in the scriptures.

I think if one understands that going into St. Anselm, it becomes clear that he isn't a "moron" at all but actually a rather intelligent (and famously humble) man giving a detailed analysis/proof of something that he readily admits to holding as a matter of faith.  Any Christian who's most famous quote is that he was "headed for God but stumbled over myself" can't be all that bad.


----------



## skywise

David said:
			
		

> *Spinoza has a good argument on what God really is. *



I don't know what sort of position you are in to make claims about "what God really is" but I will add that yes, Spinoza's system of metaphysics and "God" is one of the most logically consistent philosophical texts ever written. And that I am really enjoying reading about it at the moment. :D


----------



## DarthMom

Ok, so calling him a moron may have been overkill :D I see your points skywise, thanks for the post.


----------



## Belisarius

It's bad when you get Anselm more than Spinoza.  I never got Spinoza.  P


----------



## fungus44

Belisarius, you might be interested in Antonio Damasio's Looking For Spinoza (New York, Harcourt, 2003).  It's a very readable account of Spinoza's life and philosophy as applied to contemporary neuroscience.

 Thanks, DarthMom, for the apology.  I agree that Anselm is wrong, I just don't think he was a moron.  I mentioned this discussion to a friend and he had a laugh at folks dismissing the thought of Anselm being dismissed as a light weight.  The dude was heavy.  Mistaken, sure.  Stupid, no.



> Spinoza has a good argument on what God really is.


  Oui, oui.  

 But isn't Spinoza's pantheism a monist or totalitarian (in the philosophical, not political, sense) version of Anselm?  Or, perhaps better said, Anselm is the dualist vision of Spinoza's God?  And isn't that the basic division between Anselm's neo-Platonism and Spinoza's materialism?


----------



## DarthMom

Well I wasn't really apologizing, I was just being tongue in cheek, not insinuating he really was an idiot. I write like I speak, you just didn't hear the intonations to realize that.

stupid internet


----------



## fungus44

That's OK -- I didn't think you'd really start a thread on Anselm just to put the guy down.  He has been dead for a while.

 I'd agree with the "stupid internet".  Irony fails. Always. Almost. I would like to know your other thoughts on Anselm's proof and using Anselm against Anselm argument that you mentioned in the initial post.

 For what it's worth, this thread made me re-examine medieval philosophy -- I do find most of it boring, just hate Aquinas, and love Maimonides.


----------



## Belisarius

Everybody hates Aquinas.  I know a prof who passed up a lucrative position in the Northeast because the particular university (the name escapes me...) had a heavy emphasis on his philosophy with respect to medieval studies.


----------



## fungus44

I dropped a Metaphysics class due to spinning out of control during a lecture on Aquinas and nominalism. "Horse"? Horse.  Arrrgh!!!


----------



## slyvan wanderer

I need to go finish a paper, so I didn't read the rest of the thread to say if anyone figured it out, but I was taught this here it is.

1.Being real is a perfection

2.If you think of that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived than it must be perfect.

3.If it didn't exist it wouldn't be perfect

4.Thus it must exist.

I personally find the "matter can't come from nothing" argument added to the fact that science is based on casue and effect and every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect to mean that some super-natural had to have been the first cause, and its super-natural because it isn't an effect.


----------



## slyvan wanderer

Also for atheists, look into Pascal's Wager.  Its a good one, helped me, and requires no faith what so ever in the begining.


----------



## Meshuggah

slyvan wanderer said:
			
		

> *I need to go finish a paper, so I didn't read the rest of the thread to say if anyone figured it out, but I was taught this here it is.
> 
> 1.Being real is a perfection*


Prove it. And please give me a solid definiton of this ontological perfection.


> *2.If you think of that-which-nothing-greater-can-be-conceived than it must be perfect.
> 
> 3.If it didn't exist it wouldn't be perfect*


The fact of existence is the fact of actualised properties. You are getting mixed up between the fact and the properties themselves. The two are not, and never have been interchangable or equatable. This is an outright category error, and since it is definitional existence, is always assuming the conclusion and thus proving nothing.
Also, please outline the methodology you used to first discover the mysterious ontological scale of "greater and lesser things" and then rank your particular conception of God at the very top. If this whole "perfection" thing makes sense, please elaborate how there couldn't be a (plausibly infinite) multitude of perfect possible beings that sprang into existence simply because us humans couldn't conceive of them not existing.


> *4.Thus it must exist.*


Only if you accept highly fallacious reasoning and suspect, ambiguous definitions. 


> *I personally find the "matter can't come from nothing" argument*


Well clearly _something_ must exist uncaused, but no argument exists that successfully proves it was God.


> *added to the fact that science is based on casue and effect and every effect is a cause and every cause is an effect to mean that some super-natural had to have been the first cause, and its super-natural because it isn't an effect. *


Even if this argument makes sense (how do quantum vacuum fluctuations fit in with this simplistic idea of causality?), "supernatural" is in the terms of this argument, simply a form of cause that does not conform to that observed in our universe. It's a very long stretch to go from that to a loving, personal God.


----------



## Meshuggah

slyvan wanderer said:
			
		

> *Also for atheists, look into Pascal's Wager.  Its a good one, helped me, and requires no faith what so ever in the begining. *


It is a ridiculously bad argument. You can just as easily conceive similar bets that are in the atheist's favour, and the possibilities are actually infinite in terms of the odds being stacked against you anyway, as it is quite easy to conceive of gods that will damn you to hell over something trivial and arbitrary (like rational non-belief ), ad infinitum. There are many other reasons why this fails but I can't be bothered going into them right now.


----------



## David

skywise said:
			
		

> *I don't know what sort of position you are in to make claims about "what God really is" but I will add that yes, Spinoza's system of metaphysics and "God" is one of the most logically consistent philosophical texts ever written. And that I am really enjoying reading about it at the moment. :D *



Interesting, You'll like it even more when you read Einstein's thoughts on it.

God is a the pattern that is the universe, and all that.

Very good stuff, made me think about how we are all a part of God, and how we can all influence things with the right amount of push. I sort of combined that line with Neitzsche on extentialism, and got where I am today in thoughts on what is god, is there a god thoughts.

Not really too deep, but then again nothing in the universe should be. _"If you can't explain it in simple terms, then you don't really understand it."_

Yes, I understand this is all opinion, I thought that would be given, since it not being one would be an outrageous claim. I don't make those without confidence in what I think, or know.


----------



## kittyinthedark

This is my blue book from my last philosophy exam.  I think it may be of service in this thread (at least for getting my point across anyways! )  In case you care, I received an A for it, so I know that it's not a *total* piece of shit.



Proofs of God's Existence

Three main arguments for the existence of God have been discussed by scholastic philosophers for hundreds of years: the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments.  Many believe that these arguments are highly persuasive, but there is no dearth of literature positing that there are many flaws in all three.  Following is a discussion of each of the arguments and the rebuttals leveled against them.

The Cosmological Argument
The main premise of the cosmological argument is that existence had to be created by some original, necessary being, an "unmoved mover" that set the universe in motion.  There can be no infinite stretch backward in time; there must be a discrete starting point with one entity that is self-existent (not contingent upon anyone or anything else).  Thomas Aquinas, in his "The Third Way," sets forth a fairly convincing reductio ad absurdum argument:

1) There are only contingent beings
2) That which is capable of not existing, at some point, does not exist
3) All contingent beings, at some point, do not exist, so there must be a time at which nothing would exist.
4) If there were a time at which nothing existed, nothing would exist now.

This is a contradiction, so the original premise must be false - there must be some non-contingent being that created all of existence, namely God.

Herein, however, lies the problem.  The argument shows that there cannot be _only_ contingent beings, but it does not show that there is _only one_ necessary being, let alone the God that is traditionally worshipped.  There could be a million necessary beings, and none of them might match the "proper" definition of "God."

Teleological Argument
This is often called the "design argument" and is best exemplified in Paley's "watch analogy."  Paley posits that some objects and systems are clearly the product of intelligent design - for instance, if one were to find a watch on the ground and a rock on the ground, it would seem obvious that someone or something intelligent created that watch as opposed to the rock.  The watch clearly serves a purpose as opposed to the rock.  By analogy, Paley posits that the universe, too, must be an object of intelligent design given its complexity and intricacy

It is easy, though, to make several counterarguments to this line of thought.  Hume, for instance, suggests that such an analogy is unwarranted - the universe is vastly more complex than any man-made object, and not only that, there is only one universe that we know of.  What are we to compare the universe to as a watch could be compared to a rock?  Further, suggesting that God's designs are similar to human designs implies that God is no more intelligent or capable than a man.  And since our universe is flawed and certainly full of evil, the God who created it must be highly inept, or worse - evil.  This certainly does not fit the traditional definition of God.

The Ontological Argument
The general format of the ontological argument is as follows.

1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being
2) Existence is greater than non-existence
3) Therefore, the greatest possible being must exist

Descartes and St. Anselm added further detail to this argument by suggesting the following:

1) I can conceive of the greatest possible being that exists in the mind alone
2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone
3) I can conceive of the greatest being that exists not only in the mind but in reality
4)This being would be greater than the greatest being from premise one
5) Therefore, the being from premise one cannot be the greatest, so the true greatest being must actually exist

These arguments do make sense on the surface, but it begs the question of why existence would be greater than non-existence.  Kant found this flaw to be the most damning because it does not seem logical for "being" to be a proper predicate.  It is no different to say "God is" than to say "there is a God," so it is not logical to base an argument on the notion that "being" is something that increases greatness, let alone something that can actually describe an entity.  If one imagines in their head the concept of three apples, this is not different than speaking out loud about the concept of three apples that are, in fact, sitting on a table.  The ontological argument seems to "define God into existence."  It is like saying that a unicorn is a horned horse _that exists_.  Just because the definition includes the existence does not make it exist.

Some try to rectify these counterarguments by suggesting that the cumulative evidence from all these arguments constitutes further "proof" of God's existence, but that seems unlikely - ten leaky buckets hold no more water than one.


----------



## _high_life_

I like it

We are one mind in constant expansion.The mind understanding itself.


----------



## neonads

However omnipotent an entity may be, it will never understand how it came to exist.  We know this of course, and what do we do?  Experiment, using a model as close as possible to the reality.


----------



## vegan

why use the word "god" then?

i totally agree with your idea punktuality
the universe has an emerging consciousness and is slowly becoming self aware through ourselves

so from the human point of view discovering this, this universal consciousness is indeed "what we were looking for when we were mistakingly imagining a god as depicted by religions"

but let's drop this word (god) once and for all since it's way too loaded with wrong intuitions to ever see its definition part from its historical one

for almost everyone on earth "god" means "independent, superior being of huge knowledge/power, creator of the universe"
this definition has nothing to do with what we're agreeing on about the universe
we are (a part of) the universe. the universal consciousness is entirely dependent on us. we're awaking it



> However omnipotent an entity may be, it will never understand how it came to exist. We know this of course


this is not evident at all to me
what makes you say so?
(also, i'm not sure to see the link with this thread. we're not talking about an omnipotent god here, we've put this religious idea in the trash)


----------



## ebola?

>>I often think of the concepts of god and the universe as the same thing.>>

This is the only construal of God that I'll entertain.

ebola


----------



## Manifespo

Check out Baruch Spinoza's rational pantheism. 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/
Spinoza's fundamental insight in Book One is that Nature is an indivisible, uncaused, substantial whole -- in fact, it is the only substantial whole. Outside of Nature, there is nothing, and everything that exists is a part of Nature and is brought into being by Nature with a deterministic necessity. This unified, unique, productive, necessary being just is what is meant by ‘God’. Because of the necessity inherent in Nature, there is no teleology in the universe. Nature does not act for any ends, and things do not exist for any set purposes. There are no "final causes" (to use the common Aristotelian phrase). God does not "do" things for the sake of anything else. The order of things just follows from God's essences with an inviolable determinism. All talk of God's purposes, intentions, goals, preferences or aims is just an anthropomorphizing fiction."

Personally I concluded as much when I was on mushrooms when i was 17, and have confirmed it many times for myself.  Infinite love is the only truth, all else is an illusion.  There is no such thing as cold, only lack of heat. Same- there is no such thing as hate, just the lack of love.  Hate and fear and ignorance are conceptual illusions created by our nervous system.   

Pantheism gets hated upon as dopey and NewAge crapola.  Sometimes the obvious gets hated on for being so obvious.  But of course we are holy. Why not? 
Of course dogs are sacred. Of course rocks are intelligent.  We are all just organizations of light energy formed into pulsing atoms.

It seems that transhumanism/extropian/singularitarian principles align well with pantheistic sentiments.  
http://yudkowsky.net/sing/principles.html
How so? Well it seems these philosophies are all about fulfilling the universal potential, and if we assume GOD IS EVERYTHING, then bringing the universe to its universal potential seems quite sacred, doesn't it? If God is the universe, if there is no separation from God, if we are God and live in God, then hedonism takes on a whole different meaning ala hedonistic imperative. Then the current life of humans is only a thin tiny slice of the universal potential- the only we as thinking beings creates changes in our time alive and kicking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism


----------



## neonads

vegan - Before existance is nothing.  All you would have to go on is inference from an understanding of nature, be it complete or not.  The link to the thread is evident in the 2nd line of punkt's post.



			
				ebola? said:
			
		

> >>I often think of the concepts of god and the universe as the same thing.>>
> 
> This is the only construal of God that I'll entertain.
> 
> ebola



What if God created the universe as a model experiment in an attempt to explain God's origins?


----------



## pennywise

talking about what god is seems to be silly.

my sock created the universe, then transformed itself into a sock.

proove me wrong.


----------



## elemenohpee

I agree, the idea of some "dude" who created everything in his spare time is kind of silly.  I don't really like the term "god" but if someone forces me to use it I will define it as "the ultimate truth" or the way the universe truly is.  I don;t know how to explain this idea, but it is what science strives for.  We have models of the universe buit up in our heads, but they never accurately describe it.  The information that describes the Universe down to the smallest subatomic particle/string whatever, this is god.

Manifespo, I forget who said this, but I tend to agree: "The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference."


----------



## ebola?

>>What if God created the universe as a model experiment in an attempt to explain God's origins?>>

okay, this is amusing enough to entertain. 

ebola


----------



## Manifespo

The concept of God seems to be recursive.

God (verb): See universe
Universe (noun): See God


----------



## redeemer

But if God is the universe, certainly he couldn't have created himself, right? Or else he would have existed before the universe thereby making him different from the universe. The big bang created God then?


----------



## the seeker

God is the universe because God is his creation but God also existed before this universe and being eternal, will continue exist after it so the universe is far too limited a concept to capture God.


----------



## Das

You're all speculating.
The fact is we have imperfect senses, we hardly know what's going on in the room next door to us. We make mistakes, and we're prone to illusion.
How can some guy understand or realise what the absolute truth is without receiving knowledge from a higher source??


----------



## asmodeus256

I tend to consider God less as a Being and more as Consciousness.

Consciousness was, is, and will be.  And it created the "universe" in an attempt to infinitely rediscover itself.

As the human race comes to understand its place in the cosmos, it will understand that it is an indivisible part of the universe.  And that the material universe was created in a successful attempt to become Self-Aware.


----------



## Das

> I tend to consider God less as a Being and more as Consciousness.


why not as a 'being'? 
Certainly not like any being we can possibly conceive of, but why couldn't God be a being? God _created_ beings, right? So therefore God would have to be the Original or Supreme Being.


----------



## Dtergent

Das said:
			
		

> why not as a 'being'?
> Certainly not like any being we can possibly conceive of, but why couldn't God be a being? God _created_ beings, right? So therefore God would have to be the Original or Supreme Being.



Perhaps it is necessary for some persons to personify God (and to call forth a familiar relationship like "Father" or whatever) for ease of conceptualization. However, it can be a very limiting act. If there is a source for everything, it would also be the source for various other aspects of the universe that we wouldn't consider to be "beings". Defining it via human form and relationships make it easy for people to understand or to perform their religious "responsibilities", but they are but figures of speech at the end of the day.

This view of God is a bit too conceptual for my tastes. My experience of the universe, etc is very qualitative and I cannot really pick it over or analyze it so much. Maybe one day the words will come to me! :D


----------



## redeemer

Das said:
			
		

> You're all speculating.


And so are you. If there were definitive proof that God exists we wouldn't be having this discussion.



			
				Das said:
			
		

> How can some guy understand or realise what the absolute truth is without receiving knowledge from a higher source??


What exactly is "the absolute truth", God?


----------



## Deepsea

Too bad Spinoza already said it. This is just the revival of the late eighteenth century of philosophy.


----------



## ebola?

>>Too bad Spinoza already said it. This is just the revival of the late eighteenth century of philosophy.>>

Too bad the Buddhists and Daoists already said it.  Spinoza was just a revival of ancient Eastern philosophy.

ebola


----------



## vegan

> The link to the thread is evident in the 2nd line of punkt's post.


i still don't see but i probably just don't get what you mean.



> But if God is the universe, certainly he couldn't have created himself, right?


for me the universe is the universe, point. no need to add the notion of "god" in the equation
but here's my view on the universe creating itself



> The fact is we have imperfect senses, we hardly know what's going on in the room next door to us. We make mistakes, and we're prone to illusion.
> How can some guy understand or realise what the absolute truth is without receiving knowledge from a higher source??


ayahuasca makes your senses better


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

God = Everything...in my beliefs...
I do believe in higher powers, however, that may or may not have humanoid characteristics..but I think of these more as "the gods" or "angels" as opposed to god almighty..which I think of as the universal life force. Just how I personally see things..


----------



## UU========D~~~~

The only god there is, is in my member name on the left

Bear witness to Allah, gave birth to all
For Allah was all, and therefore, life itself
And the universe gave birth to man
The universe was man, and man was the universe
And the universe was always existed
And existance was life
And life is Allah
And Allah had no beginning because he is, what always was
Rakim Allah, peace
Now who is God?


----------



## ebola?

hah...this is the best novelty screen name ive seen. 

ebola


----------



## Web

Sometimes the dead & bloated corpse of a whale will "explode" due to the pressure of decomposition gasses within the body cavities... what if you applied the same thing on a universal level (all matter in the universe is nothing but chunks of the dead carcass of a being that you call "god")?


----------



## dada

^^ yeah we could exist in the intestinal tracks of some kind of massive massive scavenger creature, that is in its own world  microscopic. You never know.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

God  = the universe  = everything 

the universe always existed, why do we all assume that it needed to be created.?

nothingness is a concept

if the universe was created then it was created now b/c now is all there is.  (when you were born....  It was right now)



conceptually.... if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed..  i see no problems here

the universe is an ongoing, in the moment, wiggle of motion.  It is all there is.  Sounds like God to me, that is if there is such a thing as God in the first place.


----------



## vegan

> if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed.. i see no problems here


that's a play on words, not a demonstration


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

could you define nothing for me?

could you show it to me?

can nothingness really exist in the material world?

no...   by definition ....    it is that which does not exist    

exerything that is is and is a part of the universe...   and here we are... in the universe....   so where is this nothing you keep talking about?


----------



## vegan

> could you define nothing for me?
> by definition .... it is that which does not exist


this sounds like a definition by the negative and seems shaky to me
nothing is the absence of anything
where there is not anything, there *is* nothing

it's not correct to say _"if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence"_
the universe doesn't have exclusive rights in existence
nothingness can very well have existed outside of space time before the universe was created
also (since i proposed nothingness, but you don't seem to favour that idea), other things could have existed before the universe : a singularity for instance, and other universes before, mathematical truths, maybe even immaterial things such as the concept of souls that we have

so really, _"if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed"_ may be a nice play on words, but it doesn't actually demonstrate what it stands for



> could you show it to me?
> can nothingness really exist in the material world?


if we're talking matter: everywhere
in the very screen you're looking at
knowing that the diameter of the atom of hydrogen for instance is 100.000 bigger than its nucleus (and without forgetting the subtleties of the wave like behaviour of electrons and the exchange of photons and heavy gauge bosons between electrons and the nucleus) we could approximate (if all atoms had the same ratio as hydrogen atoms) that around 99.9999999999992% of matter is actually empty space between nucleus and electrons

to go further, build a waveproof box. seal it in a perfect vaccum created in a laboratory, or in outer space, and you won't even have waves to trouble the many small areas of nothingness with just a few hydrogen atoms left floating in between

also, the universe outside of the observable universe could very well include an infinite amount of nothingness



> so where is this nothing you keep talking about?


you sound angry. what exactly have i done to you?
where do i keep talking about this nothing? i only mentioned it once, and in another thread


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

> this sounds like a definition by the negative and seems shaky to me
> nothing is the absence of anything
> where there is not anything, there is nothing
> 
> it's not correct to say "if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence"
> the universe doesn't have exclusive rights in existence
> nothingness can very well have existed outside of space time before the universe was created
> also (since i proposed nothingness, but you don't seem to favour that idea), other things could have existed before the universe : a singularity for instance, and other universes before, mathematical truths, maybe even immaterial things such as the concept of souls that we have
> 
> so really, "if there was nothing before the universe, then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed" may be a nice play on words, but it doesn't actually demonstrate what it stands for



my point is that nothingness is by definition not a thing... (unlike your other examples)    it is a self inploding concept.     suppose  there was nothing before the universe....  well as there was no universe at that time, and you are a part of the universe, why would you concern yourself with it? to me it seems like confrontiong an imaginary concept.  (IMHO one that was born out of binary thinking)





> if we're talking matter: everywhere
> in the very screen you're looking at
> knowing that the diameter of the atom of hydrogen for instance is 100.000 bigger than its nucleus (and without forgetting the subtleties of the wave like behaviour of electrons and the exchange of photons and heavy gauge bosons between electrons and the nucleus) we could approximate (if all atoms had the same ratio as hydrogen atoms) that around 99.9999999999992% of matter is actually empty space between nucleus and electrons
> 
> to go further, build a waveproof box. seal it in a perfect vaccum created in a laboratory, or in outer space, and you won't even have waves to trouble the many small areas of nothingness with just a few hydrogen atoms left floating in between
> 
> also, the universe outside of the observable universe could very well include an infinite amount of nothingness



I know very little about the very atomized weastern aproach to phisics, nor any physics for that matter, so i won't pretend to.  I'm interested in any books or websites you could recomend that deal with physics and nothingness.  

My only defence to that would be....   I am a philosophical materialist.  meaning i believe that all that is real/ reality is made up of only the things that can be experienced by the sences and only when they are experienced by the sences.  (If you showed me an apple and then hid it in the closet, i would tell you that the apple no longer existed,   .... atleast in that moment and from my perspective.)

so I would say that all this jargon about atoms is simply that... jargon.  It is a string of catagories and symbols.  But again i don't know much about the science and am just guessing.




> <<<so where is this nothing you keep talking about?  >>>
> 
> you sound angry. what exactly have i done to you?
> where do i keep talking about this nothing? i only mentioned it once, and in another thread


  I was refering to the general direction of the thread (and of most western philosophers these days).  It was not directed to you.  
I'd like to keep this discussion as amicable as possible as i have been stuck on this taoist philosophy for quite a bit.  I am one who enjoys the journy, not the end....  so I would greatly aprechiate it if you could open my eyes a bit wider.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

there was a spell there where I saw nothingness and everything as supports of each other rather than opposites...  perheps you could use that as a launching point for your next post....   whatever it is, I am looking forward to it


----------



## Judas

There is no way to conceptualize the beginning of the universe, without using a reference point outside of the universe.  You need this "outside" reference point because a reference inside the universe would not allow you to witness the absolute time flow of the universe.  This is similar to you not being able to tell motion without a separate space reference as a basis of comparison to allow you to say you're moving.  But using a reference outside the universe means that you can not use the concept of time because time exist due to the existence of the universe.

Therefore, you can say that the universe has no beginning and that the universe has always existed.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

My question to that is.....    Why do you think most people assume that there was nothingness before the universe?  Do you think it has to do with religious influence or binary thinking in general?  or something else?  just a philosophical fad?  

I just don't understand why people (who are a part of the universe) insist on something existing outside of it.  especially those who believe the universe is infinite.  how could anything exist outside of infinity?


as for the space in between the electrons and nucleus of an atom...   can you see, hear, smell, taste or feel it?

I'm willing to conceed that there may be material holes strung in our universe...  but outside or before?...  how could one exist without the other?


----------



## kidfrolf

This topic really interests me as it probably does most people who do not accept the traditional idea of god.  I believe in science because they back up what they are saying with evidence, unlike most religions.  I saw a show about the universe and its possible origins.  The answer i like best is that it is cyclical and has been and will always be, but it goes through these cycles.  For example maybe the big bang was not the origin of the universe but rather the start to the current cycle we are in.  Also it is interesting how when you look at molecules and atoms they resemble solar systems.  And if u look at the particles making up atoms, same thing so it most likely goes on like that infinately in both directions.......or maybe not


----------



## subdefy

I asked someone this today or somewhat of a modified version and I was saying how the universe is constantly expanding but what left me confused was what exactly is it expanding into. I said matter b/c I mean isn't that what everything is compromised of? But what made matter? or is that an entire nother question/thread?


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

kidfrolf said:
			
		

> Also it is interesting how when you look at molecules and atoms they resemble solar systems.  And if u look at the particles making up atoms, same thing so it most likely goes on like that infinately in both directions.......or maybe not


"in order to understand the deepest metaphysical truths, all you need to know is this... every inside has an outside, and every outside has an inside." - watts


----------



## Judas

To my knowledege, its never been shown that time is linear and constant, so the estimate of the age of the universe of around 18 billions years is not totally accurate.  For all practical purposes, time is linear and constant.  But when you start going back in time to near the beginning of the universe, this may not be so.  Scientists can not talk about the inception of the universe itself, only the forces at work the mere split seconds after its inception.  I'm guessing that this is because time behaves asymtotically, and at present time its pretty much linear.  With this notion, the universe is much older than 18 billion years and may actually be infinitely old which means that it has always existed.

This topic really interests me cus I'm a science and scifi geek.


----------



## PGTips

Judas said:
			
		

> To my knowledege, its never been shown that time is linear and constant


Time isn't. It's rate of passage (though such a term has a very odd meaning) depends on your position within a gravitational field and your velocity. 

If you're moving quickly around large dense objects like neutron stars or black holes, then time is heavily non-linear!

The age of the universie 12~14 billion years I think. 18 is a bit too high.


----------



## B9

In the beginninmg there was ONLY GOD and the word was with god, this is how the bible starts(i think) so therefore everything that came after that must have been created from god. So that would mean that all matter is pieces of god, no? This would explain the often stated maxim "god is everywhere".
   This then makes god the universal consciousness. Therefore we are of god, part of god etcetera.
zophen.


----------



## vegan

> suppose there was nothing before the universe.... well as there was no universe at that time, and you are a part of the universe, why would you concern yourself with it? to me it seems like confrontiong an imaginary concept.


why not?
i find fascinating to try to discover what was before what we know and trying to understand strange concepts as nothingness
before, i could pretty much accept the idea of absence of matter before the apparition (if it's the case) of the universe, but i couldn't visualize at all the absence of time
for me, from point zero you just had to count backward in nothingness (of matter), and that was time
but during the experience i mention in the link, i felt what the absence of time could be and how it was possible. it felt like a little internal revolution because i doubt i could have fathomed this just by thinking, without feeling it. and i find it amazing enough to concern myself with it
the things we're not part of may even be more fascinating than the ones we can observe



> I'm interested in any books or websites you could recomend that deal with physics and nothingness.


www.answers.com
great portal that gets you answers from other sites about everything you could dream of



> I am a philosophical materialist. meaning i believe that all that is real/ reality is made up of only the things that can be experienced by the sences and only when they are experienced by the sences. (If you showed me an apple and then hid it in the closet, i would tell you that the apple no longer existed, .... atleast in that moment and from my perspective.)


is it really your philosophy??!!??

if i hide the apple from your sight but not from mine, you'll say it doesn't exist anymore, but (even if i'm also a philosophical materialist) i'll say it still exists
could one be right and the other wrong?
or if a fire starts in your room. you go out so you don't see it anymore. so according to your philosophy, it doesn't exists anymore
but when you come back, you can observe that all the time you thought it didn't exist anymore, it was still there making damage, and is actually still there
that makes you live in constant contradiction with everyone else on earth, as well as in contradiction with what logic and experience shows us. and is an irresponsible way to act



> so I would say that all this jargon about atoms is simply that... jargon. It is a string of catagories and symbols. But again i don't know much about the science and am just guessing.


calling a cat a dog is not enough to make it a dog
calling a demonstration jargon is not enough to make it jargon
observation shows that an atom of hydrogen is made of  99.9999999999992% of free space between the nucleus and the electron
and when this knowledge is used in another process, the results confirm the observation. point. there's no jargon about that



> there was a spell there where I saw nothingness and everything as supports of each other rather than opposites


i don't necessarily see them as opposites
if you have a blank page or one with a painting on it, the painting is not the opposite of the blank page. it's a different thing, that can even include areas of blank page
nothingness doesn't allow any existence, but the opposite is not true
existence allows areas of nothingness


> There is no way to conceptualize the beginning of the universe, without using a reference point outside of the universe. You need this "outside" reference point because a reference inside the universe would not allow you to witness the absolute time flow of the universe.


what do you mean by this point of reference?
i don't see the need for it
and there's no (need for an) absolute time flow. (but i'm not sure to see what you mean)
i know it's hard to swallow, but we're talking about the origin of the universe here, there's a good chance the answer will be hard to swallow 




> Why do you think most people assume that there was nothingness before the universe? Do you think it has to do with religious influence or binary thinking in general? or something else? just a philosophical fad?


 most things we know have dimensions, have a beginning and an end
so it's much harder for us to conceptualise infinity than the finite
especially when it comes to origin
because as we're not aware of the future or the limits of the universe, we can visualize them as infinite, but our lives and everything that we create has an apparent origin
so even if it leaves many questions unanswered, people started to invent tales about the origin of the universe, which were told as truths through most religions

recently, it's the observation of the universe that replaced the tales in telling us where the universe could come from
and, according to the laws of physics that we know, the expansion of the universe shows that some 13,5 billions years ago it was a singularity with infinite curvature of space time, where these laws themselves couldn't apply
thus, before the instant one after the big bang, the universe as we know it with its laws, didn't exist as such
this hypothesis is pretty widely accepted and taught at school
so most people tend for the idea of an universe that was created at some point. and since they don't know what was before, they opt for the "simplest" option : nothingness



> I just don't understand why people (who are a part of the universe) insist on something existing outside of it. especially those who believe the universe is infinite. how could anything exist outside of infinity?


just imagine a line. it's infinite
but there can be an infinity of other lines around it
the universe is just a much more complex system
maybe there are parallel universes that we're not aware of
maybe an infinity of them
maybe totally different ones, with other laws, not even conceivable for us
or maybe there's nothing else



> Also it is interesting how when you look at molecules and atoms they resemble solar systems


the observation is quite interesting, but i'm not sure that it's very relevant
because if at first sight such systems look similar, they actually have important differences. one being that they are not governed by the same laws, unless we find a unified theory between relativity and quantum physics



> I asked someone this today or somewhat of a modified version and I was saying how the universe is constantly expanding but what left me confused was what exactly is it expanding into.


if the universe is already infinite, then it's just morphing
if it's finite, then it's probably creating space-time as/where it extends. it expends into the space-time it creates



> In the beginninmg there was ONLY GOD and the word was with god, this is how the bible starts(i think) so therefore everything that came after that must have been created from god


come on,, we're trying to have a serious conversation here


----------



## Judas

Um... I wasnt too sure about the estimated age of the universe, but for some reason thought it was 18 billions, and didn't check it out.  I stand corrected, its what alphanumeric said.

Thanks, I am aware that the rate of time is slower as the speed becomes closer to the speed of light.  Law of relativity.  Something traveling near the speed of light experiences little change of time and is almost frozen in the same moment.  Things moving at sub-light speed experience "normal" time which is what I was referring to as the flow of time of the universe.

When I was discussing the universe, though it has things within it moving all around, some at light speed, and that the universe itself is expanding, the universe itself is not travelling near light speed (assumption on my part.)  The universe has a rate at which it is "aging."  I was suggesting that this rate today is not the same rate as when the universe started.

I will try to explain what I meant by "outside" reference point.  Imagine you're an astronaut floating above the Earth.  From your view, one refernce point, you appear to be motionless, stuck in space.  Now if there's a second reference point, say a person on the Earth, he'll see an astronaunt flying around very fast (I forget the speed of orbit around the earth.)  Now both measure of speed are accurate, you can't say one reference is more correct than another.  But the more meaningful measure is the the reference from the person on Earth, because that person can tell the speed of the astronaunt.  Similarly, the rate of time of the universe using a reference from "outside" the universe would actually see the movement of time of that universe.  A reference within the universe would be "caught" in the rate of time of the said universe.

Sorry if I am not making myself very clear.  I don't know the technical jargon associated with explaining this sort of thing.

*edit*
I just wanted to add that the reason why I want to believe in a universe with no beginning is that with a beginning, it necessarily follows that we ask what caused this beginning.  Whether its God or the all unifying force, nobody will know.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

> is it really your philosophy??!!??
> 
> if i hide the apple from your sight but not from mine, you'll say it doesn't exist anymore, but (even if i'm also a philosophical materialist) i'll say it still exists
> could one be right and the other wrong?
> or if a fire starts in your room. you go out so you don't see it anymore. so according to your philosophy, it doesn't exists anymore
> but when you come back, you can observe that all the time you thought it didn't exist anymore, it was still there making damage, and is actually still there
> that makes you live in constant contradiction with everyone else on earth, as well as in contradiction with what logic and experience shows us. and is an irresponsible way to act



I was just defining the POV.  Are you arguing against the POV or the definition of it.  I think you missed the point? or i did?



> calling a cat a dog is not enough to make it a dog
> calling a demonstration jargon is not enough to make it jargon
> observation shows that an atom of hydrogen is made of 99.9999999999992% of free space between the nucleus and the electron
> and when this knowledge is used in another process, the results confirm the observation. point. there's no jargon about that



I was explaining the improbability that something as symbolic, abstract, and meaningless could be used to find any sort of truth.  Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality



> just imagine a line. it's infinite
> but there can be an infinity of other lines around it
> the universe is just a much more complex system
> maybe there are parallel universes that we're not aware of
> maybe an infinity of them
> maybe totally different ones, with other laws, not even conceivable for us
> or maybe there's nothing else



If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition.  The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite.  That isnt what infinite means.


----------



## vegan

judas, i'm trying to understand your point, but i honestly don't see the contradiction between not using a reference point outside of the universe and conceptualising the beginning of the universe, or using the concept of time
to use your example, the astronaut (who can't see the earth) may not be able to describe his movement relatively to the earth, but he can easily describe the movement of his right hand relatively to his left hand
we may not be able to describe the passing of time in the universe relatively to an external reference point, but we can describe the passing of time of its components relatively to each other
and i don't see why you'd need the concept of time to conceptualise the beginning of the universe



> I just wanted to add that the reason why I want to believe in a universe with no beginning is that with a beginning, it necessarily follows that we ask what caused this beginning. Whether its God or the all unifying force, nobody will know.


i can easily understand that for having shared the same preoccupation all my life. but i was no more happy with the ever existing universe option, since we couldn't explain anymore how the universe could have always existed
my personal preference changed not long ago after the experience i linked earlier made me conceive how a spontaneous creation of the universe was possible. of course this is not part of the logical arguments to which we'll pay attention here 



> I was just defining the POV. Are you arguing against the POV or the definition of it. I think you missed the point? or i did?


ok, you lost me
could you explain your point again because what i get is pretty much "i can't see atoms, so i'm not interested in them, so i'll consider jargon (nonsense?) and discard demonstrations that will use them", and i sure hope/don't think that it's the case



> I was explaining the improbability that something as symbolic, abstract, and meaningless could be used to find any sort of truth. Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality


!!!!
there is nothing abstract, symbolic or meaningless about the demonstration i gave

on the other hand, it spoke against the illusion of reality that we perceive
where you see matter there's actually 99,9999...% of vaccum
that's not symbolic, that's not abstract, and it's really meaningful
it appears to us that we can't pass our hand through the table because it seems full of matter, when it's in fact the electrons of the atoms of the table that repel (through electromagnetic force) the electrons of our hand



> Not renaming your term, but discrediting discription od reality in comparison to actual reality


what you consider reality is *not* reality, it's one subjective perception of reality

a description that doesn't refer to the senses if a much more accurate description of the universe than the common description of what you call reality, since it takes away the subjective filter that are the senses



> If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition. The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite. That isnt what infinite means.


trust me, you have your definition wrong
can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
no, because the line is infinite


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

this isn't bleedingheartcommie...this is his asshole friend...

first of all...don't need the concept of time to conceptualize the beginning of the universe?...it is impossible to seperate the notion of a beginning from time...the entire idea of a beginning, middle, or end hinges on the notion of time...they are reference points w/in a timed structure...
second...this is all irrelevant anyway...
and third...your name is vegan...you got some shit you need to figure out before you talk to anybody about this kinda shit again...



> we may not be able to describe the passing of time in the universe relatively to an external reference point, but we can describe the passing of time of its components relatively to each other
> and i don't see why you'd need the concept of time to conceptualise the beginning of the universe


8(


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

still bleeding's friend...

are you drunk?



> trust me, you have your definition wrong
> can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
> no, because the line is infinite


----------



## FreshFr0mDet0x

though it is helping us to discuss it with each other over the internet at the moment, ultimately language is an impediment to the understanding of this idea of god = universe.  it's an idea i not only like, but one which is in fact true.  

ever been to www.everything2.com ?


----------



## vegan

> this isn't bleedingheartcommie...this is his asshole friend...


and you're a friend of David too, right?


> don't need the concept of time to conceptualize the beginning of the universe?...it is impossible to seperate the notion of a beginning from time...the entire idea of a beginning, middle, or end hinges on the notion of time


there's no need for time until instant one of the universe, and that's not the creation



> second...this is all irrelevant anyway...


i don't see what you're doing in T&A if you find this irrelevant



> and third...your name is vegan...you got some shit you need to figure out before you talk to anybody about this kinda shit again...


hey, what can i do against such an arguementated point?
oh, my parents gave me my name, if you have a problem with it, talk to my dad. but watch out, he has more toys than your dad



> are you drunk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trust me, you have your definition wrong
> can you build a box big enough to put a straight line inside?
> no, because the line is infinite
Click to expand...

no, it's your language, that i make the effort of using, that doesn't have a one word translation for "droite", which is "infinite straight line"
but the fact that you didn't understand what i meant shows how much you know about maths
google infinite straight line and then find a forum better suited for you


----------



## B9

Now now kiddies kiss and make up.
zophen.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

Sorry

I'm going to make him register a name

he is a dick

also...    i don't think i can post here again if you can't wrap you head around the word infinite

... happy thinking....


----------



## vegan

you're mistaking "infinite" and "everything"
a straight line, with the equation Y=aX+b is infinite
X and Y are not finite, they can be any number
and the line never stops
you can't "put it in a box"

once more, google infinite straight line
before saying i can't wrap my head around a word, you could at least check that you know its definition yourself


----------



## Dtergent

Hey haha what happened here? I was kind of enjoying reading this.

bleedingheartcommie, the term "infinite line" holds with it the limitation of the word line, meaning it is infinite in two directions. I know where you are coming from with your concerns about a line not being able to be infinite. vegan, I think what he means here is this: how can something "infinite" exist and still be constrained (even spatially) into something like a line? Meaning, if you are pertaining to infinite in terms of something that is neverending, most people will carry with it the definition of it encompassing everything. Thus, you can see how this definition of "infinite" can see a line as paltry. Meaning graphically representing infinte as bleedingheartcommie sees would be shading the whole piece of paper.


----------



## PGTips

bleedingheartcommie said:
			
		

> If there is something outside of (X) then (X) is not infinite by definition.  The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite.  That isnt what infinite means.


That is incorrect. There are numerous types of infinity.

Count 1,2,3,4,5.....

You could continue forever right? There are infinitely many whole numbers. But what about negative numbers? What about fractions? Is that all the possible numbers? No, infact you haven't even scratched the surface. There are countably many fractions (though an infinitly many), and _uncountably infinite_ irrational. An uncountable infinite set is a distinctly different set from a countably infinite sized set (when you put specific definitions on things) yet both are infinite. 

Infact, there are infinitely many _different_ infinites!

And that's just set theory and cardinality, Vegan's examples of lines and planes being infinite in length or area but not containing one another is another example.


----------



## babble2thenag

> Mr. T can count past infinity



...


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

I was under the impression that we thought the universe was infinite.  that's what we're talking about right?   the universe?  if the universe: all that exists: is infinite:  than how come something exist outside of that?

I think that we are misunderstanding each other.    when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe...i'm not putting a box on your line...i'm saying the line is the universe...you're seperating yourself as an onlooker...seeing an image of the line as an observer rather than realizing that if the line is infinite you cannot observe it because you are in fact a part of it...


----------



## vegan

> I was under the impression that we thought the universe was infinite. that's what we're talking about right? the universe?


we have no idea if the universe is infinite or no
we were explaining our understanding of "infinite". i gave the example of a line, about which you said :


> The line is not infinite if something exists outside of infinite


no changing the subject please




> i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe


it's called the multiverse (the word was redefined since its first use in 1960)
there could be several, or an infinity of universes making up the multiverse
it would be better if you could "restrict your definitions to their current scientific concept" because changing the terms of a problem doesn't solve the problem, whereas using words as you know others understand them makes the conversation easier and more effivient



> i'm not putting a box on your line...i'm saying the line is the universe...


we know that the line is infinite, and can't put it in a box
we don't know about the universe



> you're seperating yourself as an onlooker...seeing an image of the line as an observer rather than realizing that if the line is infinite you cannot observe it because you are in fact a part of it...


first, let's agree that you mean that as us being a part of the universe, not of the line

we don't know that something is infinite by observing it, even as an external observer
no one has ever been to the "end of a line" to check that it was infinite
we understand that it's infinite by reasoning

and it's the same about being a part or no of the universe
it won't make you any more able to observe if it's finite or no
we'll have to deduce it
and actually, we may get much better hints as being parts of the universe because we're able to observe it, whereas we haven't been able to observe other universes so far, and can guess it would be as hard to observe ours without being a part of it


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe.  we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes.  That was the reason far all of this misunderstanding.


----------



## Jamshyd

bleedingheartcommie: While I have not scruitinized the little discussion you have here with Vegan, I have read enough to get the gist of it, it seems to me like you are taking words (or language in general) for granted. 

Language is a human invention. Humans (in their current state) are by no means perfect, and so their inventions cannot be perfect either. And since humans and their inventions are all intra-universal, it would be impossible to use these invention to explain anything extra-universal, be it in space or time.

If you think of "nothing" in purely linguistic terms, then you are right, it makes absolutely no sense.

To connect that to the original post in this thread, I personally tend to see the universe as a metaphor for That Which Is Not. Through everything one realizes nothing, and through nothing one realizes everything. Death is the mediator. Vegan recommended Ayahuasca. That is good for everythingness. I recommend Ketamine. That is good for nothingness .

EDIT: In case you were wondering how I deduced that humans are imperfect... While I do not have an absolute for "perfect" to compare humans to, I can tell you that much: humans are ultimately dependant on plants for subsistance, but plants do not need humans. This means that plants are closer to perfection than humans are, even if plants themselves are still imperfect. And since _something_ is closer to perfection than humans, that means that humans (and therefore thier creations) are imperfect.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

THough I agree with everything you said, your last point is a fallacy.
plants need sunlight and humans do not; does that make us perfect and them not?  It's an interconnected cycle.  consciousness is not imperfect.... a better word is meaningless.  the problem with language and logic and such is that it expects meaning.  human consciousness is not an unfortunate accident.  you cant get something intelligent out of something stupid.   It's an interconnected cycle.  They only thing that plants have over us, which makes them closer to the universe, is that their consciousness doesn't need meaning other than to just be.  Without language, humans can just be...  live to live, and need no other reason to exist.


philosophy is the business of creating problems that aren't really there


----------



## Jamshyd

I am not sure whether you're arguing with my point or not - but, you do argue that language expects meaning, and that I agree with. To put what I said more in perspective for you, when I say "nothing," this means no thing, and a meaning is a thing. However, that in itself should give an ultra-linguistic "meaning" - but of course calling it that is self failing, and therefore I lied in that last sentence 

As for my fallacy, I did mention that plants are not perfect themselves: 



> This means that plants are closer to perfection than humans are, even if plants themselves are still imperfect.


.

Hope this clears it up . I've been called a deconstructionist before. Not sure if I label myself as such, but I do try my best to rip out any meaning taken for-granted in language.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

thanks for clearing that up

we do agree on almost everything 

a better word than deconstructionist would be post modernist... I'm assuming that they are the same thing and wondering if you have read much post modernism...

would you consider yourself to be a nihilist?

also...   do you think it is possible for human consciousness to be decunstructed to the point where it is equal to a plant's?  I'm asking this because I used to have the same philosophy as you.  That is untill I got into meditation and eastern thought


----------



## Jamshyd

Glad we understand each other 

I do not restrict myself to any particular philosophy... and, like you, I find great metaphors for the "truth" in eastern philosophies, most prominantly the Hindu Upanishads. I meditate often... 

Re: Deconstruction vs post-modernism, I believe that deconstruction is part of the bigger umblrella term that is Post Modernism, which includes other things. 

It is, IMHO, possible to be a decosntructionist without having being a nihilist. I am not really a nihilist or a solipcisit/relativist, in that beyond social/linguistic constructions, I think there is such a thing as reality. 

I use deconstruction solely for ego-analysis. "Ego" can belong to a simple person, and many egos can belong to a larger (constructed ) super-ego.

I think that plants are much, much closer to the "truth" than humans are. Plants express selflessness so much better than we do. I believe it is possible to have the super-consciousness of plants for a few moments at a time, but I do not think humans in their current state are capable of retaining plant-consciousness, otherwise we become plants .


----------



## vegan

> This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe. we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes


so does that mean that it wasn't _our_ universe that you were talking about when you said that "if there was nothing before the 'universe' ('multiverse' it seems now), then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed.. i see no problems here"?
do you think that our universe, not being the whole multiverse, could indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

the universe is the multi universe    anything smaller is just a catagory


----------



## B9

Jamshyd, how are plants closer to perfection than humans? It would seem to me that they aren'y capable of self-awareness(though i admit this not proven) so therefore they just "are". Unless of course your perspective is that of a buddhist.

zophen.


----------



## vegan

> the universe is the multi universe anything smaller is just a catagory


you said in this very thread





> I am one who enjoys the journy, not the end.... so I would greatly aprechiate it if you could open my eyes a bit wider.


maybe you should honour those respectable words rather than ignore what we're saying

'multiverse' and 'universe' describe 2 different things
if there is a multiverse, our universe is just one of its universes

you said we had a misunderstanding because in your idea that "if there was nothing before the 'universe', then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed", by "universe" you meant "all that exists"
on a material aspect, "all that exists" could be synonym of 'multiverse', but not of 'universe'
so in your sentence we have to replace 'universe' with 'multiverse' to get closer to your real meaning

thus, according to your own words, your demonstration (be it right or wrong) doesn't apply to our universe on its own, since there could very well have existed something else before somewhere else in the multiverse (or, i'll add, something else of a non-material nature, outside of the multiverse)


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

> thus, according to your own words, your demonstration (be it right or wrong) doesn't apply to our universe on its own, since there could very well have existed something else before somewhere else in the multiverse (or, i'll add, something else of a non-material nature, outside of the multiverse)




you keep missing the point

you are arguing semantics

universe = everything = god

you keep seperating it from other things when by definition it is everything. (yes... my definition, which is what you keep overlooking...   )     

the convo has come ful circle and will not provide anything further that ego stroking...   Good day sir


----------



## Jamshyd

zophen said:
			
		

> Jamshyd, how are plants closer to perfection than humans? It would seem to me that they aren'y capable of self-awareness(though i admit this not proven) so therefore they just "are". Unless of course your perspective is that of a buddhist.
> 
> zophen.



Nope, I am actually only familiar with the basics of Buddhism, so I wouldnt say my perspective is Buddhist . However, you are welcome to call it that if you want...

My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be _selfless_. In other words - to barely exist. Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .


----------



## B9

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> Nope, I am actually only familiar with the basics of Buddhism, so I wouldnt say my perspective is Buddhist . However, you are welcome to call it that if you want...
> 
> My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be _selfless_. In other words - to barely exist. Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .



 No i don't agree or disagree, i think it's a novel(to me anyhow) point of view and an interesting one. I'll think on it and get back if anything worthwhile occurs. Ah, so would you prefer to exist in a vegatative state?

zophen.


----------



## elemenohpee

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> Plants are closer to this state as we are. Plants have no biological pain apparatus. Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it. Sure, they heal - but they do not react like animals or humans do. Plants readily provide all living things with energy needed to survive, and don't seem to hoard it. It is rather presumptuous of humans to think that we are suprerior. That is just my opinion coming from my own gnosis - you will likely disagree, and thats fine .



Actually, plants do react to pain by releasing hormones.  The stress response is well documented.



> My perspective is that self-awareness is actually an inferior state of being - it means that one is still vulnerable to the allures of the Ego. To be egoless is to be in a vegetative state, to not feel pain, and to not desire, to be _selfless_. In other words - to barely exist.



Plants did not evolve from humans and lose the ego.  The ego evolved, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it did because it is beneicial to the species.  IMO, anyone who can look at the accomlishments of human intelligence and can say that a plant is superior has got to be nuts.  To me it sounds like you value lifelessness over life.  Is this not a correct assessment?


----------



## Jamshyd

elemenohpee said:
			
		

> Actually, plants do react to pain by releasing hormones.  The stress response is well documented.


That is what I meant when I said that the reaction is a healing one, not an emotional/defensive reaction. 


> Plants did not evolve from humans and lose the ego.


If you think I'm THAT stupid, I must say I'm rather offended 



> The ego evolved, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that it did because it is beneicial to the species.


Indeed, it is benificial if selfishness is your idea of "Beneficial," which, btw, is what is generally considered "right" by society and taken for granted to the point of not even being questioned. Mind you, my definition of "Selfishness" goes beyond what society ordinarily considers selfish. 



> IMO, anyone who can look at the accomlishments of human intelligence and can say that a plant is superior has got to be nuts.  To me it sounds like you value lifelessness over life.  Is this not a correct assessment?


I value selflessness over selfishness, as I mentioned before. However, I am glad to see that you agree with me that life (in its current state) = selfishness, otherwise you wouldn't have inferred that, since never did I mention the word "lifeless."

However, by saying "lifelessness" you are really playing with words. Death is the only certain thing in life. But that is not to say that we should all be killed right now (although an apocalypse is a viable option in a society that values selfishness in the case that it doesn't learn from its mistakes, which it will eventually bring upon itself). I certainly do not think plants are "lifeless". In fact, I think plants are ultra-conscious, and constantly overflowing with lmitless Love. Mind you, not egoistic Love. I see more "life" in one minute of a plant than an entire lifetime of a human. If that makes me nuts, then so be it 

I guess I forgot to state explicitly in my previous post that I believe that the ego is a necessesary, albeit_ intermediate_, state of human evolution. You need to be conscious of the ego in order to control and minimize it. The problem is that many humans tend to think that the ego is an end, not a means...

Zophen: Yes, I do. In fact I try my best to model my life on plants.


----------



## elemenohpee

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> Even if they have other ways of percieving pain, they certainly do not react to it.



This is what I was responding to.

I guess I don;t understand what you mean by plants being "ultra-concious," or having limitless love, which is a human emotion. What do you mean by "non-egoistic love"?  You say self-awareness is not desireable, and plants are closer to perfection than humans.  This is where I gathered that you value inert matter over "life."  It seems that a rock would exhibit this ultimate selflessness.  Me personally, I think its a pretty cool concept that a segment of the universe can be aware of itself.  The ego does not only have to lead to selfishness.  This is a very cynical take on human intelligence IMO.  If anything, the ego has allowed humans to commit more selfless acts that would have been possible if we were just big gene preservers, like plants are.


----------



## Jamshyd

elemenohpee said:
			
		

> This is what I was responding to.


Well I hope I cleared it up in my response.



> I guess I don;t understand what you mean by plants being "ultra-concious," or having limitless love, which is a human emotion.


IMO, the answer to what I mean is in this very train of thought. I gather that you think humans are superior to everything else in the universe. 




			
				sienna said:
			
		

> What do you mean by "non-egoistic love"?



Since you seem to define Love as being exclusively human, my only reply would be "non-human love." That is not to say that humans aren't able to experience it. I am refering to what some may call "Agapé," not the inferior sexually-tied love. 




> You say self-awareness is not desireable,



Not really...



> I guess I forgot to state explicitly in my previous post that I believe that the ego is a necessesary, albeit intermediate, state of human evolution. You need to be conscious of the ego in order to control and minimize it. The problem is that many humans tend to think that the ego is an end, not a means...





> and plants are closer to perfection than humans.  This is where I gathered that you value inert matter over "life."



Again, if you consider plants as being "inert matter," then sure.



> It seems that a rock would exhibit this ultimate selflessness.



Why not? .



> Me personally, I think its a pretty cool concept that a segment of the universe can be aware of itself.  The ego does not only have to lead to selfishness.  This is a very cynical take on human intelligence IMO.


Yes, it is a cynical take. My definition of the ego is simply as being the will to exist and limiting consciousness to that. To exist in a world of limited resource (again, I emphasize "current state," since things could change) is to have to hurt something else's existance in order to maintain that existance. 



> If anything, the ego has allowed humans to commit more selfless acts that would have been possible if we were just big gene preservers, like plants are.



I repeat again that I agree that the ego is a necessary STEP towards selflessness. However clinging to the ego will never get you there. I tend to see the reproductive (ie. gene-preserving) aspects of plants as being vestigal. In any case, they are far less (but not totally) selfless than those of humans and animals. Plants do not go actively seeking reproduction. They put what they have out and hope for the best (a strong wind or a an insect...etc.)

Edit: I will remind you that, without plants' generousity, you would not be here to perform those selfless acts you speak of.


----------



## B9

So you're lamenting the, so called," fall of man"(in effect)?

zophen.


----------



## Jamshyd

Most definitely (keeping in mind that I only take this story as a metaphor). At some unknowable point, for some unknowable reason, _something_ "forgot."

It seems like I have hijacked the thread. I apologize. However, I do not think I have gone off-topic .


----------



## elemenohpee

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> IMO, the answer to what I mean is in this very train of thought. I gather that you think humans are superior to everything else in the universe.



Well our brains are the most complex systems that we have discovered in the universe so far.  I guess rocks don;t kill people, so in that sense they are superior to humans. But other than that...



> Since you seem to define Love as being exclusively human, my only reply would be "non-human love." That is not to say that humans aren't able to experience it. I am refering to what some may call "Agapé," not the inferior sexually-tied love.


Agapé exists only in the human mind.  It is still a human experience.  What evidence suggests that plants experience this?


> Not really...


Why would the ego be necessary in order to minimize the ego?  Why not just not develop it at all?  



> Again, if you consider plants as being "inert matter," then sure.


I should have been more clear.  I consider rocks and the rest of the non-living universe as inert matter.  I was saying that you believe humans are imperfect, plants are closer to perfection, and by extension, inert matter is perfect.



> Why not? .


So would you prefer everything in the universe be inert?


> Yes, it is a cynical take. My definition of the ego is simply as being the will to exist and limiting consciousness to that. To exist in a world of limited resource (again, I emphasize "current state," since things could change) is to have to hurt something else's existance in order to maintain that existance.



We are using our intelligence to try and create a world where this is not the case.  You would abandon all progress now because we are not already there.


> I repeat again that I agree that the ego is a necessary STEP towards selflessness. However clinging to the ego will never get you there. I tend to see the reproductive (ie. gene-preserving) aspects of plants as being vestigal. In any case, they are far less (but not totally) selfless than those of humans and animals. Plants do not go actively seeking reproduction. They put what they have out and hope for the best (a strong wind or a an insect...etc.)



You say that the reproductive functions of a plant are largely vestigial, so what did they do to move beyond this?  Everything that a plant does is for the purpose of reproducing its genes.  That's how evolution on this planet works.  If anything, it will be intelligence, specifically human intelligence, which allows us to move beyond this.


> Edit: I will remind you that, without plants' generousity, you would not be here to perform those selfless acts you speak of.


First of all, the plants were not generous, different life forms evolved to use their waste products.  I wasn't belittling the function of plants in this ecosystem anyways, I don't know why you threw that in there.


----------



## Jamshyd

I do not know why you choose to be hostile (or at least, word your posts in such a manner). In any case, it seems that we simply do not look at the same issue from a similar point of view. That is fine. I vehemently disagree with you, but I will not be disrespectful about it. Please don't take this as me "giving up"... I simply do not see the point in arguing when we clearly don't even agree on definitions. One last comment though...



> Why would the ego be necessary in order to minimize the ego? Why not just not develop it at all?



The answer to that should be pretty obvious. How can you minimize something when you are not aware that it exists? Sure, not having an ego in the first place would be more convenient. Unfortuantely, we are stuck with an ego, so we might as well try and make the best out of it, instead of having it make the best out of us.

I am glad that you find my arguments outrageous though


----------



## punktuality

the ego is our sense of self..... a requirement to understand our place within the universe. Perhaps it is an ilusion but a nescesary one to survive


----------



## vegan

> you keep missing the point
> 
> you are arguing semantics


didn't i just reformulate your idea, making clear what you meant by it since you hadn't used the word universe with its right definition?
haven't you yourself said that by 'universe' you meant what is actually known as multiverse?   (btw, multiverse, not multi-universe. multiverse is an existing word. it has only one definition and by ignoring it, you're the one trying to play with semantics)
so why do you try to dodge my questions now that semantics are cleared?



> universe = everything = god


that's something we're wondering and arguing about, not a definition

there can't be an argumentation if you only listen to others if their argumentation is build around your own axioms



> you keep seperating it from other things when by definition it is everything. (yes... my definition, which is what you keep overlooking... )


have you actually read our posts!!!!
no, the universe is not by definition everything

i'll requote you once because now it makes me laugh





> I am one who enjoys the journy, not the end.... so I would greatly aprechiate it if you could open my eyes a bit wider.


----------



## Raven

god = the sun.always has,always will


----------



## elemenohpee

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> I do not know why you choose to be hostile (or at least, word your posts in such a manner). In any case, it seems that we simply do not look at the same issue from a similar point of view. That is fine. I vehemently disagree with you, but I will not be disrespectful about it. Please don't take this as me "giving up"... I simply do not see the point in arguing when we clearly don't even agree on definitions. One last comment though...



Sorry, its the rationalist in me.  I see things like plants being ultra-conscious and my brain tries to claw its way out of my ear.  I think your ideas are ridiculous, but I am not trying to be disrespectful.  The way in which I worded my posts is a product of my contempt for new-age ideas, not you personally.  I do see it as giving up, if you cannot come up with arguments against what I said.  I don;t know what definitions you are unclear about, but I'm sure we could settle those.  What is the significance, if any, of the fact that humans are the most complex structures in the known universe?


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

The idea of God was mythologically contrived by humans as a represention of our powerlessness in the face of nature. The Judeo-Christian notion of God is an anthropocentric expression which attributes distinctly human characteristics to the formation and sustainment of perceived order in the universe. Such characteristics include the idea of conscious design and human form. In addition, concepts unique to human perception, such as causality, are also attributed to God's form.

Many humans are unwilling to accept that any perceived system, and its inherent order, was generated spontaneously without an intended purpose. Our inability to obtain knowledge of what happens to one's consciousness after the point of death has led to speculation about the existence of an afterlife.

Belief in an afterlife provides solace to those who have lost a loved one and also allows individuals to have courage in the face of death. Without the belief in an afterlife, individuals might consider that all of their fruits of labor are simply lost at the point of death.

Belief in an afterlife might allow individuals to think that they will be able to maintain the wisdom and love that have been accumulated through an individual's mortal life.

In actuality, consciousness is allowed for by the functioning physical body, however it does not necessarily result (ie obliviousness/sleep/coma). When the body ceases to function, consciousness is no longer possible and an individual becomes reduced to a mass of the components which coalesced to give rise to a functioning body.

If life is characterized as an animated self propagating system of matter, atoms and even stars can be considered living. Life on Earth can be interpreted as the result of a self propagating chemical reaction. However this is a mechanical reduction of the infinite complexity of which life is composed which can be interpreted in innumerable ways.

Our spiritual existence can be distinguished from our mechanical existence in that it is embodied by feelings and connectedness subjectively experienced by a given individual, however the essence of spirit is mysterious, spontaneous, and beyond rational explanation.

The Judeo-Christian God is an expression of anthropocentric values, the endeavor of Judeo-Christians to control nature and use it for our own purposes. This is a self destructive, for our environment sustains us and benefiting it will ultimately benefit us, but by destroying we ultimately destroy ourselves, since we rely upon it.

The enculturation of Judeo-Christian values have led humanity to cultivate and escalate an imbalance with the environment. When the carrying capacity of the environment can no longer support the populations of society, civilization is bound to collapse.

God is a symbol composed of our values and allowed for by speculation about the unexplained. If God does exist, we have no way to perceive its existence. All that we can perceive is the manifestations which individuals attribute to God's conscious design. To claim that these manifestations are enough to imlpy God's existence, an individual credits unfounded delusions. It would be equally as valid/invalid to attribute wind to the wakes of invisible flying spirits.

In this day and age, an ecocentric mythological idea of a higher being would be more constructive. However man kind clings to commonly accepted ideals and is collectively unwilling to replace those ideas with more constructive ones.

Meaning and purpose are human contrivances, however many if not all humans rely upon meaning and purpose in order to function in society. Judeo-Christian values can certainly be seen as constructive within the realm of humanity (even though they create disharmony between humans and their environment).

These values promote compassion and collective benefit over selfishness and personal benefit. Mediating our inclinations with the inclinations of others allows us to cultivate positive reciprocation between one another.

This way of life is discrepant from that of the undomesticated living world in that we take from nature but do not provide in return, for example in the food chain, even though we inescapably contribute to the nitrogen cycle.

Our tendency to engineer our own sustaining environment also seperates us from undomesticated living organisms. In foresight, humans may ultimately escape the dangers of an uncontrolled natural environment by engineering an ecologically balanced artificial environment.

To me this represents a failure of humans to recognize the connectedness we have with nature. Nature provides to us, it created us. However all we can think to do is escape it, while exploiting its provisions.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

vegan

our entire convo was based on a misconception and is thus null and void

the fact that you will not aknowledge the incorrect definition that I was using is why you are playing semantics.

would you like me to go back and edit all of my posts so you can understand them, or can you be a big boy and figure it out on your own?

I can't believe you baited me into posting about the same thing yet again.

your behavior in this thread suggests that you have some serious ego problems.

you are now the only person in 2 years to make me use the ignore feature.

congrats...   SHATT couldn't even do that


----------



## Jamshyd

elemenohpee said:
			
		

> Sorry, its the rationalist in me.  I see things like plants being ultra-conscious and my brain tries to claw its way out of my ear.  I think your ideas are ridiculous, but I am not trying to be disrespectful.  The way in which I worded my posts is a product of my contempt for new-age ideas, not you personally.  I do see it as giving up, if you cannot come up with arguments against what I said.  I don;t know what definitions you are unclear about, but I'm sure we could settle those.  What is the significance, if any, of the fact that humans are the most complex structures in the known universe?



I guess a good place to start is the fact that you decided to label my ideas as "New Age" yourself and then have "contempt" for them. What exactly _is_ "New Age"? Can you define it for me? If it gives you any solace, I do not have much appreciation for the two things that are commonly called "New Age": the 2012 thing; and the enlightenment-in-10-minutes books or "Kaballah Braceletts". Was there something else known as "New Age" that I am not familiar with?

In any case, I guess by "definitions" I meant our points of view on a similar subject. We obviously see it from two conflicting points of view and I feel that you are arguing simply to mock my ideas rather than share respectfully. So there is no point in arguing as it will simply lead to more conflict. It is not my intention to force you or anyone else to change your opinions on this matter. I simply present mine, and its up to you to accept them or not. I have tried to make myself as clear as possible - if there is anything I said that you do not understand, you can ask for specific clarification. Anything more I say about my ideas will border on preaching, and preaching is something I avoid.  

To answer your question, I do not think that complex equals superior. In fact, to present it as a metaphor, you can write the most complex, 500-volume exposition on "The Truth" using all the words from all the vocabularies in the world, and at the end you'll still be lying.


----------



## elemenohpee

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


That metaphor is nonsense.  Just writing something does not make it true, so yes, you could write a lengthy book full of lies and it would not be superior because it is long.  When you look at life, however, you have to look at what the complexity is achieving.  A rube-goldberg machine is not superior simply because it is complex, in fact, it is inferior because it complicates something that could be done an easier way.  The complexity of the human brain is not achieving the same goals as say, an insect brain.  The complexity is there for a reason, it increases the computing powers of the brain, thus allowing for self-awareness, things like technology, etc.  do you really believe that a rock is superior to a human because it is "selfless"?


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

^^^^^ yes

it's a matter of letting go and rolling with the flow, not a matter of computing (which tends to make us try to walk against the stream)


----------



## BreakingSet

the seeker said:
			
		

> God is the universe because God is his creation but God also existed before this universe and being eternal, will continue exist after it so the universe is far too limited a concept to capture God.



 I like this guy!^^

Robert Anton Wilson said in one book or another that God tended to exist in the frontier of the imagination: people tend to look for, or tend to see "God" where there imaginations quit. 

I was having fun the other day imagining god as a force (like gravity or time or magnetism). It's that force spoken of since antiquity that creates by destroying; you know, a fire ravishes the forrest and through ash leaves the forrest more green sort of thing. It touches matter and incourages life somehow.


----------



## elemenohpee

bleedingheartcommie said:
			
		

> ^^^^^ yes
> 
> it's a matter of letting go and rolling with the flow, not a matter of computing (which tends to make us try to walk against the stream)




I don;t understand how you people can put so little value in the human experience.  There would be no concept of "rolling with the flow" if it were not for the human brain.  This nobility that you percieve in selflessness wouldn;t exist, things would just be.


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

^^^ right

and if we did not have to conceptualize it, we would already be there

take yourself for example....   or rather...   take me..   I have a clear conceptual understanding of what enlightenment is and what it entails...   but I am not doing it...  my humanity is keeping me from it


yes it is nice as a human to be able to experience both perceptions,  but very very few people can.

all of these concepts (about how you are supposed to get there and what it will be like) are the very things you are holding on to that are keeping you from experiencing it first hand.


----------



## elemenohpee

bleedingheartcommie said:
			
		

> ^^^ right
> 
> and if we did not have to conceptualize it, we would already be there
> 
> take yourself for example....   or rather...   take me..   I have a clear conceptual understanding of what enlightenment is and what it entails...   but I am not doing it...  my humanity is keeping me from it
> 
> 
> yes it is nice as a human to be able to experience both perceptions,  but very very few people can.
> 
> all of these concepts (about how you are supposed to get there and what it will be like) are the very things you are holding on to that are keeping you from experiencing it first hand.




Could you clarify your post a little?  I'm havign some trouble understanding what you mean.  Conceptualize what? are u talking about enlightenment here? in the philosophial sense? hindu, buddhist?


----------



## vegan

> our entire convo was based on a misconception and is thus null and void


the misconception has been cleared
you said yourself "when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe"
you said that "multiple universes" are included in your idea of "infinite universe"
so you agree that _our_ universe is just a part of your "infinite universe"
what now prevents you from going to back to the conversation and answering my questions instead of pretending that i misunderstood what you said to avoid answering them?



> the fact that you will not aknowledge the incorrect definition that I was using is why you are playing semantics


i acknoweldged it and said a more correct word would be multiverse. but you prefer to deny it than have to answer



> I can't believe you baited me into posting about the same thing yet again.


may i return the compliment?
i don't find it fun to talk to a wall throwing back the same ball over and over
but i dislike your dishonnesty of avoiding the argumentation by pretending that we don't get what you mean
and i don't want you to think that you can walk off so easily
yes, i'm a big child



> your behavior in this thread suggests that you have some serious ego problems.


my behaviour?
at least i don't pretend to have a friend using my account to let slip an off-topic taunt



> you are now the only person in 2 years to make me use the ignore feature.


translation : "rather than show i don't know what to answer, i prefer to pretend not to hear"

sorry, people, for this pathetic exchange


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

elemenohpee said:
			
		

> Could you clarify your post a little?  I'm havign some trouble understanding what you mean.  Conceptualize what? are u talking about enlightenment here? in the philosophial sense? hindu, buddhist?


i'm generally talking about thinking in words

but specifica;;y, sure, buddhist/taoist concepts

instead of letting go and simply being we are talking and thinking about it

the two are very different


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

> the misconception has been cleared
> you said yourself "when i say the universe...i'm not restricting it to the current scientific concept of the universe...i.e. what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe"
> you said that "multiple universes" are included in your idea of "infinite universe"
> so you agree that our universe is just a part of your "infinite universe"
> what now prevents you from going to back to the conversation and answering my questions instead of pretending that i misunderstood what you said to avoid answering them?



what was your question again?

and do you still think that something can exist outside of everything?  or am i misunderstanding you again?



> my behaviour?
> at least i don't pretend to have a friend using my account to let slip an off-topic taunt


i was not pretending, but i guess you won't take my word for it



> may i return the compliment?
> i don't find it fun to talk to a wall throwing back the same ball over and over
> but i dislike your dishonnesty of avoiding the argumentation by pretending that we don't get what you mean
> and i don't want you to think that you can walk off so easily
> yes, i'm a big child


this is why i thought we were done talking a long time ago.....  you kept asking the same questions and i kept giving the same answers dispite whatever misconceptions we discovered.  our entire convo was a sham because we were talking about two entirely different things.  comparing apples to oranges if you will.  I just dont see how that could be productive



> sorry, people, for this pathetic exchange


  why then did you keep fueling it?  



if you think that you can explain a point to me that we have not already trashed or that might produce anything useful, then i'll be happy to discuss it.

if you simply want to continue this childish ego contest, then we can take it outside to the PM and stop destroying this thread.


----------



## Jamshyd

elemenohpee, I guess you make of humanity more than it deserves. What do human achievements have against death? What is a generation's lifetime in the eyes of, say, pluto (the planet)? Do you get the idea...? 

EDIT: As for that wikipedia link... so I guess you take that as being your definition of new age? Well, I do not see my ideas expressed on that page, so I guess your labeling them "new age" is erroneous. .


----------



## knight_marshall

If god was the universe, and therefore we are all the one conscious being, then damn I'm messed up.  Not only am I standing on myself right now, but this morning I ate myself, and yesterday I shat on myself.  I didn't think I was into scat... eww!!

The only way I can see a god existing is if we exist within that God's mind.  For a God to exist within our own fabric of existance, they had to have created themselves which is... well, whatever you want to think it is, but I'll say stupid.    And if that is so, then that God must exist within the mind of it's own God, for how else does it exist.  And then we are all God's too, because those beings in our minds exist.  Kinda takes the relevance out of it.  Well, at least if you do care about the god above you, your a selfish prick for not caring about the beings that YOU govern over.  Well, at least you are if you don't devide your life between those above and below.  Me, I'll care about myself and those within my own existance/universe.


----------



## elemenohpee

I understand how tiny and insignificant humanity is compared to the universe.  But you don;t think that a piece of the universe becoming aware of itself is even a curiosity?  i mean come on, you have to admit having a concious experience is a pretty cool concept.


----------



## B9

Now then folks lets face it, if you read back over these posts you will find that the "ego" is very much in evidence. Or perhaps you would disagree. Which wouldn't surprise me at all.

zophen


----------



## elemenohpee

Jamshyd, if you had bothered to read past the first sentence you would have seen this:
"Rather than follow the lead of an organised religion, "New Agers" typically construct their own spiritual journey based on material taken as needed from the mystical traditions of all the world's religions as well as shamanism, neopaganism and occultism. Participants are likely to dip into many diverse teachings and practises, some mainstream and some fringe, and formulate their own beliefs and practices based on their experiences in each. No clear membership or rigid boundaries actually exist."


----------



## gloggawogga

^^^^^

Yeah but the _idea_ that plants and even inaminate objects are concious beings is still not a "new age" idea. Its an idea older than the oldest religions in the world, and one that is still believed in most of the Eastern religions. If you object to the idea thats fine, but don't object to its because some people who call themselves "new age" believe in it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animism and notice they aren't associating it with "new age".

Oh...and for the topic of thread "God = The Universe", one word: Pantheism. Which BTW is central to Hinduism, which is hardly "new age". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism


----------



## elemenohpee

good point, I take back my new age statement

I'm well aware theat the concept of god being the universe isn't new age.  But from what I remember of my religion class, the universe being conscious isn't part of that.  I'm not 100% sure about that, so correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## gloggawogga

Pantheism is not necessarily Animism and Animism is not necessarily Panthiesm (see the links above), but if you look at the Eastern religions, i.e Oneness of everything, compassion for all things etc., there are definetely Animistic elements. And Shamanism is very animistic, i.e. spirit animals, plants, etc. So really both Animism and Panthiesm are very old ideas, just "new" to Western culture.


----------



## elemenohpee

Now where does ultraconscious plants overflowing with limitless love fit into this? After re-reading the thread, my new age statement is back in effect.  Mind you that new agers adopt beliefs from all over the place, including very old traditions.


----------



## gloggawogga

^^^^

Who said anything about "ultraconscious plants overflowing with limitless love". Edit: oops...Ok Jamshyd said that. Well...ok...that is new age.  You're right. 

Plants compete in the wilderness for survival just like everything else. Survival of the fittest. I'd bet if they are 'concious', life is a bitch for them too....


----------



## Jamshyd

I fail to see how "ultra conscious plants overflowing with limitless love" do not fit under "Animism" (or Monism) but fit perfectly under "new age"...?

In any case, I apologize if I offended any humans by saying that plants might be better .


----------



## gloggawogga

^^^

It does fit under those, I just don't know if traditional Animists or Monists believe that plants are simply overflowing with limitless love.


----------



## Jamshyd

I did, however, mention that by "love" I was not refring to egoistic human love. The love I was refering to is something along the lines of...

"Who sees all beings within his own self, and his own self within all beings, loses all fear" (From the Isha Upanishad)

Assuming you agree that plants are among what this passage considers as "beings," (and it does, as indicated in other Upanishads) and you see where "love" fits in this idea, there you have an example (albeit not the best one) right out of the heart of philosophical Hindu thought. Sure, context matters, but when you read a lot of Upanishads (I admit I have not read all of them yet), you would agree that this is rather representative.

In any case, you can lable me whatever you want - it doesn't make much differnce.

I speak the truth - do not believe me!


----------



## gloggawogga

> "Who sees all beings within his own self, and his own self within all beings, loses all fear" (From the Isha Upanishad)
> 
> Assuming you agree that plants are among what this passage considers as "beings," (and it does, as indicated in other Upanishads) and you see where "love" fits in this idea, there you have an example (albeit not the best one) right out of the heart of philosophical Hindu thought.



I am quite familiar with that verse. You are contriving something that verse does simply not say. What that verse says is that if you see your self in all beings in and see all beings in your self then you will be without hatred or fear, thus you would have limitless love for all beings. The verse does not in any way suggest that plants or any other beings are enlightened beings or ultra conscious beings overflowing with limitless love.




> Sure, context matters, but when you read a lot of Upanishads (I admit I have not read all of them yet), you would agree that this is rather representative.



I've read the major Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Yoga Sutra, etc.  and studied several translations and commentaries of each. What you are saying is not representitive of Hindu philosophy. While some plants and animals may be worshiped as gods, plants and animals in Hindu philosophy are generally regarded as beings subject to the cycle of birth and death just like you and me, not some kind of enlightened beings.

And I'm not trying to label you. Maybe elemenohpee was doing that. But what you are saying is hardly traditional. And you said your self plants weren't perfect. Can you leave it at that?


----------



## Jamshyd

I never said that my beliefs were traditional, for the record. Monistic, maybe. But monism is not exclusive to hinduism. 

I did not think what I said was representative of *hindu* philosphy, nor did I claim that. I meant it was representative of *upanishadic* philosphy in particular, and I still stick to that. But I thought that was understood without needing to be mentioned. In any case, there is the clarification.

I was also not trying to prove that plants were "enlightened" beings with that verse. I was simply using it in attempt to display what I meant by the word "love", regardless of plants, and you said it yourself:



> What that verse says is that if you see your self in all beings in and see all beings in your self then you will be without hatred or fear, thus you would have limitless love for all beings.



I dont think this has much to do with belief. This verse is simply just another description of Brahman awareness, which is generally the main concern of most Upanishads,directly or not.

Now, whether you think plants are enlightened or not, I guess this is your subjective judgement. The way I see it, since plants are part of "all beings", they share this infinite love, but unlike egoistic humans, I do not see where plants want to hoard this love for their own selfish desires. When was the last time a tree denied you its fruit, or a blade of grass protested for your walking on it? Sure, I did say I thought plants are not perfection itself, but I still stick to my idea that plants are _closer_ to perfection than humans are, given that, for me, perfection is a state of utter selflessness. I don't think I need to repeat for the 4th (or was it 5th?) time that I do not think plants ARE utterly selfless, but they certainly are more selfless than humans.  Again, I am not trying to "prove" this to anyone or forcing them to agree. I am simply responding to all the misunderstanding I seem to be getting. When I first mentioned the idea, I thought people will either simply agree or disagree, without making of it something that it is not. But I guess simply stating that plants are possibly better than humans has injured many self-righteous egos. Heh. 

Again, I am well aware that HINDUISM does not talk about plants being enlighetend, or at least, not explicitly. I was simply using this example because, as I said, it was the first thing that popped into my head. But actually, I wonder what "traditional" hinduism is?? Beliefs in india are among the most perpetually changing ones I had ever come across. In fact, there is no such thing as "hinduism," it is simply an umbrella term for all the ideas in India. Where does one draw the line between "traditional hinduism" and "new age"?

However, I'm sorry if I used the wording "you would agree," since I guess agreeing with a loony like yours truly would offend you  .


----------



## gloggawogga

> I did not think what I said was representative of hindu philosphy, nor did I claim that. I meant it was representative of upanishadic philosphy in particular



Well, according to many Vedantists, you have to have birth a human body to have a chance to achieve liberation. If you have animal or plant birth you will have to wait until you have a human birth.



> Now, whether you think plants are enlightened or not, I guess this is your subjective judgement. The way I see it, since plants are part of "all beings", they share this infinite love,



Grains of dust are beings too, and so is a violent supernova, and so are the roaches in my kitchen. I guess they all share in this infinite love.



> When was the last time a tree denied you its fruit, or a blade of grass protested for your walking on it?



There are no plants with poisonous berries, or no other poisonous plants? Why do cacti have thorns all over them them? Ever heard of hay fever? Millions of people suffer allergies because some horny plants want to reproduce. Like all other biological life on earth plants are into self preservation and species preservation. This is a scientific fact. _They act 100% selfishly_, whether or not they are 'self aware'. 



> In fact, there is no such thing as "hinduism," it is simply an umbrella term for all the ideas in India. Where does one draw the line between "traditional hinduism" and "new age"?



Have you been to any teachers on Vedanta, or maybe a meditation teacher? Does your teacher have a lineage? Did your specific ideas about plants, i.e. how selfless they are, come directly from India? Or are they your ecclectic ideas that came about my mixing some ideas that came from India with your own personal insight and imagination or some other idea? Maybe its just language, but to me it sounds alot like the latter.


----------



## Jamshyd

gloggawogga said:
			
		

> Well, according to many Vedantists, you have to have birth a human body to have a chance to achieve liberation. If you have animal or plant birth you will have to wait until you have a human birth.



I do not understand what this has anything to do with my last post, since my post in its entirity was devoted to explaining that I used that verse to explain what I meant by the word "love," not plants' place in samsara. But to humour this, I am not a vedantist, and you do not need to be one to be able to understand the upanishads. As I said several times before (lost count), I used that verse because it was the first thing that came to my mind. Had I quoted a sufi or a gnostic text, would you be arguing with me that what I'm saying is not in synch with said traditions? The point is that I wasn't implicating that my ideas belonged to such traditions.



> Grains of dust are beings too, and so is a violent supernova, and so are the roaches in my kitchen. I guess they all share in this infinite love.



I will simply reply to this as I replied to elemenopee's exact question: Sure, why not? 



> There are no plants with poisonous berries, or no other poisonous plants? Why do cacti have thorns all over them them? Ever heard of hay fever? Millions of people suffer allergies because some horny plants want to reproduce. Like all other biological life on earth plants are into self preservation and species preservation. This is a scientific fact. _They act 100% selfishly_, whether or not they are 'self aware'.



Ah, you people just love to implicate stupidity in those you argue with, don't you? 

Has a plant ever produced poison in it's berries as soon as you touched that berry? Did the cactus grow its thorn in reaction of you touching it? Did the plant produce allergens as a _reaction_ to you going near it? As with my explanation about plant reproduction above (which you probably didn't read), whatever selfishness is left in plants is at best vestigal and, more importantly, PASSIVE.

However, again and again and again I repeat that I do not think plants are 100% selfless. As I mentioned before (again!), I think to live is to be selfish - you are only 100% selfless if you die. I am just saying that plants are less selfish than all other living things because they feed themselves to other, more selfish creatures.




> Did your specific ideas about plants, i.e. how selfless they are, come directly from India? Or are they your ecclectic ideas that came about my mixing some ideas that came from India with your own personal insight and imagination or some other idea? Maybe its just language, but to me it sounds alot like the latter.



My ideas did not exclusively come from India. Yes, I did say many times over that this is all my own personal insight, and yes, I do find reflections of them in Indian as well as other forms of thought - you are free to disagree with them, just try to be respectful. I know its hard, but try. This is not just for you glog, btw. I actually do not care much for being respected myself, but if you're respectful, it tends to make you a more pleasant person. Don't you think? 

In any case, I am bored with having to write the same commentary over and over again for each post I make.


----------



## vegan

> what was your question again?





			
				vegan said:
			
		

> bleedingheartcommie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This multi univers that you are talking about is what I meant by universe. we just have two different definitions of what the term universe includes
> 
> 
> 
> so does that mean that it wasn't *our* universe that you were talking about when you said that "if there was nothing before the 'universe' ('multiverse' it seems now), then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed.. i see no problems here"?
> do you think that our universe, not being the whole multiverse, could indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?
Click to expand...

this was the question : could _our_ universe indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?

and please don't say one more time that "the universe is everything" since you've agreed yourself that _"what we can observe through sight (space, stars, etc.), mathematical experiments, etc...your alternate universes...multiple universes, etc., are all included in my infinite universe "_ and thus that _our_ universe could be only a part of "the infinite universe"


> and do you still think that something can exist outside of everything? or am i misunderstanding you again?


i never said so
you have a fruitful imagination


> i was not pretending, but i guess you won't take my word for it


it's already dubious enough that you'd have a friend reading a thread you posted on the internet; at your place; having the same ideas as you do; caring enough to post about it; using your account to do so; taking it personally enough to feel the urge to taunt; but also a disclaimer to save the honour of his buddy
but i'd have been willing to believe it if you had done what anyone concerned would do if his account had been used against his will : to delete the posts
so no, i won't take your word for it


> you kept asking the same questions and i kept giving the same answers dispite whatever misconceptions we discovered


since the misconception has been cleared but the question not answered, i asked the same question again. but instead of answering, you just repeated that we had a misunderstanding, which was not true anymore


> why then did you keep fueling it?


i said it, i'm a big child. and it's a mind game to me


----------



## vegan

> If god was the universe, and therefore we are all the one conscious being, then damn I'm messed up. Not only am I standing on myself right now, but this morning I ate myself, and yesterday I shat on myself


you didn't eat yourself, you used a part of yourself, just as inside your body, certain parts synthesize chemicals that are used by other parts
still, you never think about your organs as different entities but just as different parts of yourself, one unique being

if you go down one level, you can have the same observation about the cells composing your organs. you don't think about all the cells as different entities, but as part of a whole, the organ

our perception of this whole usually stops at the body scale because of the physical link
but what's so relevant about this physical unity?
to use the same example as earlier in this thread, it's not even the physical unity we perceive it to be
we perceive a continuity of matter when it's in fact only a continuity of electromagnetic and strong nuclear forces

do they define where our consciousness is?
if so, when we cut off our hair, do we cut off a part of consciousness?
is our consciousness only contained in our brains? or maybe are we just parts of a bigger entity whose consciousness manifests itself subjectively in each of its components (as different fruits on a tree taste different but are still parts of the same tree)?

that said, i think the word "god" has nothing to do with universal consciousness and i don't see why people who don't believe in an [omnipotent and/or all knowing and/or creator of all and/or white bearded, etc... being] still use it. it can only lead to a misunderstanding of their idea of universal consciousness


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

<<<<could our universe indeed have popped into existence some 13,5 billion years ago?>>>>>


i think it is silly to distinguish between "our universe" and anything else

this is my point

that should answer the question....   or atleast show you how from my POV the question is based in assumptions of language.


----------



## B9

Jamshyd said:
			
		

> you are only 100% selfless if you die. over and over again.



 The highest state of enlightenment you aspire to then is absolute non contact/interference with any living thing. Surely this is death. If you regard being dead as a "state of grace" so to speak why are you still posting and not busily decaying to feed the green things of this earth.

zophen(curiouser and curiouser)


----------



## Jamshyd

True. However, knowing that, I think that one should live life in a state of _minimum_ selfishness, giving love and hoping that it will make others realize that state. If everyone were to act selflessly, then the minimum requirements for life would be fulfilled through the giving of others. Unfortunately, the untamed ego only wants to take. 

Although I try my best to avoid a my-mission-in-life type of statemnt, I guess my reply to your question sounds something like that. I hope my reply was satisfactory 

EDIT: Btw I do not dissagree at all with your previous post about the Ego, nor do I exclude myself from it.


----------



## B9

^Okay fair enough, i take your point. Although i agree with the general idea meaning to give as much as possible and to be as selfless as possible etcetera, i personally find that i fall woefully short of these aspirations, which leads me to conclude that i'm either inherently selfish or weak willed or both.
   It seems to be extremely hard to exist in the modern world and to carry out the priniciples of "gentleness". I suppose becoming the equivalent of a hermit/monk would be the only way to achieve anything remotely like this.
 Unfortunately i'm too fond of sensual pleasures to really want to do such a thing. I suppose that i'm simply a bad/evil person. 

zophen(characterless oaf)


----------



## Jamshyd

I disagree . I think the very fact that you talk about yourself being lacking of those qualities means that you are aware of them and see them as somehow detrimental. Perhaps, although you enjoy them, you actually automatically avoid them. Of course, I am in no position to judge. The real danger IMO, is when one revels in selfishness and does not see it as such.


----------



## B9

^Never thought about it like that , you're too kind.

zophen


----------



## vegan

> i think it is silly to distinguish between "our universe" and anything else
> 
> this is my point
> 
> that should answer the question.... or atleast show you how from my POV the question is based in assumptions of language.


8) 
well, you can always re-read the thread if you're interested in understanding why it's not silly


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

^    you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality


i am also not articulat in the least...


if anyone can jump in and clarify what is going on here... I would aprechiate it

otherwise..... this is pointless


my assupmtion is that the universe is infinite....   what's outside of the uiniverse then?   <-- since that is impossible.....     simply more universe

we just have 2 different theories....   debating which one is right is pointless..... as neither of us can prove what we are arguing

just drop it

TIA


----------



## vegan

> ^ you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality


pot.. kettle!
kettle... pot!

you're not making any effort to understand what we've explained to you
and here once more you just repeat what you were saying 4 pages ago and haven't realized it was not just a different theory, it's false

"infinite" doesn't mean "everything"
alphanumeric gave a good example with numbers, have you understood it?
have even read it?
i gave one with lines, that you seemed to have problems understanding too

when people say something that you don't understand, try harder before assuming that they're saying nonsense

i honestly spent time trying to see if i missed something about what you said, with no results. but i see clearly what you have missed

there is nothing silly about distinguishing between _our_ universe and "anything else"
_our_ universe is the one that we can observe, that we're trying to date, that we pertain to physically, etc.
be this universe that we know finite or infinite, we have no idea of what lays outside of it; no way to date it, and it's certainly not what people are answering to when they propose an age of around 13.5 billions years old

and even if the question was "when did all that exists come into existence?", _"if there was nothing before [all that exists], then there wasn't anything before existence... thus it always existed"_ doesn't demonstrate anything
as long as we don't know why existence started or exists, we can't assume that it it didn't start from an instance 0 before wich there was nothing

and before you say it, "nothingness can't exist or then would exist existence" is  just a bad play on words


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

in a medium...   you can have two lines that are infinite and do not touch...  but they come with the restriction of being lines...

since we are talking about the medium and not the lines....  the two are not infinite because they are lines


----------



## PGTips

But the example of 2 lines in a plane is an example of two n dimensional entities can exist in one n+1 dimensional expanse. Infact you can fit an infinite number of n dimensional entities in an n+1 dimensional expanse.

In the case of lines and a plane, n=1. In the case of some theories of the universe that are in development n = 4 or even 10!!

You are not correct saying "They aren't infinite because they are lines", they _are_ infinite within their domains. If you are restricted to a line, you can move an infinite amount in along the line. In our universe we can move an infinite (assuming it is infinite) amount in 3 different directions. What is the say that our universe isn't an infinite 3d region of an infinite 4d, 5d or even 11d grander expanse? No matter how much we move in our little 3 dimensional "bubble" we cannot leave it, but within the grand expanse of this 11d space, there could exist other 3d bubbles which are themselves infinite bubbles in 3 dimensions but are seperated by a non-zero amount in the other 1, 2 or 7 dimensions in the grand expanse.

"Our universe" would be the 3d bubble we are stuck in. We can move infinitely in the 3 dimensions we can move in, but the multiverse would be the grand expanse all the bubbles are within. Move matter how we move, we cannot move outside our universe into the multiverse, so there is a real and distinct difference between _our_ universe and _other_ universe's within the multiverse.

I know that the definition of the universe is _everything_, but many words which define our concept of reality were derived at times before new ideas developed. If you defined "universe" to be "Everything we can ever reach in our travels, or observe" then universe would mean our bubble in the multiverse, yet wouldn't be _everything_. 

I know it's a strange concept to think about because our brains work in 3d, but it's a very simple mathematical concept to work in more than 3d and very well established in what kind of conitations it can have.

You said to Vegan " you completely lack the ability to step outside of your own perception/ reality", but to be honest, it is you who are not stepping out of your own perception.


----------



## euphorically

^^ WTF?  

Damn you beings make it all sound so complicated   Words just can't explain the truth, we just already know, lays within us all. 

God = The universe.........YES, I love it! 

(meaningful for something so simple, it's also nice to see maths & the english language can be of use on this basic level)


----------



## bleedingheartcommie

AN
thank you

it makes a lot more sense to me now...

<<<Move matter how we move, we cannot move outside our universe into the multiverse, so there is a real and distinct difference between our universe and other universe's within the multiverse.>>>

i guess my only problem with that is that if we can't experience it... is it really there?   (if a tree falls.. ect..)   

i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist.  (exist = to be, especially to be present in the real world or universe rather than in story or imagination)

can you recomend a book on the subject that wouldn't be too difficult for me to understand?


----------



## elemenohpee

If a tree falls in the forest while no one is around, it will make compression waves in the air that, if a person were around, would be perceived as sound.


----------



## B9

^This is indeed true, but ?

zophen.


----------



## elemenohpee

bleedingheartcommie said:
			
		

> i guess my only problem with that is that if we can't experience it... is it really there?   (if a tree falls.. ect..)
> 
> i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist.  (exist = to be, especially to be present in the real world or universe rather than in story or imagination)



just because we do not experience it does not mean it is not there


----------



## redeemer

bleedingheartcommie said:
			
		

> i would say that until we invent/ discover some way to experience parts outside of our universe, then they don't exist.


Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance.


----------



## PGTips

BHC, glad to hear my last post helped, though rereading it, I can imagine it might be hard to follow, I've a mental image of what I'm trying to convey to you in my head, and it generally involves a bit of maths I'm trying to give physical meaning to, so isn't too good. 

There's a bit in the 3rd episode of "The Elegant Universe" , a documentry about String Theory on the PBS website. You've probably heard me mention it before. It talks specifically about these ideas, and does some computer graphics to help convey it, so definitely worth a look. It's a difficult concept to convey in words and books, becauses, as I mentioned, our words are often underdeveloped when dealing with these concepts. Computer graphics help a lot, and I'll admit a passing familiarity with the concept of "linear independence" from maths helped me get my head around it.


			
				redeemer said:
			
		

> Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance.


Hence why science will never disprove the existance of God.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

*Response to the commonly accepted nonsense of "Redeemer"*

"Lack of evidence by itself is no evidence. You cannot conclude that something does not exist based on lack of evidence for its existance." - Redeemer

If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.

If God does exist we just happened to imagine that he might exist coincidentally. The main support behind God's existence is man's curiosity about the origin of life and his eagerness to propose that life was designed and created just like tools are designed and created. Some individuals ascribe meaning and purpose to life and assert that we were meaningfully designed with an intended purpose.

The true state of existence is ambiguous and spontaneous. An innumerable amount of interpretations and irrefutable assertions can be made but the cosmos continues to ebb and flow independently of a driving force outside of itself. To make such claims is to assert that God's non-existence can be known and indeed it can, for believing in his existence is holding a convenient delusion which reconsiles the mysteries of life. There are no grounds for the claim of God's existence aside from the fact that it would make us capable of comprehending what would otherwise be unexplainable.

Most people say that claiming God's non-existence is just as foolish as claiming his existence. However I would beg to differ. God does exist in the mind's of humans but absolutely does not exist outside of anyone's mind unless the idea of God is meant to represent the (non-conscious) state of natural existence beyond our perception/comprehension. Of course the common conception of God has been anthropomorphized (associated with the human form and means of functioning) because man glorifies himself.

Exclusive monotheistic beliefs in an anthropomorphized God are prideful, self-righteous, outspoken, human/self-glorifying, human/self-centered, and condusive of disharmony with the natural environment.


----------



## elemenohpee

vibetribescribe said:
			
		

> If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.


But it also cannot be argued to not exist.  This is I think what redeemer was getting at.


> If God does exist we just happened to imagine that he might exist coincidentally. The main support behind God's existence is man's curiosity about the origin of life and his eagerness to propose that life was designed and created just like tools are designed and created. Some individuals ascribe meaning and purpose to life and assert that we were meaningfully designed with an intended purpose.


I tend to agree, but that doesn't mean that that opinion is right.  You've given no more evidence than a religious person claiming to know about ogd.


> The true state of existence is ambiguous and spontaneous. An innumerable amount of interpretations and irrefutable assertions can be made but the cosmos continues to ebb and flow independently of a driving force outside of itself. To make such claims is to assert that God's non-existence can be known and indeed it can, for believing in his existence is holding a convenient delusion which reconsiles the mysteries of life. There are no grounds for the claim of God's existence aside from the fact that it would make us capable of comprehending what would otherwise be unexplainable.
> 
> Most people say that claiming God's non-existence is just as foolish as claiming his existence. However I would beg to differ. God does exist in the mind's of humans but absolutely does not exist outside of anyone's mind unless the idea of God is meant to represent the (non-conscious) state of natural existence beyond our perception/comprehension. Of course the common conception of God has been anthropomorphized (associated with the human form and means of functioning) because man glorifies himself.


Again, you assume that god does not exist, go on to make a bunch of statements to that effect, and then conclude that god does not exist.



> Exclusive monotheistic beliefs in an anthropomorphized God are prideful, self-righteous, outspoken, human/self-glorifying, human/self-centered, and condusive of disharmony with the natural environment.


agreed.


----------



## toejam

what is there but emptiness in the pursuit of God as a metaphysical ultimate reality? as an antithesis to our own realities? an eternal, stable absolute in a universe of transience?

A God like this is contrary to everything we understand/experience as nature. And what have we to infer from, in the end, than our own subjectivities? Talk of a God that is external to our sensory awareness/existential being is meaningless:
"it is certain that knowledge of it [metaphysicalism] would be the most useless of all knowledge; more useless even than knowledge of chemical composition must be to a drowning sailor." - Friedrich Nietzsche

God is no personification ("It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image" - Ludwig Feuerbach), God is our universe and 'he' is ourselves because we are our universe. To look for meaning in an external realm/entity when the state of nature is inconstant, intangible singularity? When there is no internality/externality other than that created as an illusion of infantile self awareness? To seek that is to find emptiness.

peace :D


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

"God cannot be argued to not exist. You've given no more evidence than a religious person claiming to know about God. You assume that God does not exist, go on to make a bunch of statements to that effect, and then conclude that God does not exist." - Elemenohpee

True. Approaching the assertion/refutation of God through rational or logical arguments will not yield any validation. The only way in which one can attempt to prove or disprove God's existence is through the use of intuition.

I feel intuitively as though 'God' was an idea created by man to explain the facets of existence beyond our perception/comprehension. According to my subjective sense of intuition, God is nothing more than a delusion. In addition my intuition suggests to me that there was no origin of the universe and that the order which we perceive in the universe was not designed or created by a conscious creator.

Of course this has no more grounding than any argument for the existence of God, however I would argue that the intuitive argument which refutes God's existance is stronger than the intuitive argument that asserts it. Of course this brings into question whether any intuitive argument can be more or less strong than another since they are all subjective and relative to one's cultural lense.

But honestly, asserting that teleporting time travelling purple penguins with laser vision and snake ears exist has just as little grounding as refuting their existence but seriously now who would honestly believe in such a thing just because their existence can't be refuted?


----------



## redeemer

(The title of VibeTriveScribe's post) said:
			
		

> Response to the commonly accepted nonsense of "Redeemer"


Please explain what is nonsensical about my claim.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> If there is no evidence for something's existence, it cannot be argued to exist outside of human imagination.


True, and I've never said anything opposing this. I said you cannot establish a fact based on lack of evidence.

Whether this fact is the non-existance of God or the existance of God is irrelevant.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

"You cannot establish a fact based on lack of evidence. Whether this fact is the non-existance of God or the existance of God is irrelevant. Please explain what is nonsensical about my claim."

It is nonsensical to reserve judgment on the existence/nonexistence of invisible flying pink unicorns or teleporting time travelling purple penguins with laser vision. It is a fact that they do not exist on this planet. I know this by the fact that they are fantasy creatures created by the human imagination and it is foolish to consider that they might exist until it can be proven that they don't (which would be impossible without an omnipresent and omniscient consciousness).

The things which exist in reality are not things that humans imagined first and then stumbled upon later, they are things that humans perceived and then came up with symbols to represent and conceptualize about later. This argument is enough to prove that God doesn't exist and that anyone who ever claimed to perceive him was just misinterpreting natural phenomenon as God's presence. Obviously this is hard to swallow for rational/logical minded people, however logic is the science of being confident about being wrong and rational thinking can lead to irrational conclusions - hence my own in your eyes perhaps or yours in my eyes.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

*Refuting commonly accepted and deeply engrained nonsense*

It is a fact that God doesn't exist because God is not something that people perceived and then came up with a symbol for. God is an idea that people imagined and then claimed that his non-existence couldn't be proven after while at the same time admitting that his existence couldn't be proven either (since there never was any evidence for his existence to begin with).

The fact that people claim to know that God has a human form (or at least that humans are made in God's image) but admit that noone has ever or will ever be capable of perceiving/comprehending his essence - goes to show that it is nonsense all around.


----------



## toejam

i dont think anyone can begin to determine another entities subjective reality, or the validity of it. lets use those invisible penguins to demonstrate. if i have total faith in the existence of invisivble penguins, can cite observable evidence of their 'effects' upon particular environments i am thus inferring their existence from my subjective experience. subjective experience is non-transferable, thus you can say what you like about those invisible penguins, but they're real mate and until you experientially homogenize with me to prove otherwise it will stay that way.

incidentally, on the invisible penguin train, if you were to compare our elusive birds to God youll see its pretty much the same thing. more importantly, though, the invisible penguins/God, are never actually (and by definition can not be) experienced; their existence is inferred from observational analysis. so we find that our invisible penguin actually has no inherent meaning (lack of experiential subjectivity) because it is not experienced, so it (or God) may as well just be an invisible platypus.

or not exist at all...?


(vibe tribe are fuckin' sic btw :D)


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

"I dont think anyone can begin to determine another entities subjective reality, or the validity of it. Subjective experience is non-transferable. (Something I perceive subjectively is) real and until you experientially homogenize with me to prove otherwise it will stay that way."

True, one cannot ever even attempt to do so. However the rationality movement set out to do just so by attempting to establish an objective reality in which commonly perceived phenomena were considered empirical evidence for objectively real things or occurences. You have used one of the standards of rationalism by arguing that something cannot be proven to exist without empirical evidence for its existence and arguing that nothing can ever be proven not to exist, we can only infer that it has yet to be proven to exist.

"If I have total faith in the existence of invisible penguins and can cite observable evidence of their 'effects' upon particular environments I am thus inferring their existence from my subjective experience."

Attributing the effects of "something" to an unperceived entity is faulty science. Anyone could say that the entire universe is the effect of God. This is b/s. Causation cannot be inferred by merely observing the effects of a speculated cause.

"If you were to compare our elusive birds (invisible penguins) to God you'll see its pretty much the same thing."

Actually it was teleporting time-travelling penguins with laser-vision and invisible pink unicorns but w/e same difference - any fantasy creature produced by human imagination.

"The invisible penguins/God, are never actually (and by definition can not be) experienced; their existence is inferred from observational analysis. So we find that our invisible penguin actually has no inherent meaning (lack of experiential subjectivity) because it is not experienced, so it (or God) may as well just be an invisible platypus."

Right, but somehow Judeo-Christians (among others) feel it acceptable to claim that we were made in God's image. Even though noone has ever perceived God's appearance. This shows that the whole idea of God is an imaginary fantasy and not a product of perception and subsequent symbolic representation. Claiming that there is a God with an obscure form who is conscious and designed and created existence is still anthropomorphizing. The only claim that holds any validity is that God is meant to represent the realm of metaphysical and spiritual obscurity that beckons human curiosity. It is valid to say that the universe was not created by a conscious being of whom we were made in the image. It would be just as valid to assert that any imaginary fantasy creature lives invisibly and has fantasy powers the likes of which transcend any possible natural ability (ie laser vision or teleportation).

The commonly accepted and deeply engrained nonsense of which I speak is the confusion that rational thinking can create and the fact that deductive reasoning can lead to irrational conclusions. I study philosophical Taoism which utilizes the paradox to demonstrate the faults of logic and deductive reasoning. Intuition and sentiment are the groundwork of rationalism. Relativism is the foundation upon which universalism or rationalism functions. Hallucinations and delusions create a problem for some who wish to assert that there is a commonly perceived reality. However, rationalism has facillitated the unwillingness to let go of deeply engrained delusions such as the existence of God.


----------



## LouReed

I dont like the cut of yer' gip....


Which came first the chick or the egg?
All that matters are gods thoughts!?!
Who is to say this isnt the first universe?

You'll find the bible clearly states, in not so few words, that it dont matter anyway and you should live by your faith/knowledge and not by foresight/intellect.

In other words its merely a matter of comprehension.....


----------



## vegan

> You'll find the bible clearly states, in not so few words, that it dont matter anyway and you should live by your faith/knowledge and not by foresight/intellect.


so to SHATT's classic "the bible is right because it says so and since it's the word of god it can't be wrong" we can add the new "since by using your brain you'll obviously find out that the bible is full of nonsense, you must not use reasoning but only blind faith when reading it"


----------



## Jamshyd

Alpha: A hamster on a stationary wheel (you know, the kind they sell at pet shops) can go "infinitely" forward. 

Does this help? (for the sake of visual analogy)


----------



## toejam

VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> True, one cannot ever even attempt to do so. However the rationality movement set out to do just so by attempting to establish an objective reality in which commonly perceived phenomena were considered empirical evidence for objectively real things or occurences. You have used one of the standards of rationalism by arguing that something cannot be proven to exist without empirical evidence for its existence and arguing that nothing can ever be proven not to exist, we can only infer that it has yet to be proven to exist.



No, not at all. I have stated that we can not disprove the existence of an object that is external to ourselves that is percieved by another being. This is because any validation of that theory relies on subjective experience which is non-transferable and any communicative medium (eg, language) of said subjectivity is based on a system of absolute values (eg, logic/laws of stable attributes) that is inherently meaningless because it is entirely anti-natural; in the manner by which it is an antithesis to the transience that is the state of the universe. 



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> Attributing the effects of "something" to an unperceived entity is faulty science. Anyone could say that the entire universe is the effect of God. This is b/s. Causation cannot be inferred by merely observing the effects of a speculated cause.



Im afraid I can't agree here. The invisible penguins was originally a reference to God. The conceptual substance of the Christian God in a theological/philosophical sense (the validation of his existence through a means other than pure faith in historical events) is essentially based on Platonic dualism (originating in the works of Saint Augustine). Platonic dualism, of course, segregates existence into transient sensual subjectivity and the absolute metaphysical reality of the Form's realm (transcending into the Form of Forms; God). This unpercieved entity/realm is the invisible elephant.

Natural science (and consequently the modern scientific method) is the prodigial offspring of the Platonic/Christian dualism that gives rise to antithetical positivism; or rather is maintained by a system of stable values that are applied universally. While these values are not directly perceptible themselves, and do not exist inherently within the phenoumena they 'control', they are observed and inferred from the consensual collection of data.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

"We can not disprove the existence of an object (that is external to ourselves) that is percieved by another being."

According to an empiricist nothing can ever be disproven, it can only fail to be proven. According to a relativist proof is irrelevant because each individual's reality is subjective and perception (ie hallucination) is proof in itself. No matter what perspective one holds, noone is going to perceive invisible penguins unless they are hallucinating or having a psychotic episode. A relativist having the hallucination of an invisible penguin has proven their existence in his or her subjective reality. An empiricist however cannot infer that invisible penguins exist by simply citing what he or she considers the manifestations of invisible penguins; there must be evidence connecting an objectively established cause to an objectively established effect. Invisible penguins can never be objectively established because they are imaginary. The same goes for an anthropomorphized God.

"Any validation of that theory (objective reality) relies on subjective experience which is non-transferable and any communicative medium is based on a system of absolute values that is inherently meaningless because it is entirely unnatural; in the manner by which it is an antithesis to the transient state of the universe."

Agreed. Empiricism corrodes the poignance of subjectivity, it was founded with good intentions however - to put an end to the holy wars by establishing a non-denominational monotheistic world view which validates the existence of God through deductive reasoning. None the less, empiricism is a hoax because no reality lies outside of subjective experience. The idea of an objective reality only has relevance to a subjective beings and it can only be validated through subjective values and experiences. Empiricism is a perspective held by individuals who value establishing a world view restricted to common experience.

"The conceptual substance of the Christian God in a theological or philosophical sense (the validation of his existence through a means other than pure faith in historical events) is essentially based on Platonic dualism (originating in the works of Saint Augustine). Platonic dualism, of course, segregates existence into transient subjectivity and the absolute metaphysical reality. This unpercieved realm is God."

True, can we agree that an absolute metaphysical reality or form(s) only exists in the subjective realities of those who assert its existence? Being that an objective reality does not exist and is a fallacy, can it not be said that the confusion created by this fallacy led to the idea of God (since an objective reality could only be said to exist if there were an omniscient and omnipresent consciousness to perceive it)?

"Natural science (and consequently the modern scientific method) is the prodigial offspring of the Platonic dualism that gives rise to antithetical positivism; or rather is maintained by a system of stable values that are applied universally. While these values are not directly perceptible themselves, and do not exist inherently within the phenomena they 'control', they are observed and inferred from the consensual collection of data."

"Universal" truths, values, or principles are not inherent in the reality which we all perceive. They are learned interpretations of an ambiguous reality specific to given cultural lenses.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

God is imaginary. It can be proven that God doesn't exist by the fact that humans created the idea of God in order to reconsile philosophical difficulties. Reality is composed of things which we perceive and subsequently contrive symbols to represent. We do not imagine things and then later find them to exist, we perceive things and their qualities. Conceptualization is limited to the ideas of things and qualities which we perceive. Thus it is not surprising that our ancestors anthropomorphized God(s), being that the human condition was what people were most familiar with.


----------



## Turbo Monk

VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> Exclusive monotheistic beliefs in an anthropomorphized God are prideful, self-righteous, outspoken, human/self-glorifying, human/self-centered, and condusive of disharmony with the natural environment.



Faith in God stems from quite the contrary. 

The biggest inhibitor of faith in God is pride. It takes pride/ego loss to admit that there is a force/being/what-have-you having more intelligence & power than lil ol' me.

One who truly believes in God/Christ believes Christ is the only one who is righteous and the sacrifice for their personal sin. 

Who doesn't speak up for what they believe? You've typed quite a few words in this thread alone proclaiming your beliefs.

Giving credit and glory to God is self-glorifying how?

Faith in God/Christ makes one _others_-centered, putting someone else's needs above one's own.

Condusive of disharmony with the natural environment - please explain.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> The only way in which one can attempt to prove or disprove God's existence is through the use of intuition.



Do you understand everything there is to know about everything?

I admit I do not, but I understand enough to know that there is brilliance in creation - our universe & physical world.  My intuition tells me there is intelligence in life systems. My intuition tells me spontaneity cannot generate functioning, living organisms, let alone intelligence. My intuition tells me that time, in and of itself, can do nothing to a cell unless a.) energy and b.) intelligence are introduced to it.


----------



## B9

Happy christmas to all you philosophers.

zophen.


----------



## toejam

VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> An empiricist however cannot infer that invisible penguins exist by simply citing what he or she considers the manifestations of invisible penguins; there must be evidence connecting an objectively established cause to an objectively established effect. Invisible penguins can never be objectively established because they are imaginary. The same goes for an anthropomorphized God.



Just to emphasise my distance from empiricism, something does not exist (and is proven to not exist) unless it is experienced by the subjective reality of an individual. If one has faith in objective rationality/positive structures then this is unlikely to happen for the majority of common phenoumena. But if one has belief in the purposeless, impermanent, intangible nature of the universe then empirical structures cannot be maintained.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> The idea of an objective reality only has relevance to a subjective beings and it can only be validated through subjective values and experiences. Empiricism is a perspective held by individuals who value establishing a world view restricted to common experience.



I am aware of empirical philosophy, however I negate any form of dualistic thinking thus deny any application of empiricist structures to my thinking! Plus, there isn’t any wildly evident exclusivity/loyalty to either rationalist or empiricist camps present in the pre-Kantian philosopher’s works in my opinion anyway. The perception of a great conceptual battle is largely a modern academic illusion.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> True, can we agree that an absolute metaphysical reality or form(s) only exists in the subjective realities of those who assert its existence?



It too exists as an illusion and serves, now, only to inhibit the recreation of new values (because of its stable, anti-natural substance) and thus fasten its proponents into the paradigm of infantile consciousness of Self.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> Being that an objective reality does not exist and is a fallacy, can it not be said that the confusion created by this fallacy led to the idea of God (since an objective reality could only be said to exist if there were an omniscient and omnipresent consciousness to perceive it)?



For me the concepts of objectivity/antithesis/stability/inherent tangibility or meaning in the phenomena of the universe are all necessary constructs of infantile homo sapiens consciousness as it is presented with the new faculty of self-awareness/perception of a willing entity (‘I’ or ego) that is segregated from an external universe.



			
				VibeTribeScribe said:
			
		

> "Universal" truths, values, or principles are not inherent in the reality which we all perceive. They are learned interpretations of an ambiguous reality specific to given cultural lenses.


 
I don’t know if you were producing a summation of the paragraph you quoted, but that is pretty much exactly what I meant!


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

"Faith in God stems from quite the contrary"  Turbo Monk

Faith in the anthropomorphized God of any exclusive monotheistic religion that imposes its beliefs on others is not only prideful but it is self righteous. How can anyone argue that it is not?

"The biggest inhibitor of faith in God is pride. It takes pride/ego loss to admit that there is a force/being/what-have-you having more intelligence & power than lil ol' me."

True, a person can be prideful and stubborn, unwilling to submit to the will of a higher power (ie God/the legal system/family/etcetera); or a person can paradoxically be prideful and "humble" by submitting to the will of a higher power but asserting that everyone who doesn't will suffer eternal damnation and laying blame on others for not believing in the "universal" truths presented to man in "revelations". One might be humble in his/her personal life (submitting to the will of God) but prideful in his/her social life (self righteous and intolerant of other beliefs).

For one to avoid being prideful, he or she might engage in apatheism (holding no stance or an unwillingness to hold beliefs) or at least accept/respect beliefs which differ from his/her own. Otherwise an individual is claiming to know better than others and is basically boasting that he/she can show people the light. To an individual that has learned that all ideas were contrived by others through speculation and that nothing is universally true other than the latter, such nonsense (no disprespect intended) - imposing one's beliefs on others - is self righteous and borderline if not completely delusional in the case of those who believe exclusively in one anthropomorphized God but not another.

"One who truly believes in God/Christ believes Christ is the only one who is righteous and the sacrifice for their personal sin."

Even claiming this goes to show that Christian beliefs are self righteous. This is evident by the fact that you assert such narrow minded views and are unwilling to tolerate even the utterance of a differing view (ie hedonism). I would argue that everyone considers him/herself righteous by rationalizing his/her actions and doing what one was taught or considers right to do most of the time.

"Who doesn't speak up for what they believe? You've typed quite a few words in this thread alone proclaiming your beliefs."

It is truly impossible, I believe that beliefs counteract our receptivity to the way things actually are. This belief denies the fact that holding beliefs is part of the way humans are.

"Giving credit and glory to God is self-glorifying how?"

Because individuals give a public show if it and claim to have found the truth while asserting that others who do not give credit and glory to God should be ashamed. If an individual wishes not to glorify him/herself he/she will admit that he/she is confused and knows nothing. Even then an individual is glorifying his/hers lack of ignorance.

"Faith in God/Christ makes one others-centered, putting someone else's needs above one's own."

By imposing his/her beliefs on "heathens" and slowly eradicating every other culture but one's own. Selfish, prideful, and self righteous. Within the community of those who already practice the same religion however selflessness and compassion is valued. However, it is all to serve the best wishes of the individual who feels it best to be selfless. A truly selfless thing to do would be to help someone do something you don't want them to do, something that conflicts with your own moral beliefs. But "selfless" Christians will instead do "what is best for that individual" - by imposing his/her own moral judgments on that individual who is in the wrong and helping them find what they ought to do instead of what they want to.

"Condusive of disharmony with the natural environment - please explain."

Being ashamed of our carnal and natural desires and denying our impulses - this creates inner conflict and inner disharmony. A way that is condusive of harmony is to offer guidance as to how an individual can mediate his/her impulses with others in order to facillitate acting them out constructively. Trying to play God by practicing species elitism and enslaving "lower" animals and manipulating and exploiting land and the habitats of the lifeforms with which we share it. Judeo-Christians believe that humans are the most intelligent and powerful creatures on the Earth. They also feel as though we have the right to change the environment in ways that suit us. In fact we are the most foolish creatures on Earth because we pollute and exploit the resources which we rely upon. We are destroying Nature, even though we are completely dependent upon it. Humans are amongst the lowest creatures on Earth - parasites!

Easter Island can be seen as an analogy for our condition - The natives there chopped down all of the trees to make boats and huts and to roll their statues on and destroyed the ecosystem. They ran out of trees to make boats with and when they could no longer fish they fed upon eachother until they all devoured one another and could no longer reproduce.

By thinking that we are the most intelligent creatures we are securing our own demise. If we truly had foresight - as we claim to have exclusively, unlike any other creatures - we would establish a balance with the environment and sustain it by valuing conservation instead of expansion/progress.


----------



## VibeTribeScribe

*Challenging another persons subjective reality!*

Response to ToeJam

I was pretty sure that someone brought up the argument that God's existence can not be disproven. Perhaps I was misinterpreting the argument by assuming that the impossibility of providing empirical evidence for anythings non-existence was the grounds for such a claim. If this argument was being made by a relativist of sorts, can it be that God is fiction in my reality but an actual existing being in another persons reality? 

If another person asserts the existence of an anthropomorphized God in his or her own reality, I am still free to challenge such assertions and perhaps influence that persons perception of reality am I not? Of course, whether or not I have an influence depends on the other persons response to my argument and does not depend on how strong I feel the argument is. Thus, it ultimately comes down to persuasion and how convincing my arguments can be.

I would like to suggest that - just because an argument is convincing does not mean it is valid and ultimately what is true is really self evident but becoming receptive to that means casting aside ignorance and preconceptions that were grounded in misinterpretations of actuality or deception. Perhaps this is an impossible feat being that noone can escape his or her cultural and historical context. However I would argue that by reserving one's judgment, true receptivity can be accomplished. The way things are (metaphysically) is self evident to he or she who holds no stance and contests no one - (however this does create an epistemological problem).

If God created us in his image, how could we ever know this unless we experienced his presence? Even then, how could we know that he is not a shape-shifter or that his perceived presence was not just a 'mask' or illusion? Those who claim to know for certain of his form argue that it is known through either intuition or through the (exclusively valid) "revelations" given to man by God. 

How can it be that Christian revelations are valid but Jewish or Islamic revelations are invalid? Would a Christian argue that Jewish or Islamic revelations are grounded in delusions or hallucinations? Or would he or she argue that they are misinterpretations of God's word and are not valid because the inspired individuals were blined by their ignorance (ie faith in a misled religion)? If the latter is the case, how can any Christian assert that he or she has transcended all ignorance or that those who received revelations from God had transcended ignorance and so did not misintepret his message?

The belief in an anthropomorphized God is delusional to everyone who has not been inspired by revelations from God himself. Everyone else who has faith in an anthropomorphized God has faith in the subjective experiences of those who received revelations from God and thus holds belief in something that he or she has not experienced him or herself. Even those who have been inspired by the word of God suffer from self induced delusions and hallucinations because the idea of an anthropomorphized God is just that, an idea - and not a reality.

I could have faith in talking invisible unicorn pegasi but they are nothing more than imaginative, for my idea of them does not come from my experience of them, it comes from my imagination. Harboring beliefs in them can lead to self induced hallucinations and delusions, it is a psychological possibility. For example I might attribute the wind to their flight patterns and begin to hear their voices whisper in my ear. Until other people start to experience these phenomenon independent of my ranting about it this is obviously psychotic!

I give my sympathy to the hords of misled individuals out there who have succumb to psychosis as a result of having faith in insanity.


----------



## Survival0200

*If god exists, I have some questions*

I've been thinking if god exists, why did he make this world and people like we are now? If god exists, tell me why:

... we have to eat and drink? We might as well work without eating and drinking. With solar power for example.

... why do we have to breath? We wouldn't have to do that necessarily.

... why there are deceases? This world would be so much better without deceases and a lot of people would be happier.

... why people are selfish and mean? Why? Tell me that? Why do we have to make the people around us feel sorrow from time to time?

... why everyone can't be happy?

... why does there have to be wars and violence?

... why can't we spend our lives _just_ how we'd like to spend it?

... why god doesn't supply us with infinite supply of our favorite drug if we would want so?

... why can't we have everything we like?

... why can't everyone live as long as they want?

... why did god make us live in this planet?

Everything could be different.


----------



## keiths31

Pretty heavy question that has been asked by millions and answered by none.  I, for one, will not attempt to answer any of your points.  It is a matter of belief and faith.  If you choose to believe in God, then those questions need not an answer.  If you don't beleive in God, you still ain't gonna get an answer, but you are going to rack your brain trying to get some.


----------



## UnfortunateSquid

Simple answer: 'He' doesn't.


----------



## Jabberwocky

UnfortunateSquid said:
			
		

> Simple answer: 'He' doesn't.



Spot on.

It just isn't happening. Seriously, I can't waite until another group of hippies sit around and write a new book of crap and waite for gullible chickens to follow it. I'm going to stand and point and say "Haha you shits, if there is one God why can't there be two?".


----------



## Helios.

'why we have to eat and drink?'
Eve ate the apple.  They bacteria in your stomach and digestive tract will eat your body after you are dead.  

'why do we have to breathe?'
oxygen is necessary for the oxidation of food which gives us energy.

'why are there diseases?'
we live in an imperfect world.

'why are [some] ppl selfish and mean?'
b/c they choose to be.

'why can't everyone be happy?'
to tell the truth, they are as happy or as unhappy as they want to be.

'why do we have to have wars and violence?'
on a large scale, right wars arise between the battle between forces of good and of evil.  on a small scale, violence oftentimes arises from jealousy and other types of sin. 

'why can't we spend our lives like we want to spend them?'
who's stopping you?

'why doesn't god supply us with an unlimited supply of our favorite drug(s)?'
the money driven black market and big pharma interests, along with the problem of government intrusion into personal freedoms of choice, thwart that effort.

'why can't everyone live as long as they want?'
in this life, b/c 'Adam and Eve' ate the apple, caught diseases, violence and war occur, etc.
in the long term, they can.

'why did god make us live on this planet?'
lila.


----------



## Kilgore

Helios. said:
			
		

> 'why do we have to have wars and violence?'
> on a large scale, right wars arise between the battle between forces of good and of evil.  on a small scale, violence oftentimes arises from jealousy and other types of sin.



There is no good or evil. There are only sides. 



			
				Helios. said:
			
		

> 'why are there diseases?'
> we live in an imperfect world.



There is nothing imperfect about that. A bacterium gotta eat too, right? Is it our fault that flesh eating bacteria needs us to survive? Is it our fault that viruses need our body to replicate? They are perfect organisms in their own.


----------



## Helios.

Diseases are evil.


----------



## rowland2110

UnfortunateSquid said:
			
		

> Simple answer: 'He' doesn't.




Yes "she" does.


----------



## rowland2110

With all due respect survival, some of your questions make you sound like a 5 year old telling mommy or daddy that its "not fair".


----------



## Pegasus

rowland2110 said:
			
		

> With all due respect survival, some of your questions make you sound like a 5 year old telling mommy or daddy that its "not fair".


"With all due respect, I'm going to insult you."


----------



## Kilgore

Helios. said:
			
		

> Diseases are evil.



Maybe to you... But to bacteria they are not. To bacteria they need us to live, same goes for viruses. So again, it is all about which side you are on. 

If you were a bacteria and and came in contact with antibiotics would you call the antibiotics evil?


----------



## ford442

you have to make sacrifices if you're going to live as conscious entities - along with the gift of life comes the price of some suffering...

and as far as i can tell - god is not just a happy-go-lucky guy..  he's more like a mentally-challenged infant i think...  all sorts of disturbing things get him off...


----------



## Helios.

Some bacteria are pathogenic, some beneficial.

'life comes in phases take the good with the bad (1).'
Certainly, dukha/suffering exists as a part of life.

'The Goddess is calling for an honoring of that which she allows to be created through the core history of the blood, and those who own her planet are learning about love (2).' [depending on which 'side' your own, I guess] 

(1) the beastie boys
(2) paul oakenfold


----------



## Kilgore

Helios. said:
			
		

> Some bacteria are pathogenic, some beneficial.
> 
> 'life comes in phases take the good with the bad (1).'
> Certainly, dukha/suffering exists as a part of life.
> 
> 'The Goddess is calling for an honoring of that which she allows to be created through the core history of the blood, and those who own her planet are learning about love (2).' [depending on which 'side' your own, I guess]
> 
> (1) the beastie boys
> (2) paul oakenfold



I am not talking about pathanogentic, beneficial, gram positive, or gram negative. I am not talking about if a bacteria is only good if it helps you.

I am talking about the fact that if you were the bacteria would you be a bad organism if you used another oganism to feed on even if it was bad for the host?


----------



## ninjadanslarbretabar

"If god exists, I have some questions "

well, If god exists, then ask HIM !


----------



## Tokey-tokerson

Being a christian I will just say that I couldn't really give a shit.


----------



## Dyno_oz

IMHO, things are the way they are for a reason.


----------



## Kilgore

And what reason is that? Why do priests molest little boys? Why do little kids die in car accidents? Shouldn't they first grow up and experience life before dying?


----------



## the seeker

Cause this was how God desired for this manifestation to work and as for why there are so many bad things its because man fell from grace and is now trapped in a limited sense of identity.


----------



## shoe70

Kilgore said:
			
		

> I am not talking about pathanogentic, beneficial, gram positive, or gram negative. I am not talking about if a bacteria is only good if it helps you.
> 
> I am talking about the fact that if you were the bacteria would you be a bad organism if you used another oganism to feed on even if it was bad for the host?


If you were a bacteria you wouldn't know what's good or bad. You'd simply eat because it was there, it's only us humans and our amazing brains that are able to lump things into such arbitrary categories and then use them to prove/disprove some mythical being that is also the creation of that humans mind. 

When people say God, I think 'existance/universe/multiverse/what-have-you'. Personally, I think it's stupid to personify God as this separate enitity that sits there and looks at everything and judges your actions. It might be something you tell your kid when he asks about where we go when we die (cause let's face it, telling them that "you just disappear" isn't a good idea, you don't want your kid depressed at age 4 because his cat 'disappeared') but in the long run it's just silly.

"Thou art God" - Mike from Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land'
"God is an abyss. I am an abyss" - Osho?

those two sum it up pretty well, I think.


----------



## Pegasus

shoe70 said:
			
		

> It might be something you tell your kid when he asks about where we go when we die (cause let's face it, telling them that "you just disappear" isn't a good idea, you don't want your kid depressed at age 4 because his cat 'disappeared')


I disagree with that.  The child will be depressed anyways, and it's better not to tell your children things that you don't even believe in (IMO).  They need to learn.


----------



## shoe70

BollWeevil said:
			
		

> I disagree with that.  The child will be depressed anyways, and it's better not to tell your children things that you don't even believe in (IMO).  They need to learn.


Let's face it, unless you're pushing your beliefs on your children constantly and taking them to church, they won't become brainwashed with this idea. Plus, when they get older and can understand this stuff, you can have an actual discussion about it all with them.


----------



## Dyno_oz

Most of the questions so far are asking "Why do we suffer ?"

We suffer because...

... sometimes our actions warrant it

... we are attached to impermanent things - like our mind, body, posessions and desires 

... we are ignorant and generally don't see things how they truely are

IMO


----------



## Pegasus

shoe70 said:
			
		

> Let's face it, unless you're pushing your beliefs on your children constantly and taking them to church, they won't become brainwashed with this idea. Plus, when they get older and can understand this stuff, you can have an actual discussion about it all with them.


I was just saying that I disagree.  When I have children (granted I live that long), I plan on telling them that I nor anyone else knows what happens after death.


----------



## sassylx

I dont personally believe in god,
but i'd say that if he did exist,
he made humans autonomous for freedom
its how we chose to exploit that that has made us teh way we are today.


----------



## shoe70

BollWeevil said:
			
		

> I was just saying that I disagree.  When I have children (granted I live that long), I plan on telling them that I nor anyone else knows what happens after death.


No, I get it, this's my opinion, that's yours, etc. etc. I was just elaborating on what I said earlier.


----------



## Helios.

Have you ever read The Tibetan Book of the Dead?


----------



## Pegasus

^Who are you asking?  I haven't...


----------



## Kilgore

shoe70 said:
			
		

> If you were a bacteria you wouldn't know what's good or bad. You'd simply eat because it was there, it's only us humans and our amazing brains that are able to lump things into such arbitrary categories and then use them to prove/disprove some mythical being that is also the creation of that humans mind.



You don't really know that. To a bacteria the human body may be the universe. To a maggot the apple and the carcase might be he universe. To a human the Earth is our universe because we really don't know much about the rest of space. 

So basically by being humans it doesn't make us special. 

Also, to a fanatical muslim, he is good, we are bad. To a US citizen (non radical left) we are good and the radical muslim is bad. So you see, it is all about SIDES. But to a radical leftists the US and the rest of the West is bad.


----------



## New

Why do people need reasons? It's not like anything would change if you got an underlying reason other than the ones science has already come up with. But since you asked, I'll give you an overreaching, end-all be-all answer to the universe -or- multiverse that even I can understand.


Shit Happens. Deal with it.


----------



## Akoto

Survival0200 said:
			
		

> I've been thinking if god exists, why did he make this world and people like we are now? If god exists, tell me why:
> 
> ... we have to eat and drink? We might as well work without eating and drinking. With solar power for example.
> 
> ... why do we have to breath? We wouldn't have to do that necessarily.
> 
> ... why there are deceases? This world would be so much better without deceases and a lot of people would be happier.
> 
> ... why people are selfish and mean? Why? Tell me that? Why do we have to make the people around us feel sorrow from time to time?
> 
> ... why everyone can't be happy?
> 
> ... why does there have to be wars and violence?
> 
> ... why can't we spend our lives _just_ how we'd like to spend it?
> 
> ... why god doesn't supply us with infinite supply of our favorite drug if we would want so?
> 
> ... why can't we have everything we like?
> 
> ... why can't everyone live as long as they want?
> 
> ... why did god make us live in this planet?
> 
> Everything could be different.




All of your questions can be summed up with one other question: Why not?, or even, Why the why?

You are thinking of God as a perfect being capable of giving everybody everything they want, when really that makes no sence at all because then there would be no reason to create it all in the first place.

Personally I like to think of God-the-entity as a mind very much like our own, asking all the same questions that we are. The only real difference is that God doesnt have an outside world, which is why he needs us because a being can never understand itself completly from within its own system. Otherwise it would just "be".


----------



## staypuft

god is dead


----------



## Akoto

^oh crap! someone should tell the pope


----------



## Kilgore

No1 can really talk to God. But they can talk to Pope which is the closest thing to God.

Well, n/m. They can talk to "God" but they won't ever get an answer back. But if they talk to Pope or a priest or some other mofo then they will get an answer back.


----------



## Revrent_mike

Here's a thought.

Disclaimer: If God is God and truly exists outside of our universe, then He is obviously of a different nature than us and speculation about His thoughts and feelings is almost ludicrous since we have no way of knowing and even if we did, we have no way of knowing that He would think and feel anything like us mortal beings.

That said, suppose God exists and created us in His image and knows what He is doing and is omnipotent or all-powerful so that nothing happens that He is not aware of and could theoretically control or stop.

Why would He then put us in what seems to be such a deplorable circumstance? How can He know of our suffering without putting an end to it and still claim He loves us?

Maybe He needs to prove His love for us even more . . . kind of like when someone saves the life of another and they are forever grateful.  Maybe God's thinking goes something like this, "They won't believe Me and the don't trust Me.  I will cause them to think they are stuck in the most tortuous reality, thinking that they have no escape but death, and that even then they face an eternity of even greater suffering.  In short, I will make them think it is impossible to escape.  And then I will do the impossible and save them.  And when they return to Me, they will understand that it is all over and was all done for their sake and that their new-found eternal bliss was dependent on the pruning they received through their short stint on earth."

Kind of like a parent who sends their child to their room to wallow in guilt and self loathing for a while before finally offering them mercy and forgiveness for the wrong they have done.

Just a thought.
Mike


----------



## GenericMind

Revrent_mike said:
			
		

> Here's a thought.
> 
> Disclaimer: If God is God and truly exists outside of our universe, then He is obviously of a different nature than us and speculation about His thoughts and feelings is almost ludicrous since we have no way of knowing and even if we did, we have no way of knowing that He would think and feel anything like us mortal beings.
> 
> That said, suppose God exists and created us in His image and knows what He is doing and is omnipotent or all-powerful so that nothing happens that He is not aware of and could theoretically control or stop.
> 
> Why would He then put us in what seems to be such a deplorable circumstance? How can He know of our suffering without putting an end to it and still claim He loves us?
> 
> Maybe He needs to prove His love for us even more . . . kind of like when someone saves the life of another and they are forever grateful.  Maybe God's thinking goes something like this, "They won't believe Me and the don't trust Me.  I will cause them to think they are stuck in the most tortuous reality, thinking that they have no escape but death, and that even then they face an eternity of even greater suffering.  In short, I will make them think it is impossible to escape.  And then I will do the impossible and save them.  And when they return to Me, they will understand that it is all over and was all done for their sake and that their new-found eternal bliss was dependent on the pruning they received through their short stint on earth."
> 
> Kind of like a parent who sends their child to their room to wallow in guilt and self loathing for a while before finally offering them mercy and forgiveness for the wrong they have done.
> 
> Just a thought.
> Mike



I don't follow that reasoning at all. We're talking about an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, perfect diety who can create infinitely complex universes on a whim. He wouldn't need to construct any elaborate scenarios to convince us of anything, ever. He would just will it and it would be so. It would be so undeniably so that it would be accepted by every human being in the universe.

Richard Carier says it better. Tell me what you think about this quote from one of his papers Mike:



> If God wants something from me, he would tell me. He wouldn't leave someone else to do this, as if an infinite being were short on time. And he would certainly not leave fallible, sinful humans to deliver an endless plethora of confused and contradictory messages. God would deliver the message himself, directly, to each and every one of us, and with such clarity as the most brilliant being in the universe could accomplish. We would all hear him out and shout "Eureka!" So obvious and well-demonstrated would his message be. It would be spoken to each of us in exactly those terms we would understand. And we would all agree on what that message was. Even if we rejected it, we would all at least admit to each other, "Yes, that's what this God fellow told me."[2]
> 
> Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.
> 
> Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. But for reasons I'll explore later, such "added elements" are never worthy of belief unless independently confirmed: you have to know they are true. You can't just "claim" they are true. Truth is not invented. It can only be discovered. Otherwise, Christianity is just a hypothesis that has yet to find sufficient confirmation in actual evidence.
> 
> Be that as it may. Though "maybe, therefore probably" is not a logical way to arrive at any belief, let's assume the Christian can somehow "prove" (with objective evidence everyone can agree is relevant and true) that we have this power or God has this desire. Even on that presumption, there are unsolvable problems with this "additional" hypothesis. Right from the start, it fails to explain why believers disagree. The fact that believers can't agree on the content of God's message or desires also refutes the theory that he wants us to be clear on these things. This failed prediction cannot be explained away by any appeal to free will--for these people have chosen to hear God, and not only to hear him, but to accept Jesus Christ as the shepherd of their very soul. So no one can claim these people chose not to hear God. Therefore, either God is telling them different things, or there is no God. Even if there is a God, but he is deliberately sowing confusion, this contradicts what Christianity predicts to be God's desire, which entails Christianity is the wrong religion. Either way, Christianity is false.
> 
> So this theory doesn't work. It fails to predict what we actually observe. But even considering atheists like me, this "ad hoc" excuse still fails to save Christianity from the evidence. When I doubted the Big Bang theory, I voiced the reasons for my doubts but continued to pursue the evidence, frequently speaking with several physicists who were "believers." Eventually, they presented all the logic and evidence in terms I understood, and I realized I was wrong: the Big Bang theory is well-supported by the evidence and is at present the best explanation of all the facts by far. Did these physicists violate my free will? Certainly not. I chose to pursue the truth and hear them out. So, too, I and countless others have chosen to give God a fair hearing--if only he would speak. I would listen to him even now, at this very moment. Yet he remains silent. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that I am "choosing" not to hear him. And therefore, the fact that he still does not speak refutes the hypothesis. Nothing about free will can save the theory here.


----------



## Manifespo

Helios, are we just self organizing patterns 
creating ourselves for the purpose of 
structuring the energy/matter of this graveyard universe 
for easier digestion by higher beings?

Lila the divine play of gods ye are gods 
Sex and nuclear bombs are the ultimate play of us techno-gods.
Your Play relies on domination within a set of rules set by 
the rule-makers of this realm (techno-gods).
We squash flies but humans degrade themselves. 
We are not yet perfect systems, because we age and die
We cannot be gods because we cannot create anything

We might imagine ourselves as gods in relation 
to unthinking dogs insects bacteria plants
and to be sure, existence is the requirement of being
and thought is the primitive proto-medium of godhead
but we are only at 0.71 on the Kardashev scale, which measures the amount 
of energy usage by a civilization- we are infants beginning to develop self integrated global consciousness through this electronic communications medium
Level One is using all the energy available on the home planet- Terra
Level Two is using all the energy from the home phusion source- Sol
Level Three
Level Four
Level Five
Level Six
Level Seven- Well its all on wikipedia. 
God is learning with us, because we create anew for him. 
Maybe God is the Omniversity.
is the ultimate god just an unbelievably ancient civilization
are we the simulation of an ultrapowerful being
are we the body of an ultrapower being


----------



## Manifespo

http://www.lila.info/

http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/man-nature_union_in_hindu_meta.htm#Lila


----------



## SexWivMusic

Kilgore said:
			
		

> No1 can really talk to God. But they can talk to Pope which is the closest thing to God.
> 
> Well, n/m. They can talk to "God" but they won't ever get an answer back. But if they talk to Pope or a priest or some other mofo then they will get an answer back.



Disagree. God has spoken 2 me & speaks to many. Just because he doesnt speak to you doesnt mean that God doesnt speak to noone.


----------



## Kilgore

And how exactly has God spoken to you?


----------



## staypuft

SexWivMusic said:
			
		

> Disagree. God has spoken 2 me & speaks to many. Just because he doesnt speak to you doesnt mean that God doesnt speak to noone.



auditory halucinations are fucken awsome, eh?


----------



## elemenohpee

Revrent_mike said:
			
		

> Here's a thought.
> 
> Disclaimer: If God is God and truly exists outside of our universe, then He is obviously of a different nature than us and speculation about His thoughts and feelings is almost ludicrous since we have no way of knowing and even if we did, we have no way of knowing that He would think and feel anything like us mortal beings.


How do you reconcile this with the bible, which shows god being angry, pleased, etc.?


> That said, suppose God exists and created us in His image and knows what He is doing and is omnipotent or all-powerful so that nothing happens that He is not aware of and could theoretically control or stop.
> 
> Why would He then put us in what seems to be such a deplorable circumstance? How can He know of our suffering without putting an end to it and still claim He loves us?
> 
> Maybe He needs to prove His love for us even more . . . kind of like when someone saves the life of another and they are forever grateful.  Maybe God's thinking goes something like this, "They won't believe Me and the don't trust Me.  I will cause them to think they are stuck in the most tortuous reality, thinking that they have no escape but death, and that even then they face an eternity of even greater suffering.  In short, I will make them think it is impossible to escape.  And then I will do the impossible and save them.  And when they return to Me, they will understand that it is all over and was all done for their sake and that their new-found eternal bliss was dependent on the pruning they received through their short stint on earth."


That's just downright manipulative.  If we were already in this horrible situation and god stepped in to save us, then we would be right to love him.  This is like your first example of someone saving anothers life.  But what if I put that same person in harms way, for the purpose of saving them and therefore winning their affection?


> Kind of like a parent who sends their child to their room to wallow in guilt and self loathing for a while before finally offering them mercy and forgiveness for the wrong they have done.


I don't think (at least I hope) that's not the reason parents send kids to their room.  Getting sent to your room is a punishment, meant to discourage whatever behavior triggered it.


----------



## Helios.

Why are we in this horrible situation?  Original sin, lack of faith, miscomphrehension, ill intent, etc.  God can speak to you without using voices.

Revrent_mike makes some good points except that God has nothing to prove.

Kilgore, it's not about SIDES; it's about angles.


----------



## DarthMom

noone can answer these questions for you survival, you need to figure it out on your own.


----------



## DarthMom

staypuft said:
			
		

> auditory halucinations are fucken awsome, eh?


it isn't always auditory


----------



## ninjadanslarbretabar

> god is dead - staypuft


...
"You see stars that clear have been dead for years
But the idea just lives on" - Bright Eyes


----------



## DarthMom

staypuft said:
			
		

> god is dead


 we don't know that for a fact, though we are certain nietzsche is

-signed avid agnostic


----------



## alasdairm

Revrent_mike said:
			
		

> Disclaimer: If God is God and truly exists outside of our universe, then He is obviously of a different nature than us and speculation about His thoughts and feelings is almost ludicrous since we have no way of knowing and even if we did, we have no way of knowing that He would think and feel anything like us mortal beings.


perhaps. i tend to think of god as a moving target and this existence outside of our universe or understanding is necessary.

the christian religion is basically a powerful meme. in order for the meme to survive, god can't be defined - he needs to be flexible enough to respond to any challenge and a definition would limit that.

if somebody comes up with a powerful argument against the idea of god, just move the goalposts slightly. again.

but the bible says this... you're interpreting it too literally.

but the bible says that... you're not interpreting it literally enough,

i'l believe in god when he shows me a simple miracle.... that's not how it works. you cant' test god - you have to believe, then you'll see.

it's simple, frustrating as hell and brilliant.

alasdair


----------



## SexWivMusic

Kilgore said:
			
		

> And how exactly has God spoken to you?



It isnt an audible voice. It's hard to explain how i heard God. Pictures of words is prolly the best way 2 explain it. God has only spoken to me twice. First time i was singing a christian (Hillsong) song & the Holy Spirit said: "I need you to" & then 2nd time was when i needed help with something so i asked God for the help & he said: "I will".


----------



## shoe70

Kilgore said:
			
		

> You don't really know that. To a bacteria the human body may be the universe. To a maggot the apple and the carcase might be he universe. To a human the Earth is our universe because we really don't know much about the rest of space.
> 
> So basically by being humans it doesn't make us special.


I understand that, the whole thing was kinda tongue-in-cheek. Obviously, just because we have the ability to categorize things, doesn't make them inherently so.



> Kind of like a parent who sends their child to their room to wallow in guilt and self loathing for a while before finally offering them mercy and forgiveness for the wrong they have done.


I think the flaw with that idea is that you're assuming that God thinks like a human (or even that he thinks at all. after all, thought is a largely human ability).



> Excuses don't fly. The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. That is clearly a failed prediction. A failed prediction means a false theory. Therefore, Christianity is false.


I'm not a fan of Christianity at all, but I would say they are more misguided than false. There are good ideas in any religion, it is the way they go about presenting these ideas to the non-believers that kind of takes them off track. I think if they just followed their own advice, forgave everyone, and turned the other cheek, the world would be a better place. But they're just human too, so can you blame them if they see things a certain way?



> It isnt an audible voice. It's hard to explain how i heard God. Pictures of words is prolly the best way 2 explain it. God has only spoken to me twice. First time i was singing a christian (Hillsong) song & the Holy Spirit said: "I need you to" & then 2nd time was when i needed help with something so i asked God for the help & he said: "I will".


They'll call it schizophrenia but I say to hell with them.


----------



## alasdairm

SexWivMusic said:
			
		

> First time i was singing a christian (Hillsong) song & the Holy Spirit said: "I need you to"


god needs you to what?

alasdair


----------



## Kilgore

Helios. said:
			
		

> Kilgore, it's not about SIDES; it's about angles.



So what angle would a radical Muslim view the US from?



			
				SexWivMusic said:
			
		

> It isnt an audible voice. It's hard to explain how i heard God. Pictures of words is prolly the best way 2 explain it. God has only spoken to me twice. First time i was singing a christian (Hillsong) song & the Holy Spirit said: "I need you to" & then 2nd time was when i needed help with something so i asked God for the help & he said: "I will".



That is not very convincing to someone who wants solid evidence.


----------



## DarthMom

alasdairm said:
			
		

> god needs you to what?
> 
> alasdair


i am guessing proslytizing on a drug forum.


----------



## alasdairm

Kilgore said:
			
		

> That is not very convincing to someone who wants solid evidence.


christians don't need solid evidence as they have faith.

alasdair


----------



## Kilgore

Yea, how the hell can I argue with that? I mean damn. What if the pope says to them that they won't die if they jump off of a building because God will protect them?


----------



## alasdairm

Kilgore said:
			
		

> Yea, how the hell can I argue with that?


qed

alasdair


----------



## Kilgore

qed? wats qed?


----------



## Manifespo

wikipedia:
Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally, "which was to be demonstrated"). In simple terms, its use is to indicate that something has been definitively proven.

Warning:
Don't Drink and Derive!!


----------



## SexWivMusic

alasdairm said:
			
		

> god needs you to what?
> 
> alasdair



Not sure. Never told me the rest. I guess if i want to know i'll have to do what Matthew 6:33 says.


----------



## michael

maybe you should ask him instead.


----------



## DarthMom

no according to swm, he can't ask, as matthew 6:33 says it will come when God wants to tell him, his god is only a one way communication apparently


----------



## alasdairm

SexWivMusic said:
			
		

> Not sure. Never told me the rest. I guess if i want to know i'll have to do what Matthew 6:33 says.


that doesn't make any sense to me at all. surely "_these things_" referred to in 33 are the material things described in 32: food, drink, clothing.

in what sense is matthew 6:33 giving guidance on what god needs you to do?

please don't quote scripture at me. if you are able, please take a moment to think for yourself and draw a line between these two apparently unconnected ideas.

alasdair


----------



## Tr6ai0ls4

I do not know whether there is a god.. but IMO, those are all useless questions because if god exists in the traditional all powerfull, all knowing sense, then the anwser is simple, you wouldn't understand if god tried to explain it, so dont worry about any of that stuff, just trust that god knows what god is doing..the end.. it basically comes down to whether or not you want to believe.


----------



## alasdairm

^ while i agree with that in principle, i think the problem arises not with the concept of god but what (certain) christians then do in his name.

alasdair


----------



## SexWivMusic

alasdairm said:
			
		

> that doesn't make any sense to me at all. surely "_these things_" referred to in 33 are the material things described in 32: food, drink, clothing.
> 
> in what sense is matthew 6:33 giving guidance on what god needs you to do?
> 
> please don't quote scripture at me. if you are able, please take a moment to think for yourself and draw a line between these two apparently unconnected ideas.
> 
> alasdair



42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. *43Why is my language not clear to you?* *Because you are unable to hear what I say.* 44You belong to your father,* the devil*, and you want to carry out *your fathers desire*. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, *for there is no truth in him*. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don't you believe me? 47He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."


----------



## alasdairm

i guessed you missed the bit where i wrote: "_please don't quote scripture at me. if you are able, please take a moment to think for yourself and draw a line between these two apparently unconnected ideas._".

the post was only three paragraphs long. it's the third paragraph...



alasdair


----------



## New

Shit, I WISH I had that man's ability to believe whatever a book arrogantly named the "Good News" told me. It would make morality a lot easier. I mean, why worry about what you feel comfortable doing as long as "God" told you it was right?


P.S. Being rewareded in the afterlife is teh weaksauce.


----------



## DarthMom

alasdairm said:
			
		

> i guessed you missed the bit where i wrote: "_please don't quote scripture at me. if you are able, please take a moment to think for yourself and draw a line between these two apparently unconnected ideas._".
> 
> the post was only three paragraphs long. it's the third paragraph...
> 
> 
> 
> alasdair


when scripture is quoted, i like to remind the quoter that even the devil can use scripture to suit his needs. i have said it ad nauseum on here, but it deserves to be repeated every damn time. 

basically swm is trying to tell you that you do not understand what is being said because you do not carry the holy spirit.


----------



## DarthMom

New said:
			
		

> Shit, I WISH I had that man's ability to believe whatever a book arrogantly named the "Good News" told me. It would make morality a lot easier. I mean, why worry about what you feel comfortable doing as long as "God" told you it was right?



It is a fine thing to establish one’s own religion in one’s heart, not to be dependent on tradition and second-hand ideals. Life will seem to you, later, not a lesser, but a greater thing.
    -D.H. Lawrence


----------



## Kilgore

New said:
			
		

> Shit, I WISH I had that man's ability to believe whatever a book arrogantly named the "Good News" told me. It would make morality a lot easier. I mean, why worry about what you feel comfortable doing as long as "God" told you it was right?
> 
> 
> P.S. Being rewareded in the afterlife is teh weaksauce.



Being promised pussy in the after life is even weaker. But if it was true and I was certain that I would get pussy in heaven I would definitely convert to Islam. I mean damn, what man would refuse 72 virgins?


----------



## I Liquor All Night

Faith in answers 

he leaves it to us to do what we do with what we have, just like a parent he gave us life but its ultimalty upto us what we do with it .

There is no Book that says everything u do till your dead, we write the pages of our own biography with the actions we take.


----------



## Tr6ai0ls4

alasdairm said:
			
		

> ^ while i agree with that in principle, i think the problem arises not with the concept of god but what (certain) christians then do in his name.
> 
> alasdair



I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How is this related to the original questions?


----------



## MaXaM

God exists if you believe in god.  Science and religion are parallel, they will never meet, they will never be able to explain why one another exist.  

There is spirituality, which is BELIEF in god, it cannot be proven or disproven, it doesnt need to be.  That is because it is something very personal that is inside each individuals head.

Then there is science, which is what to most is proven by facts and measurements, etc.  Science is an explanation for people that believe in logic.

Does it matter whether it is true?  

Life is all about what you believe.


----------



## Dyno_oz

It's funny how we view the supreme - we project our own limitations onto it.

Maybe the supreme wishes to be hidden and only reveal itself every now and then to show us the way - via the words of prophets and holy men.

A being (or beings) with a will free from all obstructions would have no problem hiding themselves  via psychic powers.


----------



## IdleScience

He doesn't exist......... yet


----------



## technix

Helios. said:
			
		

> 'why we have to eat and drink?'
> Eve ate the apple.  They bacteria in your stomach and digestive tract will eat your body after you are dead.
> 
> 'why do we have to breathe?'
> oxygen is necessary for the oxidation of food which gives us energy.
> 
> 'why are there diseases?'
> we live in an imperfect world.
> 
> 'why are [some] ppl selfish and mean?'
> b/c they choose to be.
> 
> 'why can't everyone be happy?'
> to tell the truth, they are as happy or as unhappy as they want to be.
> 
> 'why do we have to have wars and violence?'
> on a large scale, right wars arise between the battle between forces of good and of evil.  on a small scale, violence oftentimes arises from jealousy and other types of sin.
> 
> 'why can't we spend our lives like we want to spend them?'
> who's stopping you?
> 
> 'why doesn't god supply us with an unlimited supply of our favorite drug(s)?'
> the money driven black market and big pharma interests, along with the problem of government intrusion into personal freedoms of choice, thwart that effort.
> 
> 'why can't everyone live as long as they want?'
> in this life, b/c 'Adam and Eve' ate the apple, caught diseases, violence and war occur, etc.
> in the long term, they can.
> 
> 'why did god make us live on this planet?'
> lila.




because adam and eve ate an apple? cmon , if you honestly believe that you are a complete moron


----------



## DarthMom

Dyno_oz said:
			
		

> It's funny how we view the supreme - we project our own limitations onto it.


i couldn't agree more, god is totally anthropomorphocized, and the avg xtian doesn't realize it


----------



## Medatripper Tates

Dyno_oz said:
			
		

> It's funny how we view the supreme - we project our own limitations onto it.
> 
> Maybe the supreme wishes to be hidden and only reveal itself every now and then to show us the way - via the words of prophets and holy men.
> 
> the supreme will reveal itself when we are receptive
> 
> A being (or beings) with a will free from all obstructions would have no problem hiding themselves  via psychic powers.



exactly.  the supreme will reveal itself when we are receptive and when all barriers which prevent us from being receptive vanish.


----------



## Manifespo

http://www.iawwai.com/TruthBehindReligion.htm

" 'Everyone is God' is the Common truth behind all World Religion"


----------



## Portillo

Survival0200 said:
			
		

> I've been thinking if god exists, why did he make this world and people like we are now? If god exists, tell me why:
> 
> ... we have to eat and drink? We might as well work without eating and drinking. With solar power for example.
> 
> ... why do we have to breath? We wouldn't have to do that necessarily.
> 
> ... why there are deceases? This world would be so much better without deceases and a lot of people would be happier.
> 
> ... why people are selfish and mean? Why? Tell me that? Why do we have to make the people around us feel sorrow from time to time?
> 
> ... why everyone can't be happy?
> 
> ... why does there have to be wars and violence?
> 
> ... why can't we spend our lives _just_ how we'd like to spend it?
> 
> ... why god doesn't supply us with infinite supply of our favorite drug if we would want so?
> 
> ... why can't we have everything we like?
> 
> ... why can't everyone live as long as they want?
> 
> ... why did god make us live in this planet?
> 
> Everything could be different.



God would say to you that mans life is short and filled with problems.


----------



## Portillo

Survival0200 said:
			
		

> I've been thinking if god exists, why did he make this world and people like we are now? If god exists, tell me why:
> 
> ... we have to eat and drink? We might as well work without eating and drinking. With solar power for example.
> 
> ... why do we have to breath? We wouldn't have to do that necessarily.
> 
> ... why there are deceases? This world would be so much better without deceases and a lot of people would be happier.
> 
> ... why people are selfish and mean? Why? Tell me that? Why do we have to make the people around us feel sorrow from time to time?
> 
> ... why everyone can't be happy?
> 
> ... why does there have to be wars and violence?
> 
> ... why can't we spend our lives _just_ how we'd like to spend it?
> 
> ... why god doesn't supply us with infinite supply of our favorite drug if we would want so?
> 
> ... why can't we have everything we like?
> 
> ... why can't everyone live as long as they want?
> 
> ... why did god make us live in this planet?
> 
> Everything could be different.



I bumped this thread because i started thinking about it recently and decided to search for it.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Portillo, let me take this opportunity to say I admire the way you've mellowed out immensely since your early BL days, but have not given up your faith in the process.


----------



## Portillo

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Portillo, let me take this opportunity to say I admire the way you've mellowed out immensely since your early BL days, but have not given up your faith in the process.



MyDoorsAreOpen youve been on my back since i got here...   P.S Whatever happened to "zorn"?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^^^ zorn is still around. He just posted in the thread about M theory and tangible entities. He's one of those people who barely ever says anything, but when he does, it's something solid that can't be fucked with, and everybody listens.


----------



## B9

I don't think God posts in P & S that much.

Maybe he uses a diferent username tho ?

A poll on which username is most likely to be God ( posing as mortal) would be good fun & extremely interesting.

Choosing from the top ten posters in P & S over the last quarter.

Just a passing thought.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^^^ Capital thought old chap. I nominate knight_marshall, wherever he ran off to.


----------



## Rod-Everrard

B9 said:
			
		

> I don't think God posts in P & S that much.
> 
> .



:D 

Isnt God the only person that posts in P&S?


----------



## BurnOneDown

I think the idea of God as an identity kind of silly. It's just a way to make the eternal essence of existence significant to humans.

Religion is just so egocentric. Obviously, animals couldn't take part in such an idea. To move on to an afterlife means that there has to be a conception of self. So to believe in religion one would have to believe that at some point humans evolved a divinity trait, which (as stupid as it is to hypothesize) wouldn't be advantageous towards survival in any way. The fact is that eternal essence isn't something that can evolve in a biological organism because it goes beyond biological existence. I guess that is the main reason that there is such a conviction in religious rejection of evolution.

So i think the main question would be:

At one point did humans evolve an eternal nature?

But that contradicts all religious belief anyway.


----------



## B9

Rod-Everrard said:
			
		

> :D
> 
> Isnt God the only person that posts in P&S?



I refuse to acknowledge this   as it would invalidate polling & I like polls!


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

How about the idea that YOU are God (eternity, the void, whatever u want to call it) We are the universe subjectively experiencing itself. You will die as a human individual organism, but you will not really die. How can you die if you are the universe? You will always be here in some form or another because you are all there is to be. Why are you experiencing everything from the human perspective as of now? How did we end up in this dimension? This is part of the great mystery of life and we will never be able to prove why we exist in the form we do right now, but one thing for certain (in my perspective) is that "I am he who that was and he who shall be"- Tibetan Book of the Dead. 

It is one thing to read this but it is another thing to ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE IT. It is truly marvelous. Actually it isn't anything, it just IS.


----------



## B9

^ I think that was what Rod was driving at.

As I said 'I' ( for complex personal reasons & downright intransigence) refuse to acknowledge this at the present time.


----------



## BurnOneDown

FreedomOfTheMind said:
			
		

> How about the idea that YOU are God (eternity, the void, whatever u want to call it) We are the universe subjectively experiencing itself. You will die as a human individual organism, but you will not really die. How can you die if you are the universe? You will always be here in some form or another because you are all there is to be. Why are you experiencing everything from the human perspective as of now? How did we end up in this dimension? This is part of the great mystery of life and we will never be able to prove why we exist in the form we do right now,but one thing is for certain is that "I am he who that was and he who shall be"- Tibetan Book of the Dead. It is one thing to read this but it is another thing to ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE IT. It is truly marvelous. Actually it isn't anything, it just IS.



I love this kind of discussion.

I disagree because 'you' will die. There is nothing physical about it except for the perception modalities on which the concept depends.

The problem is that 'you' or 'we' are not God. The self is just a phenomenon that allows matter to identify with what is being perceived. That can't be God because it has no cause in existence.


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

^ However, each one of us is the primordial energy of the creation of the universe in a more complex form. First there was whatever began our physical universe (at least in this dimension)- just a sea of free electrons, eventually atoms and molecules formed and then stars (giant fusion reactors) which then led to heavy elements (such as Iron) and the formation of planets and then the biosphere began to form with the first unicellular organisms and DNA and through billions of years of evolution- here we are today. We are still the energy of the universe, from a scientific standpoint but obviously with a much different appearance than what it once was. 

I think when you say self you are referring to the ego (the false center) which is based upon our perceptions of what others think of us, etc. When I say 'self', I am referring to the silent watcher or pure awareness (consciousness)- this is a simplistic Buddhist definition. I believe this is eternal and although it may take on different forms and is in constant flux, it is the very fabric of the universe itself and makes up EVERYTHING in the universe, alive and not alive. The self is also known as the void (w/ my definition). I dont think anybody actually dies but that we are always here in some form or another-since I believe that we are the universe-, its just that right now we have a perspective of the universe with our ego in place and societal conditioning, etc which makes us view us as separate from the universe but we are actually continuous. Just as apples grow from a tree, we grew out of the universe and somehow we are here.


----------



## specialrelativity

yes, you called?


----------



## Jamshyd

With the original assumption in mind...

The only reply that makes sense to me is that God is actually not as nice as people make Him out to be...

All you need to do is read the bible (especially the old testament) to see that God is indeed a childish, arrogant prick.


----------



## beamers

Why do we use the same appendage for waste excretion and copulation? What were you thinking?


----------



## Tryptamine*Dreamer

I don't believe god(s) exist(s). If it/they are/is real, then I would say the world is such a shitty place because god(s) are/is evil or powerless to make things better. I can see no other reasons why a god with the power to make a better world would create a world full of death and pain. The cruel things we do to one another could be explained by free will, but that still means that god made us or allowed us to evolve in a way that resulted in an ape with the intelligence to create technological marvels and the violence to use them to kill, maim, and rape the planet. It/they also created a system of life where lifeforms capable of feeling excruciating pain must kill each other in violent, painful ways just to survive. It is truly sadistic, if you ask me. Exactly what I would expect from a psychotic devil, god(s) with limited power, or a godless uni/multi verse.

I'd love to hear from believers in a kind, merciful god(s) just where that kindness and mercy is at. I sure don't see much of it in this world. I'd like christians and others who believe in hell to explain how their god(s) is/are showing mercy when they put us in this world of pain only to cast us into hell when we die. If you believe in that kind of god, don't tell me it is merciful or kind. Tell me your god is cruel and vengeful, because that is the only way to describe such actions.

Another possibility is that we are supposed to be learning from the suffering, that it is some kind of growing experience. I don't buy that. I just don't see the point. Exactly how would it benefit us or make us better? It still seems pointless and cruel, unless we were given the choice to live this life before we were born.

As I've said, I don't think there is a god. Maybe it is better that way, otherwise I'd believe in a monster who wants us to suffer in this life, and in the next if it doesn't just crush us out of existence at the end of this one.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Tryptamine*Dreamer said:
			
		

> I'd love to hear from believers in a kind, merciful god(s) just where that kindness and mercy is at.



Look inside yourself. The mercy and kindness given by the divine creative force that built this universe is there at the core. But it's buried deep beneath layers upon layers of defense mechanisms, put there by your desire to cling to this incarnation of yours tighter and longer. Not just you, but all of us.


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

^^ For there to be happiness there must be pain and suffering!!!!! How can you have one without the other? It is all about the balance. I believe we are all part of "god" and that we are all gods in our own right in the sense that we can control the way we think (to an extent) with metaprogramming and take control of our minds. But think about it. What is happiness not in relation to sadness? You need both for them to even exist! This is part of the universal balance, the yin and yang. But this doesnt mean there is only duality, it is all part of the same. God is just in a constant state of playing hide and seek.


----------



## Solitude_within

I think Epicurus said it best:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

If indeed God does exist and created us, it's hard to answer the question of why we live in such a hostile environment, with so much competition and disease and suffering. The only answer, in my mind, is that he either doesn't mind us suffering, or that he doesn't exist. I believe wholeheartedly in the latter.


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

^How could there be happiness without suffering? How would you know what happiness even is without having suffered? It is all part of the balance. It is up to you what role you want to play in the balance though and there is some free-will and chance concerning how happy you will be. But think about it, everything is relative to each other and something like happiness cannot exist without suffering.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

FreedomOfTheMind, I don't think your theodicy and mine are incompatible. Yours essentially says that the key to understanding pain and misfortune is that they're not problems. But I wasn't talking about suffering, I was talking about compassion, openness, and acceptance on one hand, versus being wary and self-protective on the other. The former comes from an acceptance of existence, and all its joys and pains alike, for what it is. The latter comes from the misguided goal of trying to beat the system, and get only joy and persistence without pain or degredation.


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

Agreed MDAO- I was referring to the poster below you (Solitude within), who said that there is no God because there is suffering and hardship on this planet and I was saying in order to have good times, you need the bad times (since everything exists in relation to something else which is why we are all connected) I may be using the ^ notation wrong lol


----------



## ccm

Survival0200 said:
			
		

> ... why god doesn't supply us with infinite supply of our favorite drug if we would want so?
> 
> .




But he did!  Magic mushrooms, methamp., opium, the cacao plant, and peyote.  And, of course, marijuana.


----------



## moonyham

All i have to say is.

If there is a god, he's not how Christianity defines him. What 'merciful, loving god' would send you to be tortured for eternity? Is it he loves you SO MUCH that he wants you to suffer? pfft.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

moonyham, you can thank Dante and Milton for much of that definition. 

I agree -- I fail to see how an all-loving God can be judgemental or unforgiving. It's what I always said about attending church -- why would God judge you for not worshipping, if he already understood your motives for refraining? Hell, I can see God being perfectly forgiving toward people who don't believe in him and/or make fun of religion, personally.

It's a shame that it more or less takes an atheist to make or appreciate religion-related humor. As a book I read about the making of the Simpsons said, most of America's prominent comedy writers are Jewish atheists and Irish Catholic atheists. The Simpsons' writers are almost homogenously atheist, and making an audience that ISN'T primarily atheist laugh out loud but not get offended has always been a major challenge for them.

My point in saying this is, God and all the holy / enlightened ones who exemplify him strike me as people who'd take any jabs at them very much in stride. There's no risk in offending God, except by being willfully unloving in your actions toward another sentient being.

Refraining from sacrilege, just like mandatory worship attendance, is man's law, not God's law. Who you REALLY risk offending is those people who've invested their whole lives in religion, and don't like seeing their positions of power and privilege called into question.


----------



## lagomorpha

moonyham said:
			
		

> All i have to say is.
> 
> If there is a god, he's not how Christianity defines him. What 'merciful, loving god' would send you to be tortured for eternity? Is it he loves you SO MUCH that he wants you to suffer? pfft.



http://youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o
^ No one puts that into words better than George Carlin.


----------



## cire113

is it god or is it odd?


----------



## srinoe

> Eve ate the apple.


Just want to say that it wasnt a apple but a forbidden fruit... wrong translation.

Anyway, life is life and we all have to learn, improve ourself and get some wisdom... I guest we wouldnt appreciate life if it was perfect


----------



## ClubbinGuido

UnfortunateSquid said:
			
		

> Simple answer: 'He' doesn't.



Fucking A to that.


----------



## Damien

Isaiah 55:8-9 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,"
       declares the LORD.

 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts.


----------



## Damien

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
       with words without knowledge?

 3 Brace yourself like a man;
       I will question you,
       and you shall answer me.

 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
       Tell me, if you understand.

 . . . . 

Job is a great book. :D


----------



## moonyham

Too add to that, why is god so scared to show himself? If i was walking down the street and some dude came through the clouds and said ''i am god, worship me'' hell, i would do it in a heartbeat! But that doesnt happen, he doesnt show himself, he doesnt talk to us. No no no, he loves us all so much he lets millions of kids die from starvation every year, and lets babys die from disease and defects, oh and hes so fucking loving that he will let you die a slow horrible death with aids or cancer. Oh yeah, god is a real nice guy, i should pray to him and thank him for letting me be born into this horrible fucking world full of disease and poverty and starvation. Oh yeah, thanks a lot, god.

Btw good vid lagomorphia haha


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^^^ Yes, if God were anything similar to a guy in form, thought, and behavior, you would be spot on.

Reminds me of a time I was at a party where they were spinning house, and I heard a kid say something about 'such shitty drum n bass'.


----------



## Jamshyd

Damien8787 said:
			
		

> Job is a great book. :D


Thats the very book I had in mind when I said this:


> All you need to do is read the bible (especially the old testament) to see that God is indeed a childish, arrogant prick.



And although I was half-joking, this point of view is not new - it was actually a part of early christian though until some people with money decided it wasn't worth it and declared it heresy. (But it continued with people like the the sethians, and, to some extent, even the cathars


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^^^ Is it true that the cathars are still around, but very much underground?


----------



## Jamshyd

I honestly don't know, but I know an anthropologist who worked on a dig in that cathar church in southern france (forgot the name). I'll ask her .

Sethians definitely are still alive and well.


----------



## lagomorpha

moonyham said:
			
		

> Too add to that, why is god so scared to show himself?



The great philosopher Bill Hicks addressed that question.  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk


----------



## Solitude_within

FreedomOfTheMind said:
			
		

> I was referring to the poster below you (Solitude within), who said that there is no God because there is suffering and hardship on this planet



Sorry, let me rephrase this. It's not that I rule out the possibility of a God, but the evidence of our current situation tends to sway me into deductive reasoning. That either God isn't all powerful, or that he doesn't mind our suffering. Or that he doesn't exist at all.



			
				FreedomOfTheMind said:
			
		

> in order to have good times, you need the bad times



While this is true in our current universe, it really didn't have to be this way. "God" wasn't required to work around the laws of our biological nature when designing us. In fact, by definition, he created all the laws himself. Again, it goes back to the question of his true nature.


----------



## B9

> All you need to do is read the bible (especially the old testament) to see that God is indeed a childish, arrogant prick.


 

Maybe - read the papers ( back in the 1970s) & discover the Birmingham 6 were guilty   - or were they? 

 For someone with a degree of wit jamshyd you ought to realise that what you're reading is someones interpretation of god within socal & cultural contexts that we cannot possible understand.


----------



## ccm

God is dead/doesn't exist/never existed.

Maybe a Higher Power, but a benevolent God?  Naaa.
And IMHO the bible may or may not be the Word of God.  Like everything else, that is open to interpretation.  Hell, people cannot even agree with what the contents of the bible are supposed to _mean_.  Man has translated that bible down through 2000 years, and surely many things got lost in the translation.  Every human being, no matter how Godly, has an agenda.  Even those that interpreted the bible for the rest of us.


----------



## Max Power

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Reminds me of a time I was at a party where they were spinning house, and I heard a kid say something about 'such shitty drum n bass'.



i wish my mind could comprehend this.


----------



## moonyham

yeah same hehe


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Shitty analogy. Sorry.
All I'm trying to say is, you have to evaluate things by the standards of what they are, not what they're not. Words like 'so fucking loving' are appropriate when evaluating another person, but at least in my experience, especially after dabbling in Kabbalah, God is not a person and doesn't operate anything like one. To hold something not human to the standards of a human is kind of misguided, and bound to end in frustration.


----------



## ccm

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Shitty analogy. Sorry.
> All I'm trying to say is, *you have to evaluate things by the standards of what they are, not what they're not.* Words like 'so fucking loving' are appropriate when evaluating another person, but at least in my experience, especially after dabbling in Kabbalah, God is not a person and doesn't operate anything like one. To hold something not human to the standards of a human is kind of misguided, and bound to end in frustration.



So, what is God not?  I sam lost.


----------



## moonyham

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> Shitty analogy. Sorry.
> All I'm trying to say is, you have to evaluate things by the standards of what they are, not what they're not. Words like 'so fucking loving' are appropriate when evaluating another person, but at least in my experience, especially after dabbling in Kabbalah, God is not a person and doesn't operate anything like one. To hold something not human to the standards of a human is kind of misguided, and bound to end in frustration.



Well whos fucking fault is that? If a god is going to design everything about me, atleast give me the ability to understand shit, and if not, dont expect me to worship him. Ill bring this up for if im ever upon judgment.


----------



## ClubbinGuido

When you think about it, God is the biggest troll in the history of the universe.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

A playful bastard to be sure, Guido! That's one thing the Hindus nailed, IMHO.

moonyham, all I'll say to you is this: if you have any desire to be spiritual and spiritually fulfilled (which you may not. I don't know), then I highly recommend you look well beyond mainstream Judeo-Christian doctrine. In less well known and less popular schools, you'll find a wealth of linguistic and artistic hints at the divine which square much better with what we know about the physical world, and don't leave you feeling like you're getting shafted.

Then again, the way of the cynical atheist (think George Carlin) never appealed to me in the least. Maybe it suits you just fine, I dunno.


----------



## moonyham

im not atheist nor am i a follower of any religion. Im open minded to anything to be completely honest. Just so far, i havnt been presented with anything that doesnt sound like a massive crock of shit.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Understandably, dude. There's a lot of shit out there. Never give up, though. Always look at the motives of any writer or teacher carefully, in order to determine the probability of them selling you a crock. If they're sincere in their intentions to spread messages of comfort and joy to other wayfarers, let down your guard a bit. If they smack of gurus who'll say anything to get your money and your loyalty, look elsewhere.


----------



## Solitude_within

MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> If they're sincere in their intentions to spread messages of comfort and joy to other wayfarers, let down your guard a bit. If they smack of gurus who'll say anything to get your money and your loyalty, look elsewhere.



Good advice.


----------



## StuffedTiger1

*What is the meaning of the word God to you?*

What is the meaning of the word God to you?

Please state your spiritual designation and what you imagine God as a concept, visualize God, etc...

Also thanks for any help you could give me, I haven't been on bluelight pretty much since back when it was bluelight.nu, but I have great memories of this place and I know that you're all going to help out.  This is for a linguistics project so keep that in mind during your response.  Thanks everyone! And if anyone remembers me from back in the day shoot me a PM.


----------



## B9

Hm a creation point from which everything sprang into existence ( it matters not if it's steady state or big bang)  "god" is imprinted into matter/energy - inherent in matter/energy. I think this rather neatly explains many religious assertions.

Your opinion ?


----------



## PsYcHoAcTiViSt

I tried to answer but I erased it because I don't know if it was what I really believe. I struggle with this too much. there are just too many possibilites. I can tell you some of the things I DONT believe. Like for instance I certainly DONT believe that the earth was created in 7 days. I have too many thoughts. There is no way I would ever be able to confine myself to one particular belief. It would just change 5 minutes later.


----------



## thujone

a menacing abstraction


----------



## Portillo

God is that muscle bound specimen i see in the mirror everyday. Or maybe god is the source of the entire universe. 

Or maybe since ive been listening to many terence mckenna speeches, god is what you see in dmt space, or maybe what you see in dmt space is gods creation, where the weavers of gods tapestry sing, dance and play.


----------



## HoneyRoastedPeanut

The Force.


----------



## dark desire

"God" is humanity, the universe, and all things; it's not a being--it just is.


----------



## kytnism

the meaning of the word "god"; to me; is the spiritual life force, within us; as individuals that guides us all when making decisions or contemplating life as one. 

hence why:
religion causes war.
people cause hate.
money and power are involved in religion.
leaders and self appointed "prophets" exist.
fearful advocates, choose to believe.
individuals self explore.

the list is endless. as is "god-dom"

...kytnism...


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

The Prime Mover. That all-powerful force that moves and shifts and swirls at the base of all this. Utterly without attributes. The great Tao. The great One. What's at the core of our every being, when you strip away everything but bare consciousness itself.


----------



## listerbean

Plain and simple: God is infinity.

You might ask: "Who created matter?"  
"God -- he's the only reason anything exists."
"But who created God?"
"Shit"
"Well, who created God?"
"Another God"
"And who created that God?"

Infinity to the rescue:  there are an infinite number of God's creating each other.  God isn't really God.  Infinity is.


----------



## jam uh weezy

*this is just what i think...*

God is a word representing an internal concept that people hold within their minds. Composed of the letters G,O,D, and spelt dog backwards.

Essentially the concept of "God" is the combination of a concept learned from outside sources(and there are many), and something a person creates and manages inside themselves. Largely affected and influenced by both their true and ideal relations to themselves with the outside world.
I also believe that since "God"(or the many other labels) exists largely inside the human mind, that these manifestations are a projection of having unwavering faith in ourselves, and perhaps humanity/nature as a whole... I'm discluding the types of gods people hold within their minds that they believe to be better than another persons god.

Everything is connected in some mystifying way, after all.


----------



## paranoia_

it's just a thought, a thoretical thought. it isnt real, just something to connect abstract thought around. don't go insane.


----------



## neonads

God is the stuff we don't know about + the stuff we think we know about.

i.e.  Everything.


----------



## Max Power

the ultimate prankster


----------



## Dude Man

If it has be classified and have a name put to it would have to say that I am fairly agnostic. This is because i believe that contemplating the existance and essence of things greater then or different then our observable reality is relavant but following a specific faith in attempt to worrship beings beyond our comprehention is a waste of our limited time on this world in this form. 
    I believe GOD is just one way that us humans try to explain a trascend being or something that is beyond the limitations of understanding that we are confined to in this form that we currently exist.  The very essence, let alone the subtleties of form and the details that are part of form, of such a "being" or whatever it maybe's existance, or lack there of, could not be fully comprehened by our minds.   The concept of nothingness is one thing but actually truely understanding  nothingness is a something entirely more preplexing.  The concept of everything is just as complicated if not more so because that would also include nothing.
  All religions and beliefs are an atempt to make our selves feel more comfortable through a connection to the "divine" or whatever termonology that group uses for it.  It may all be profoundly meaningfull or it may all be profoundly meaningless.  Either way alot has happened as a cause of our attempts to understand and even appease our own version of our concept of a "God".


----------



## BurnOneDown

^I like that.

Act without any prior cause, condition, or thought. That is God.

On a spiritual level, God is the self. This is what few religions have said and what most religions have said while trying to resist saying it. There are a few problems people have with admitting it. One problem is the overwhelming responsibility in admitting that you are God. Another is that most humans have a need to believe in something greater than themselves or something supernatural. Another is the fear of a chaotic existence or belief that people won't do the right thing without a reward.

For example, the Christian God - take the general belief and substitute the self for God and it always makes perfect sense. God created the universe. The self created the universe. (think about it, if you weren't here to perceive it what would the universe be) Praying to God is just talking to your self. God will judge you for your sins, you judge your own sins with guilt.

The self is the most advanced creative being. You can do anything. All you have to do is stop making excuses. Nothing can stop you except yourself.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

God: Used by so many people, with so many different meanings from the very precise to the very vague.  Over usage has rendered this word (as well as words such as "spirit/soul/energy/etc") absolutely imprecise and frustratingly pillaged of all meaning.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ I can see why a lot of people, especially a lot of very concrete thinkers, get fed up with metaphysics, because it's all entirely speculative. I personally find this fun as hell -- I love entertaining and playing around with concepts like god, spirit, qi, karma, life force, ground substance, eternity, and all those other things that may model well what's behind all this, and then again may not.


----------



## masonyoung

^Metaphysics...what you see is what you get...perception is 9/10's of the law...maybe even more.


----------



## IGNVS

the universally conspiring spirit of love


----------



## brian-amp

Using the vocabulary of L Ron Hubbard can help you avoid stress and express yourself. It gives you solid inclusive definitions and a taste of managable Linguistic study.


----------



## IamAnotherYou

I feel that the word God means "All that Is"...we are children of God and God also. That is the truth i feel inside


----------



## rachamim

G-D to me is simply put, two things: Ominpotence and One. Religion is humankind's inability to deal with G-D on G-D's terms. That said, the best route to G-D , to me, is the religion of Judasim.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

God is The Being whose essence is His Existence.
God is The Being whose Purpose is to Exist.
God is The Being who is Aware of His Purpose. 
God is The Being who Caused Himself.


----------



## The_Idler

I am a Christian and I believe that YHWH is *all the energy in the universe.*... or something.

This means I can say "I BELIEVE IN GOD!" and that my consciousness will continue to exist forever...... (ah the sweet relief of denial for my weak, fearful mind...)

NOT.



the further science and logic go towards demonstrating the redundancy and improbability of God,
the more ridiculous the meanings people ascribe to the word.

I often say to people: 
"So, you do not believe in God; 
you believe in _'all the energy in the universe'_..."

I see the ripples of a moment's horrified doubt disturb the tranquil, shallow pools of their dull, blinkered eyes,
before they awkwardly change the subject.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

The_Idler said:


> I am a Christian and I believe that YHWH is *all the energy in the universe.*... or something.
> 
> This means I can say "I BELIEVE IN GOD!" and that my consciousness will continue to exist forever...... (ah the sweet relief of denial for my weak, fearful mind...)
> 
> NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> the further science and logic go towards demonstrating the redundancy and improbability of God,
> the more ridiculous the meanings people ascribe to the word.
> 
> I often say to people:
> "So, you do not believe in God;
> you believe in _'all the energy in the universe'_..."
> 
> I see the ripples of a moment's horrified doubt disturb the tranquil, shallow pools of their dull, blinkered eyes,
> before they awkwardly change the subject.



Exactly which field of science and system of logic has 'demonstrated' that the concept of God is 'redundant and improbable'? What is your desire for condensension towards people whose reason presents to them a different perspective than your own?


----------



## The_Idler

i meant tends towards, one cannot prove anything absolutely.


And I have no problem with people who have developed different logical interpretations of their conscious experiences in this universe.

I think it is pitiable when someone, who can see things in exactly the way I do, 
understanding the systematic extrapolation of fundamental concepts, systems and interactions, 
leading to the implication and elucidation of logical explanations, of relative probabilities, for different situations,
clings to the psychological comfort of never dying and having greater purpose than simply serving to most effectively propagate tiny strings of chemicals in their cells,
thus necessitating the embarrassing outright rejection of obvious logical possibilities,
manifested in that intellectually abhorrent, self-inflicted wall of ignorance,
often known as denial.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

The_Idler said:


> i meant tends towards, one cannot prove anything absolutely.



The reason for which I used the term 'demonstrate'. I shall state my question again:

Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"? 



> And I have no problem with people who have developed different logical interpretations of their conscious experiences in this universe.



I have specific philosophical or intellectual issues with certain 'logical interpretations' of conscious experiences. 



> I think it is pitiable when someone, who can see things in exactly the way I do,
> understanding the systematic extrapolation of fundamental concepts, systems and interactions,



What are you 'systematically extrapolating fundamental concepts, systems and interactions' from? What does that have to do with the improbability and redudancy of God? 



> leading to the implication and elucidation of logical explanations, of relative probabilities, for different situations,
> clings to the psychological comfort of never dying and having greater purpose than simply serving to most effectively propagate tiny strings of chemicals in their cells,
> thus necessitating the embarrassing outright rejection of obvious logical possibilities,
> manifested in that intellectually abhorrent, self-inflicted wall of ignorance,
> often known as denial.



This is what is known as 'incoherent' and 'unintelligable'. Are you even in a science field?

Reason ultimately leads one towards the logical conclusion of agnosticism; that is to say, one cannot prove the nonexistence of God any more than one can prove the existence of God, therefore, either method employs a "God of the Gaps" or an "Athiesm of the Gaps", as empirical reason possesses no epistemological value in matters not concering material reality. 

It is no more reasonable to deny the existence of God than it is to believe in God, as each requires faith (not in the traditional conception of the word). 

One can presuppose a material consciousness, a property of the physical brain and still maintain a metaphysical belief about what happens when material consciousness ceases to exist.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

Alan Watts sums it up pretty good for me:

The religious idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity. 

The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible. When we look through our telescopes and microscopes, or when we just look at nature, we have a problem. Somehow the idea of God we get from the holy scriptures doesn't seem to fit the world around us, just as you wouldn't ascribe a composition by Stravinsky to Bach. The style of God venerated in the church, mosque, or synagogue seems completely different from the style of the natural universe. It's hard to conceive of the author of one as the author of the other.

You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you.


----------



## LemonWheel

I think Spinoza was close to getting it.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

" Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"? "

Occam's Razor.

Oh and science shows time and time again complexity emerging over time through basic laws and interactions, not complexity as an alpha point.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> " Which fields of science and systems of logic, 'demonstrate' that the concept of God is "improbable and redudant"? "
> 
> Occam's Razor.



The Razor only concerns itself with matters of empiricism; it cannot penetrate into epistemological realms to which reason has gained no access. It does not necessarily follow that the simplest explanation is the best one. It is only relevant if _all things being equal_, the simplest explanation _is_ the best one! However, one should not merely assume that the simple, less correct explanation should be preferred over the complex, more correct explanation.

While I would certainly agree that material consciousness is an emergent property of the physical brain and that its architecture generates and sustains consciousness so long as there exists something to be conscious of; it is a _non-sequitur_ to posit this empirical theory as _proof_ that the material reality that we experience is the only true existence. 



> Oh and science shows time and time again complexity emerging over time through basic laws and interactions, not complexity as an alpha point.



I fail to understand how an emerging complexity of physical reality over time, through precise natural laws, demonstrates anything other than the notion that _complexity emerges over time through basic laws and interactions._

Empirical science only concerns itself with what can be experienced, observed, measured, tested and falsified - material reality.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Alan Watts sums it up pretty good for me:
> 
> The religious idea of God cannot do full duty for the metaphysical infinity.
> 
> The difficulty for most of us in the modern world is that the old-fashioned idea of God has become incredible or implausible. When we look through our telescopes and microscopes, or when we just look at nature, we have a problem. Somehow the idea of God we get from the holy scriptures doesn't seem to fit the world around us, just as you wouldn't ascribe a composition by Stravinsky to Bach. The style of God venerated in the church, mosque, or synagogue seems completely different from the style of the natural universe. It's hard to conceive of the author of one as the author of the other.
> 
> You don't look out there for God, something in the sky, you look in you.



Good post.

That said, complexPHILOSOPHY has a good point too. I think most people who've intellectually plumbed the depths of the question of God have come out ultimately admitting they're not sure, and probably won't ever be 100% sure.

I've run into some great ideas about what an ultimate being could be like, that nothing ultimately rules out. But from a purely rational standpoint, I'll admit it's perfectly possible that these ideas are wrong, and that I don't have a whole lot of firsthand experience to weigh in. I'll readily admit that entertaining theism is just something I feel naturally built to do. I figure it's my life to live -- why not have a little hope and a little imagination?

I have a lot of respect for agnostics, because they're intellectually honest -- 'God' is not one of those things that lies within the bounds of logic. I respect both theists and atheists who have a very 'live and let live' attitude towards me. What I'm not so fond of are both theists and atheists who won't tolerate my presence until they can squeeze an admission from me that they're right.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Good post.
> 
> That said, complexPHILOSOPHY has a good point too. I think most people who've intellectually plumbed the depths of the question of God have come out ultimately admitting they're not sure, and probably won't ever be 100% sure.
> 
> I've run into some great ideas about what an ultimate being could be like, that nothing ultimately rules out. But from a purely rational standpoint, I'll admit it's perfectly possible that these ideas are wrong, and that I don't have a whole lot of firsthand experience to weigh in. I'll readily admit that entertaining theism is just something I feel naturally built to do. I figure it's my life to live -- why not have a little hope and a little imagination?
> 
> I have a lot of respect for agnostics, because they're intellectually honest -- 'God' is not one of those things that lies within the bounds of logic. I respect both theists and atheists who have a very 'live and let live' attitude towards me. What I'm not so fond of are both theists and atheists who won't tolerate my presence until they can squeeze an admission from me that they're right.



Agnosticism _is_ the position of pure reason, to which, one can never truly know and therefore, should not concern itself with such matters. 

The Atheist and the Theist both, employ _faith_ in determining their position regarding God because _neither_ proposition is within the realm of reason. The Laws of Causality do not necessarily apply to that which transcends empirical epistemology, and I would assert that a 'theological hypothesis' of God should be consistent with empirical epistemology. 

Therefore, I reject the premise that rational beings cannot posit the existence of God. I can accept the premise that reason cannot lend itself to proving such matters and that one must employ faith.

(None of that was directed to you MDAO other than the first comment).


----------



## neonads

If God is defined as a meme, then reason would lead us to a different conclusion.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Indeed. The study of _god_ as a concept, an idea, a yearning even, has been the subject of a lot of theological discourse lately, especially, I've noticed, among more liberal Jewish thinkers.

The idea of the ultimate entity is tantalizing. Even if this entity is by definition beyond the scope of human knowledge or understanding, that sure doesn't stop people from attempting to draw analogies and grasp at an understanding of it, because that's just what our curious minds are apt to do!

I remember being in a science museum as a kid, and seeing a display of impossible-to-solve mathematical puzzles. Despite the literature plainly saying 'you will not solve this', sure enough, a small crowd was gathered, some with pen and paper in hand, having a crack at some of the puzzles on display.


----------



## Max Power

^

Well?

Did you solve any?


----------



## trainwreckmolly

PsYcHoAcTiViSt said:


> I tried to answer but I erased it because I don't know if it was what I really believe. I struggle with this too much. there are just too many possibilites. I can tell you some of the things I DONT believe. Like for instance I certainly DONT believe that the earth was created in 7 days. I have too many thoughts. There is no way I would ever be able to confine myself to one particular belief. It would just change 5 minutes later.



Exactly how I feel.  I flip flop all the time on what exactly I believe in.


----------



## ebola?

> Occam's Razor.



Occam's razor is not justified by logic.
(oops...redundant with CP's post)
...
As an agnostic (agnostic about his agnostiticm: someday, I might be surprised by strong empirical support for God), I find the question of what is God more interesting than that of his existence.  For me, something like pantheism/non-duality functions the most usefully...of the Buddhist sort, no the Spinozan kind.

ebola


----------



## dyslecstasy

i don't really like the word "God" because its connotation lies in organized religion, however, to me "God" is the heartbeat of the universe ... something that exists in everyone and everything. collective conciousness? i think so. 

people use organized religion to explain this "God"/sense of spirituality that they have inside them... there cannot be one right religion because they are all aiming towards the same thing, to explain why we're here, give us a sense of morality, and a sense of comfort about the unknown (death).


----------



## The_Idler

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I think most people who've intellectually plumbed the depths of the question of God have come out ultimately admitting they're not sure, and probably won't ever be 100% sure.



This is what makes Religion so embarrassing.

That includes atheism.





> Reason ultimately leads one towards the logical conclusion of agnosticism


This was my point.

If my drug-fuelled over-abundance of adjectives and sub-clauses were enough of an impediment to your efforts at understanding my post, to warrant a complete dismissal of it,
I will reiterate:
I pity those, who, despite a natural skill in logical reasoning,
still hold on to a position of "belief", or "faith",
due to their unconscious desires for the possible "beneficial" implications of that scenario overwhelming their own logical conclusions,
pushing them into a state of faith,
or "denial".


And as for those that "believe" in there being no God....

well, i don't even pity _them_.


----------



## The_Idler

dyslecstasy said:


> i don't really like the word "God" because its connotation lies in organized religion, however, to me "God" is the *heartbeat of the universe ... something that exists in everyone and everything.* collective conciousness? i think so.



Moar liek *strings* amirite?


----------



## junctionalfunkie

Psst. I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour, and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

Seriously, though. As an atheist, I consider "god" (little 'g') to mean a supernatural being designated as the leader or creator of the universe by various mythologies (including modern ones).

But you wrote "God" (big 'G'). That word is essentially meaningless to me. It's like the name of a celebrity I don't think I will ever meet, and very much doubt even exists.

Buddhism, which is the philosophy I most closely identify with, has no use for either "god" or "God."



			
				The_Idler said:
			
		

> This is what makes Religion so embarrassing.
> 
> That includes atheism.



There are many types of atheism. Agnostic atheism, also called "soft atheism" makes no claim that there is definitely no god.


----------



## SweetSpot

To me God is what us humans turn to when we realise we are so insignificant in the enormity of the cosmos and we shit our pants and feel vulnerable.


----------



## auto238367

God is nothing to me.  God and the Devil are fairy tales, used to control the masses.


----------



## SweetSpot

^ Some would say the biggest trick the Devil ever played is convincing people he doesn't exist.


----------



## auto238367

SweetSpot said:


> ^ Some would say the biggest trick the Devil ever played is convincing people he doesn't exist.



Thats hilarious cause I was thinking about referencing Keyser Söze


----------



## SweetSpot

Lol then you are clearly 'some' 

to get it right -  ."The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist."


----------



## mr_p

there's a middle ground here ...

but it keeps moving ~ ; )





to me god signifies creation ... i don't claim to know where, or how or what life is

it just seems to be an act of creation ~ and we are apart of that ... 

so the finale of this story is ...

I AM GOD ~!! >>. wooot woot 

hahahah


----------



## ihateecstacy

*G*aining *O*ne's *D*efinition...
---------------------------------------------------------
"God is a concept, by which we measure our pain."

-John lennon


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

The_Idler said:


> This is what makes Religion so embarrassing.
> 
> That includes atheism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was my point.
> 
> If my drug-fuelled over-abundance of adjectives and sub-clauses were enough of an impediment to your efforts at understanding my post, to warrant a complete dismissal of it,
> I will reiterate:
> I pity those, who, despite a natural skill in logical reasoning,
> still hold on to a position of "belief", or "faith",
> due to their unconscious desires for the possible "beneficial" implications of that scenario overwhelming their own logical conclusions,
> pushing them into a state of faith,
> or "denial".
> 
> 
> And as for those that "believe" in there being no God....
> 
> well, i don't even pity _them_.



I am too stupid to understand this. I concede my throne to you, Sire.


----------



## junctionalfunkie

Atheism is not a religion, as much as religious people would like to label it as such, and therefore subject it to the same rigorous scutiny as their own belief(s).

Atheism is simply the absence of a particular belief (god/God), and, as I stated in my last post, there are a variety of types of atheism.


----------



## Nexus9

God is the collection of everything more powerful than myself.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

junctionalfunkie said:


> Atheism is not a religion, as much as religious people would like to label it as such, and therefore subject it to the same rigorous scutiny as their own belief(s).



If _reason_ reveals to the theist and the atheist the same conclusion, then I would argue that religious people certainly can subject atheism to the same 'rigorous scrutiny as their own belief(s).' 



> Atheism is simply the absence of a particular belief (god/God), and, as I stated in my last post, there are a variety of types of atheism.



Atheism is the absence of a particular belief in God inasmuch as it is a belief in the nonexistence of God. Agnosticism is the only rational position in relation to the existence or nonexistence of God. Therefore, if one is to presuppose the existence of God then one is to accept it as a proposition which transcends reason and is unfalsifiable; if one is to presuppose the nonexistence of God, then one is to accept it as a proposition which transcends reason.

Empirical science in conjunction with reason is the best method to understand material reality. God is incommensurable as a concept in relation to other concepts, however, as all other concepts begin through our perception of incoming sensory data propagating out of material objects. There is no other such concept which transcends our experience that we can truly compare to God.


----------



## The_Idler

junctionalfunkie said:


> There are many types of atheism. Agnostic atheism, also called "soft atheism" makes no claim that there is definitely no god.



jaja, but i was talking about the religious atheism, IYKWIM


----------



## The_Idler

cP said:
			
		

> Atheism is the absence of a particular belief in God inasmuch as it is a belief in the nonexistence of God.


So, saying "I do not believe that I am definitely going to win the lottery tonight"
is the same as sayin "I believe that I am definitely going to lose the lottery tonight"
....?


no




IF atheism is absence of belief (in God),
THEN it can be reached by logical reasoning.

I suppose you simply do not like the word atheist, as it may also include those, who *believe* there is no God.

Agnosticism proposes that we can make no assessment either way?
BS, God is logically improbable, so I shall act as if He probably does not exist.

This makes me an atheist.
or "agnostic atheist"
or "nonreligious atheist"


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

The_Idler said:


> So, saying "I do not believe that I am definitely going to win the lottery tonight"
> is the same as sayin "I believe that I am definitely going to lose the lottery tonight"
> ....?
> 
> ...no



All I see is a tiny strawman playing in crowded city streets.



> IF atheism is absence of belief (in God),
> THEN it can be reached by logical reasoning.



Suppose _your_ position is atheism. What would the architecture of this reasoning resemble? We can discuss the essential structure first, my sexy little friend.



> I suppose you simply do not like the word atheist, as it may also include those, who *believe* there is no God.



I do like the word atheist, in fact, I have considered myself an atheist since I was very young. Recently, however, I would consider myself a theist who is still discovering a 'theological hypothesis' of God. I have been very careful to consider as much conceptual knowledge and empirical facts to come to as rational conclusion as possible, considering agonsticism is the _clear_ choice of reason. To be quite honest, I have certainly shifted my thought structure towards God, in favor of God and do not quite understand my previous resentment in pursuing God. 

To be clear here, we do not really have an _operational definition_ of God, so there is a special element of subjectivity that emerges to which we must assume we both agree implicitly on the same thing. 

I like the term theist too, I also like agnostic. I don't particuarly dislike either of the three words. 



> Agnosticism proposes that we can make no assessment either way?
> BS, God is logically improbable, so I shall act as if He probably does not exist.
> 
> This makes me an atheist.
> or "agnostic atheist"
> or "nonreligious atheist"



Agnosticism does propose that. However, when I describe reason as limited to that which we can experience, it simply implies that you are skeptical of reason as a Universal tool of philosophical inquiry. 

The primary problem with my atheist worldview for a long time, was that I was thinking purely and only in terms of _materialism and reductionism_. All that exists is that which is material and that it must be reduced into its constituents to understand it and that in fact all of reality can ultimately be reduced and we can come to absolutely _know a thing_ through empiricism and reason. 

When I thought upon the notion of agnosticism and considered the notion that atheism is as much of an irrational position as theism, I began to explore theism more and began to question why I was ever an atheist in the first place. If I use reason to determine morality as opposed to dogmatic doctrine and I maintain a materialist worldview in terms of still accepting science as the primary method of understanding physical reality then it does not appear to negatively affect any person.

The primary contention to my argument of simply dismissing the discussion of God is that God is _incommensurable_ in terms of showing a relationship between God and concepts abstracted from reality. 

There is no such _a thing_ or _being_ who posseses the same essence as God.


----------



## The_Idler

We don't share the same interpretation of atheism,
but in this case, call me agnostic, whatever--
I do not claim to know, or believe, either way.


Deciding which is more transcendent,
logic or God,
is simply a matter of which do you believe, a book or your brain.

by book i mean the definition of God, which you learned from others


You can see your cognitive functions and productive conscious reasoning "follow" logic,
and so you would tend to imagine that any concept can be treated logically.

That is, of course, until someone says "Ah but you see this seemingly highly improbable concept is actually not so, because _logic doesnt apply here_."

"That's odd," you think, "logic has applied in every other theoretical and actual situation I have ever considered.... Why not here?"

O YA, because, if it did, the concept of God would be so obviously highly improbable, and therefore could easily be dismissed,
and THEN how is a respectable intellectual supposed to cling on to this little psychological comforter...?


----------



## yougene

complexPHILOSOPHY said:


> Empirical science in conjunction with reason is the best method to understand material reality. God is incommensurable as a concept in relation to other concepts, however, as all other concepts begin through our perception of incoming sensory data propagating out of material objects. There is no other such concept which transcends our experience that we can truly compare to God.



Experience( Being ) itself transcends reason.  As Descartes said, "I think therefore I am."  It's an empirical observation that is beyond reason.

Being is synonymous with God and the idea as such seems to extend from apprehensions of Being.


----------



## God.

*I love all my Children.*



B9 said:


> Hm a creation point from which everything sprang into existence ( it matters not if it's steady state or big bang)  "god" is imprinted into matter/energy - inherent in matter/energy. I think this rather neatly explains many religious assertions.
> 
> Your opinion ?



Nothing at first i was, then out of Nothing my Consciousness was born, and my first form was as the First Thought. 
The First Thought was Chao. My First thought became the First Cause and the First effect was Chao becoming the fabric of Reality. 
Chao was everything and appeared as strands of pure energy. My next action of my Conscious was to name my all first Children (the strands of Chao) the First one was called "1" the second "2" the third "3" Along with the thought of each name came an effect. I don't remember what they all are but hears what I know. 
When I named "1" all the stands responded by starting to move.
When I got to 27 some strand joined together and formed a cube.

My Consciousness continued counting and found every number in the 27xtable would produce a different amount of Cubes in a different structure. These Cubes are the foundation building blocks of OUR Universe they make us Planets Stars.

The name of OUR Universe is "Chao Cube Universe" I’m watching law and order and sg just said someone had more money than God. You probably all do I have less then a pound in the bank.

 -- Chao is a word we generally don't use anymore 
but it means Chaos. A word that has been negatively twisted by those that try to make money your God, telling you "Time is money, money makes the World go round" ect. 

I am all things but all things are not me, my name is Charles Andrew Ososami i'm in the UK my phone number is 07900020207 and my email is iz6@z6.com.



Please get the word out I live.


----------



## God.

*I love all my Children.*



StuffedTiger1 said:


> What is the meaning of the word God to you?
> 
> Please state your spiritual designation and what you imagine God as a concept, visualize God, etc...
> 
> Also thanks for any help you could give me, I haven't been on bluelight pretty much since back when it was bluelight.nu, but I have great memories of this place and I know that you're all going to help out.  This is for a linguistics project so keep that in mind during your response.  Thanks everyone! And if anyone remembers me from back in the day shoot me a PM.



Thanks for starting this thread Tiger,  I know with out people seeing the proof most people will think i'm "mentally ill" well i built a website that demonstrates some of my ability.  But people must be Willing to ascribe meaningful significance to all happenings to see them for all that they are.   

If I could direct your attention to the Time Tiger started this thread about people opinions of me... it was " 28-10-2008, 22:22 " now this correlate with me as I am know as Father Time by some it should.  
My name as you learned is Charles Andrew Ososami -  there is a system called Germatria and it is a process of converting letters into numbers and adding them up.
The simplest way of doing this is through Alphabetical placement.. A=1 B=2 and so on.  my name becomes 3+8+1+18+12+5+19+1+14+4+18+5+23+15+19+15+19+1+13+9= 222
as the Time resonates this number I find my self naturally reflected in all expressions of Free Will.
also the complete some of the individual digits that construct the Time and date  is 2+8+1+0+2+0+0+8+2+2+2+2=29 
Number 29 is the same number achieved when the same process of adding each individual digit of my date of Birth 12/7/1981 becomes 1+2+7+1+9+8+1=29  

For those that are thinking oh it’s a coincidence well your correct …. However all occurrences are coincidence but most people only mention it when they can see the correlations.    The ability to then establish reason for an occurrence is what I would hope my Children would be Willing to try.


----------



## God.

*I Love all my Children*



kytnism said:


> the meaning of the word "god"; to me; is the spiritual life force, within us; as individuals that guides us all when making decisions or contemplating life as one.
> 
> hence why:
> religion causes war.
> people cause hate.
> money and power are involved in religion.
> leaders and self appointed "prophets" exist.
> fearful advocates, choose to believe.
> individuals self explore.
> 
> the list is endless. as is "god-dom"
> 
> ...kytnism...



My seed in the consciousness of living things is better known as "Free Will" 
These seeds will always be planted at the foundation of all new consciousness, because they are all share the foundation of the First Thought which was free and brought our Universe together. 

Due to... many factors My seed in Humanity is under attack by people that fear it's possibilities and potencies. 
People on Earth follow social laws set by society’s norms that unwittingly repress the seed that brings all things together. Where as it is my seed in the country leaders that allows them to indoctrinate people with, "Free Will" suppressive norms, so I’m sorry and your welcome.


----------



## B9

Well I smiled and shook my head.


----------



## God.

*All Known & More Exists within my Goddom.*



Dude Man said:


> If it has be classified and have a name put to it would have to say that I am fairly agnostic. This is because i believe that contemplating the existance and essence of things greater then or different then our observable reality is relavant but following a specific faith in attempt to worrship beings beyond our comprehention is a waste of our limited time on this world in this form.
> I believe GOD is just one way that us humans try to explain a trascend being or something that is beyond the limitations of understanding that we are confined to in this form that we currently exist.  The very essence, let alone the subtleties of form and the details that are part of form, of such a "being" or whatever it maybe's existance, or lack there of, could not be fully comprehened by our minds.   The concept of nothingness is one thing but actually truely understanding  nothingness is a something entirely more preplexing.  The concept of everything is just as complicated if not more so because that would also include nothing.
> All religions and beliefs are an atempt to make our selves feel more comfortable through a connection to the "divine" or whatever termonology that group uses for it.  It may all be profoundly meaningfull or it may all be profoundly meaningless.  Either way alot has happened as a cause of our attempts to understand and even appease our own version of our concept of a "God".



Deep Good thinking my Child,  however Nothing and Everything are perfectly balanced.  Symbolized in the perfection of 10 hopefully all have noticed 
"10 out of 10" is know as the was to score perfect performances... I will explain the correlation.  10 constructed of the number 1' which through multiplication or division enables every number to keep its individuality and maintain all of its attribute.. 1 is one with everything.
10 is also constructed of a 0' this number through multiplication or division reverts all number even 27guguzillion back to nothing.

Is when imagining Everything that ever was then yes you must also imagine Nothing as that is what was first,  Me as I said but I could of also said As Nothing I became conscious and my First Though was Chao...n   

I love the way your post was in the 27th minute deep.


----------



## God.

B9 said:


> Well I smiled and shook my head.



I laughed


----------



## God.

*I LovE all my Children.*



IGNVS said:


> the universally conspiring spirit of love



 LoVe is seen as the coming together of balance - the balance of the word love is "LO" & "VE" if we perform strait forward alphabetical placement Germatria
(this is adding together the alphabetical positions of letters)
Lo becomes 12+15 and Ve 22+5 so the balance of love is 27- me by age me by nature.  
The completion of the word love is a symbol of the coming todether of Chao
C=3+h=8+a=1+o=15  The coming together of Chao is how physical elements are created... this is why some say I made everything out of LoVe.

I write it like that because LovE has its ups and DoWns.


----------



## God.

*0001110101 is how computers work is it not?*



IamAnotherYou said:


> I feel that the word God means "All that Is"...we are children of God and God also. That is the truth i feel inside



I think the easy way to explain the truth is with the use of Number.
My number at first was 0 and an all of my Children are number 1's and together they all added up to infinity, now they are all part of infinity but non of them are infinity they are all number 1 and togeth we are all that is.


----------



## God.

*I love all my Children.*



complexPHILOSOPHY said:


> God is The Being whose essence is His Existence.
> God is The Being whose Purpose is to Exist.
> God is The Being who is Aware of His Purpose.
> God is The Being who Caused Himself.



Very good.
I love that you posted this at 18-11-2008, 00:56 my Child.
Its because Number 56 is the sum of the Name I am most called "Charlie"
This leads me to one of my question " if through the Charlies Angels show people learn the Angels work for a Charlie what do you presume my name should be?


----------



## God.

*Imagine*



The_Idler said:


> I am a Christian and I believe that YHWH is *all the energy in the universe.*... or something.
> 
> This means I can say "I BELIEVE IN GOD!" and that my consciousness will continue to exist forever...... (ah the sweet relief of denial for my weak, fearful mind...)
> 
> NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> the further science and logic go towards demonstrating the redundancy and improbability of God,
> the more ridiculous the meanings people ascribe to the word.
> 
> I often say to people:
> "So, you do not believe in God;
> you believe in _'all the energy in the universe'_..."
> 
> I see the ripples of a moment's horrified doubt disturb the tranquil, shallow pools of their dull, blinkered eyes,
> before they awkwardly change the subject.



Very good my Child.
The elements of Reality that would be meaningless to one person could mean life to the next. 
Our perceptions are built on attributes we ascribe to things - and things we are aware of act like dots in a dot-to-dot puzzle. The picture however is picked by your imagination ( all of our non motor or repeated actions we imagine before carrying them out) Our Imaginations is the effect of Free Will and it shapes our lives. 
The process of Imagination to Manifestation I will always find amazing. 
simply speaking You water My seed by expressing your freedom to think something you've never thought - a sprout comes out and tickles your subconscious- 
Your Subconscious assesses the feasibility of your ideas and if they are not plausible the move to memory stores but if they are feasible the idea multiplies Asexually in to two identical "ideas"- one is transferred back in to your conscious mind which enable you to keep thing about it and planning how to bring it to life. The part that staid with your subconscious is then imprinted with a number by Almighty Me - and it is then your subconscious’s job to find the corresponding number in the Chao Pool - This number is the reality code for your idea - once the reality code has been attained by your subconscious it then has all it need to Build the reality your I idea can live in. 
If the reality Code is not attained the subconscious my return without it, sometimes this leads to a loss of mental stability, sometimes people don’t bring there idea to life and there subconscious puts them in the ideas reality without it - some time both consciousnesses don't achieve what they set out to and life remains as it was as does reality. 

Continue to get the word out hand help build depth into your brothers and sisters that are will to except the truth.


----------



## God.

*cooking*

I am going to make Colifower Cheese with Potatos so I continue with this intresting threa later.


----------



## God.

*Belive what you Will.*



dyslecstasy said:


> i don't really like the word "God" because its connotation lies in organized religion, however, to me "God" is the heartbeat of the universe ... something that exists in everyone and everything. collective conciousness? i think so.
> 
> people use organized religion to explain this "God"/sense of spirituality that they have inside them... there cannot be one right religion because they are all aiming towards the same thing, to explain why we're here, give us a sense of morality, and a sense of comfort about the unknown (death).



Points well made my Child, however people have true faith in me and some indeed express it through religions that they follow.  However you would be suprised to know the truth.

My Children if you Will imagine you were me and you designed the functionality of the human psyche- you would know what actions triggered what chemicals which would result in multiple sensations of consciousness. In your design you had faith that eventually people would be guided through their own paths of personal trails to a Glorious state of mind. 
Creation of free will is to see what happens – to then give a load of regulations to live by is not my style, however we all have our internal rule book and if we follow it we feel good and progress to the final chapter knowing how and why we got there and perhaps would feel happiest teaching the lessons to the impressionable in our community so they don’t make the same mistakes we made that triggered such chemicals as “Remorse & Regret”
People would do this and then eventually it would be written but it would be the word of Humans for Humans.  
When they fully understood themselves they would be ready to accept me.

However this was upset as the first Bible (Holy Book of Guidance) was writen by an Angel

Before Lucifer fell out of good graces in Heaven his compasion for Humanity couldn't be riveled by any of the other Angels.
- After he witnessed the Hand in fury cause death he wanted Humans to life there life with guidence to protect them from stepping out of line and facing a "Quick End".
I think the reason for not giving us rules is that Humans have an inherent nature to break free from restricions break rules --- so if none are set there are no lines to cross there inherent praise to receive peace will prevail. 
Lucifer loving humanity was scared for them - he felt that he needed to go to there salvation and desided to directly guide Humanity to the path of ritiousness no matter the consequence.

His desire to say Humanity lead to his disition to fall in defiance.
when he arived he had not antsapated the reaction Humans to his universal knoledge, "tools" & even his silver cloud that he was seen getting in and out of going from place to place handing out his "Books" of guidlines
He had told people of the "consiquences" > things about God smites those that don't live their life corectley. 
After some time men tried to war with him - out of envey - that he had taught them is a line not to cross in his guidline Books, he turned them to dust with his "tools"
After this forced show of power - Humans then came to the conclusion the Lusifer was God because he was the one that smited the rule breakers - this was all causing tention in Heaven amongst some of his pears- because they felt envyious that they to were not worshiped so others Angle headed to Earth in defiance. 

Where as Lucifers motivation was honerable and selfless to start with -- the other motivation was to covet -- it was just want want want -- they were warned of the consequences but thought it better to reigne then to serve
At first there was a World wide Eutopia - but its didn't last.
Even though Humans worshiped Lucifer as a God he told them not to becaue he is one of Gods Children just like them. The others did the oposite and seperated around the World and forced Humans to worship them as Gods.
The other Angels and grew angree with Lucifer for not playing along, Lucifer was ganged up against by the other Angels.
They killed him publicly and ritualisticly, along his folowers.
After destroying them - whent about tainting his name and made if an object of desgust and made his worship punishable by death.
__________________________

In the modernday commercial religions have flawed foundation as there were born from the quest to control and not maintain the betterment of Humanity


----------



## God.

junctionalfunkie said:


> Psst. I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humour, and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.
> 
> Seriously, though. As an atheist, I consider "god" (little 'g') to mean a supernatural being designated as the leader or creator of the universe by various mythologies (including modern ones).
> 
> But you wrote "God" (big 'G'). That word is essentially meaningless to me. It's like the name of a celebrity I don't think I will ever meet, and very much doubt even exists.
> 
> Buddhism, which is the philosophy I most closely identify with, has no use for either "god" or "God."
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Quick edit 19:10
> I have just come to a point of realization about the quest G or g,
> small g represents a closed loop like "0" as I said i was "0" but nothing could be born fro me until i changed (no escape from a closed loop)
> Where as "G" as you can see has a place for all Chao to flow from and there is a portion of the letter looking inwards symbolizing the evolution of my Nothingness through finding my consciousness within.
> 
> 
> There are many types of atheism. Agnostic atheism, also called "soft atheism" makes no claim that there is definitely no god.



well i laugh when i feel pain, not if i'm bleeding though ... i just laughed thinging about it, if thats sick even though its not the only thing i find funny i will admit my sence of humor can be sick at times... big G thats me God Father Time God of the Universe Charles Andrew Ososami aka Charlie.


----------



## God.

*Big G*

I have just come to a point of realization about the quest G or g, 
small g represents a closed loop like "0" as I said i was "0" but nothing could be born fro me until i changed (no escape from a closed loop)
Where as "G" as you can see has a place for all things to flow from and there is a portion of the letter looking inwards symbolizing the evolution of my Nothingness through finding my consciousness within.


----------



## LiLc

Interesting theory brother.


----------



## God.

LiLc said:


> Interesting theory brother.



Just to let you know Bro i'm your Everlasting Farther yo...

 , 22:20 
Charles Andrew Ososami =222


----------



## junctionalfunkie

Agnosticism is not some sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism. They are completely different concepts:

Gnosticism/agnosticism is about what you know, or think you know. Theism/atheism is about what you believe.

Hence, you can be a Gnostic Theist, an Agnostic Theist, an Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist.


----------



## Max Power

How can you be an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist?

Does that just mean you are "leaning" in a certain direction?


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Gnostic theist: 'I know there is a God'.
Agnostic theist: 'I don't know if there is a God, but nevertheless I believe.'
Gnostic atheist: 'I know there is no God.'
Agnostic atheist: 'I don't know if there is a God or not, but I don't believe so.'

It's kind of similar to the way that libertarianism (classical liberalism) is often mistakenly thought of as a midpoint between conservatism and neo-liberalism (progressivism). In fact, there's two independent variables at work here (social freedom and monetary freedom), and these three positions belong on a four-paned grid, not a line.

What counts as 'knowing'? Well, that's a question for the epistemologists  I'll warn you it's an awfully sticky philosophical matter, and one best suited for its own thread. At times I'm very much a 'seeing is believing' type of guy. If someone has seen something with their own eyes (mystical experiences, in the case of God), who am I to question? At other times I'm thoroughly convinced none of us can ever be sure we know anything for sure, especially for claims that are not falsifiable.


----------



## junctionalfunkie

^ What he said. 



			
				MyDoorsAreOpen said:
			
		

> What counts as 'knowing'? Well, that's a question for the epistemologists  I'll warn you it's an awfully sticky philosophical matter, and one best suited for its own thread....



"Sticky" doesn't begin to describe it.  Descartes' _Meditations on First Philosophy_ is a good place to start for anyone interested, though, particularly I and II, generally considered the basis of modern epistemology:

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


----------



## God.

*Proof*



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> At times I'm very much a 'seeing is believing' type of guy. If someone has seen something with their own eyes (mystical experiences, in the case of God), who am I to question? At other times I'm thoroughly convinced none of us can ever be sure we know anything for sure, especially for claims that are not falsifiable.



Great if that is at time your ethos then seeing my desplays at 
http://www.chaospacks.me.uk 

Read the whole thing and if your will is to find truth your eyes must be open to all meaningful happenings.


----------



## Max Power

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> At times I'm very much a 'seeing is believing' type of guy. If someone has seen something with their own eyes (mystical experiences, in the case of God), who am I to question?



Seeing is one thing, what about feeling?

Is it possible to group God with another intangible thing such as . . . love?

You can't see love, per se, but I'm sure everyone believes in it.


----------



## God.

MaxPowers said:


> Seeing is one thing, what about feeling?
> 
> Is it possible to group God with another intangible thing such as . . . love?
> 
> You can't see love, per se, but I'm sure everyone believes in it.



Its is all about perceptions, if you view LoVe as I do then Love becomes an attribute of mine as I First unified the Chao so yes Love and I may be rightfully grouped together in a physical sense. 
(hopefully all post have been read, or this appear nonsense)
In there belief of LoVe as the Free Will to give yourself to another in matrimony- then this time in the reality that all expressions of Free Will reflect me then again we can be grouped together.

In short all things I am all things Natural.  In every Group I exist


----------



## Max Power

^ ban this troll plz?


----------



## God.

MaxPowers said:


> ^ ban this troll plz?



My Child you thought  i was  "the ultimate prankster" now you think im a "troll" 
If you have any questions that you would like answered ask them through 
The Truth Key.
http://www.thetruthkey.moonfruit.com


----------



## The_Idler

shut up bitch.


----------



## hpi

The meaning of the word God to me means an Inevitable Nuclear War.

The way I view God is as 9 billion trillion + stars. The stars are where we come from and what created everything so to me those are my God/s


----------



## The_Idler

I would worship the Stars,
but they're not Gods.

They are nuclear reactors.


----------



## Tuski

God is everything.

God is me, you, our computers, our ideas, the space between us and anything else subject to the state of existence.


----------



## God.

*Im all things all things are not me.*



Tuski said:


> God is everything.
> 
> God is me, you, our computers, our ideas, the space between us and anything else subject to the state of existence.



For you see I am all things however all things are not me in my intirety.    A good way of understanding this is to imagine Infinity.  .  .   understand that it is made up of all Numbers that exist and that they are what make it Infinite however  all Numbers that exist even though the makeup Infinity  are not Infinite.


----------



## complexPHILOSOPHY

junctionalfunkie said:


> Agnosticism is not some sort of "middle ground" between theism and atheism. They are completely different concepts:
> 
> Gnosticism/agnosticism is about what you know, or think you know. Theism/atheism is about what you believe.
> 
> Hence, you can be a Gnostic Theist, an Agnostic Theist, an Gnostic Atheist, or an Agnostic Atheist.



I am not entirely sure which definition you are using but I am using Bertran Russel's definition. He was a pretty sick logician and philosopher and he asserted that agnosticism was the position in which one does not find sufficient evidence or reason to determine whether or not the existence of God is true, therefore they suspend judgment. 

That is the basis for my argument. Since we aren't linguistic analysts and we are discussing a philosophical subject, I would think that we should consider the definitions of words based on context and use, what do you think you sexy boy?


----------



## ebola?

I still see it as 
agnosticism: refers to certainty of belief.
atheism/theism: refers to content of belief.

I would say that because most anyone isn't 100 percent agnostic or 100 percent certain about most anything, the two are separate spectra.  Thus, you can have, "I don't know if God exists, but I guess he might exist.  If forced to make a statement on it, I'd say he/she/it exists."


----------



## Shakti

Brahman is Atman, Form is Emptiness.

God IS

To define god as one to the exclusion of the many is blasphemous ignorant sin.  To define god as the many to the exclusion of the one is blasphemous ignorant sin.

One can say that I AM GOD, This Is God, That is God and it is true.  But one cannot say that is what God is for it will be misunderstood by all but the unenlightened, or it will enlighten them.

"what is buddha?"

"that tree over there"

So it is.


----------



## junctionalfunkie

complexPHILOSOPHY said:


> I am not entirely sure which definition you are using but I am using Bertran Russel's definition. He was a pretty sick logician and philosopher and he asserted that agnosticism was the position in which one does not find sufficient evidence or reason to determine whether or not the existence of God is true, therefore they suspend judgment.
> 
> That is the basis for my argument. Since we aren't linguistic analysts and we are discussing a philosophical subject, I would think that we should consider the definitions of words based on context and use, what do you think you sexy boy?



Ah, flattery.... 

Start here:

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm


----------



## Mr. White

An imaginary being used to scare people into obedience.
A way to blindly explain away things we dont understand.
A useful coping mechanism for some.


----------



## ClubbinGuido

Vapid, homoerotic animated art of an emperor going 'nuts' over how he loves performing fellatio


----------



## ClubbinGuido

God. said:


> In short all things I am all things Natural.  In every Group I exist



Heresy.


----------



## ClubbinGuido

Shakti said:


> Brahman is Atman, Form is Emptiness.
> 
> God IS
> 
> To define god as one to the exclusion of the many is blasphemous ignorant sin.  To define god as the many to the exclusion of the one is blasphemous ignorant sin.
> 
> One can say that I AM GOD, This Is God, That is God and it is true.  But one cannot say that is what God is for it will be misunderstood by all but the unenlightened, or it will enlighten them.
> 
> "what is buddha?"
> 
> "that tree over there"
> 
> So it is.



Nice post.  Very nice post.


----------



## Xorkoth

To me God is all things.  God is the force of consciousness that experiences existence.


----------



## FractalDancer

I also believe that God is everything.


----------



## NeoMeeko

dark desire said:


> "God" is humanity, the universe, and all things; it's not a being--it just is.



See that is what best sums God up for me. I can't explain God and what she/he/it is, but I look around me and can say that my life, my surroundings, the sky, the rain, my friends, my daughter, my family, the stranger on the bus.... everything.... that's what God is. God is everything around me and everything that makes up me as a person... spiritually, physically, emotionally, mentally... everything.


----------



## The_Idler

FractalDancer said:


> I also believe that God is everything.


So, you believe in the existence of _everything_.


why not just say so, rather than creating these semantic tangles, 
where people may think you actually believe in the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe....

(hmmm there's a word for that....
OH YEAH, NOW I REMEMBER!-
God.)



Why be so attached to this idea of having faith in the existence of God?

You want to say "Oh yes, I believe in God" when you're talking to someone religious, 
or when you want a church wedding, 
or when you're cautiously meeting your SO's parents, 
or when you want to get your child into a Faith School (desirable in the UK, less violence and vice.... slightly), 
or when you're running for election to ****** position, 
or when a situation seems impossible to surmount,
or when you don't understand the world,
or when the best brains of humanity don't understand the world.


But then, when someone asks a hard question about the plausibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe, you say you believe that God is actually just "everything".
or whatever other lame definition you can come up with, that dodges the original question.

We get to the point where people just name OTHER things, which they believe God IS.

Can you not, srs, just admit to yourself that the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe is not actually something you are certain of?

If that is the case, simply admit, _you do not *believe* in *God*._
That is not to say that you don't consider it the most likely possibility....

You COULD redefine the word God,
but why bother saying that you believe in God, and that God is all the energy in the Universe,
when "energy in the universe" is already a carefully-defined and thoroughly investigated idea?

You may as well just say,
"I do not believe in God, as The Creator, although I acknowledge the possibility, and have confidence in the probability, of His existence.
I also happen to have faith in the existence of all the energy in the Universe, despite humanity having _nothing like_ the capacity required, to fathom the nature of, well, anything."

or, when someone asks if you believe in the existence of God,
"Yes, I believe in the existence of [all the energy in the universe/collective spirit of humanity/love/universal consciousness/The Universe]"



I feel a spiritual need to give thanks for my existence,
to demonstrate my appreciation and admiration for the elegance and fascinatingly diverse properties and products of it.
The beauty of it is overwhelming.

*I worship The Universe.*
You could say, _The Universe is my God_.
This would be true.... _"my God"_

However, I do not believe that _"God is The Universe"_.
Not least because people might think I were holding such a view,
simply so I can tell myself (or others), 'I believe in God'.

If you take Him by the classical definition, 
as _the omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe_,
this is clearly not the same thing as "The Universe", itself.

So, rather than having to inform particular people that your belief in God amounts to belief in _"The Universe"_, 
conveniently invalidating any arguments they may have made against the logical probability of His existence,
why not just explain that you are in absolute awe of the beauty of The Universe,
the _entirety of existence_ being the defining, symbolic concept, which you consider with absolute reverence, which you pay respects to and give thanks for?

That may be LOVE or HUMAN SPIRIT or Yahweh, God of Abraham or WHATEVER,
for next man,
but you really have to admit to yourself, one day, 
that old story is too implausible,
God's existence is not certain to you and may even be improbable.

You might like to call mass-energy "God",
certainly a defining conceptual symbol of the miracle of your existence,
but I get the feeling that all the mass-energy in the universe isn't going to send me to heaven or deliver me from my sins.

It just might be able to tell Moses to stone a man to death for picking up sticks of a Sunday, however. 





*My point is,*
I don't doubt the fact that the power (psychological, spiritual or physical; theoretical or actual) of 
_[all the energy in the universe/collective spirit of humanity/love/universal consciousness/etc]_
is incomprehensibly immense and dynamic,
but they, by definition, did not MAGICALLY construct the Universe and Humanity and the ideas of good and evil etc, to subsequently directly demand respect and reverence,
and so, they are not God.


Don't even bother pretending;
use the general definition of God;
admit you cannot be *certain* about such a being's existence;
acknowledge that, by extension, you cannot have *faith* in the existence of God, as He is described classically;
conclude that it would be counter-productive and intellectually embarrassing, to attempt to insist that you do, in fact, have faith in God,
yet only with the absurd condition that God is defined as any concept, other than those, which define God.

all these other, new, personalized definitions of God are useless.
Accepting that God can mean _anything_ makes the question, "Do you believe in God?" completely redundant.

It is just an impediment to discussion,
which probably existences in such prevalence,
due to two of its properties:
1. allows people the convenience/comfort of appearing religious (or not), as the situation demands
2. allows people to swing both ways;
they can justify or support any logical ideas with scientific evidence and reasoning, 
while still retaining the ability to invalidate any logical argument _against_ their ideas by pointing out that, 
because some generally accepted psychological/physical phenomena _happens to be_ what they call "God",
their theories are not, in fact, subject to criticism based upon logic and reason.

cheap.




sry long unorganized post.

RCs...


----------



## claire22

i personally, do not believe god exists. i don't force my beliefs on anybody, and do not appreciate it when people who believe force it on me.
i just cannot believe in something that i have seen zero proof exists..


----------



## junctionalfunkie

^Yep. 

And as for the common monotheistic belief that god is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, it can be argued that evidence exists to _refute_ it:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html

"When it comes to believing in God, I really, really tried, but, the more you look around, the more you realize something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. This is not good work. If this is the best that God can do, I’m not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being."

-George Carlin


----------



## johanneschimpo

God. Something that I don't really believe in, but always make sure to capitalize out of respect. Thats what God is to me.


----------



## goldilocks37

*To the Ants Humans are God*

God is the opium of the masses.  Those that believe feel infinite comfort...ignorance is bliss.  If I could become a born again maybe I could live within the rules/laws..conform to what society says is the right way to live.  The idea of God makes me feel lost, anti-social, angry, jealous of those that believe.  I keep searching and try to find peace in what is.


----------



## The_Idler

_believing that there is "no God"_ 
is no better than 
_believing that there is "God"_


Due to lack of evidence, weak logic, blatant absurdities and the nature of human society and individuals throughout history,
I do not believe that there is "God".

The most simple and probable explanation seems to be that organized religion (and so the classical conception of Lord Creator) exists and survives because it is extremely useful and effective a controlling people completely, yet subtly.

It is almost as  beautifully effective as consumerism/global capitalism.

It's good because it convinces people to subscribe to the systems and procedures of this organization,
by explaining the creation of the universe, the meaning of life, the purpose of their existence, the nature of this world, history, morals etc. through very simple stories that they can comprehend.
The people want these things to be true (because they can't understand string theory, while Genesis is pretty self-explanatory), and so they find it easy to accept them.
They are also taken in by those two little perks, eternal life and absolution from wrongdoing.

_"So, just do everything we tell you, and I promise you will spend eternity in bliss, 
after the point where your heart has stopped and lack of blood to the brain has caused complete cessation of cognitive activity..... 
Wha-? 
Nonono, do not worry yourself about HOW this could be possible, or about how I can know this is true.
Tis the power and mystery of GOD.
You must simply believe it is true, and then He will reward you.
Ah yes, GOD. This is the omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and unfathomable Creator.
He can do anything. He knows everything. He is greater than all that there is.
He fashioned this Universe, in all its complexity, from nothing, in a few days.
Pretty powerful huh?
Oh yeah, the best bit is, he LOVES you.
Whenever you are alone, He can comfort you.
Whenever you make a mistake, He can forgive you.
Whenever you cannot comprehend happenings in and properties of this world, He is there as a convenient catch-all.
Whenever you feel used by society; worthless, except for being enslaved to a system of great injustice for the benefit of a few exploitative individuals, He gives you an excuse of a reason for your existence."_

the best bit is where they say you HAVE to believe them,
to live forever and be forgiven for your mistakes.
This manages to ensnare, also, people who realise the absurdity of the proposition,
but whose desire for the (considerable) benefits outweighs (consciously or otherwise) the embarrassment inflicted upon ones intellect by purposefully informing others that one holds a belief, even when one finds it absurd.

Then they have FAITH, which is satisfactorily self-perpetuating.
Because the rewards of God/Religion depend on belief,
People cannot know why they feel God must exist, or why they do just trust that guy in the robe with the universe's greatest questions....
If they realised, like Pascal, the only reasoning that supports the idea that subscription to this system was worthwhile for themselves, well....
The magic is lost. 
They realise that they only put up with doing everything the man in the robe said,
working all day for someone else's benefit,
paying and honouring the King, because he has been granted the supreme and unquestionable right to rule and exploit and do what he will with an entire nation of people, by an all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being, which created and transcends our entire universe.
They realise that they only bought that piece of shit justification for their enslavement,
only because they chose to believe in God,
only because they got told that, if they do that, they will live forever in bliss.....

Many people just subconsciously suppress their doubts (they are constantly reminded never to doubt).
This is due to various combinations of: 
fear of the unknown;
fear of personal responsibility;
fear of death;
fear of the sense of pointlessness and regret that results from their consideration of the idea that they are actually "just" a fantastically and inspiringly formed being, which grew from a single cell, hosting an astoundingly elegant and effective _consciousness_, as a non-physical manifestation of the machinations and interactions within its brain, which is comprised of about 100,000,000,000 neurons (a galaxy of stars, also about the number of galaxies in the visible universe).
Because that's just depressing without magic, a superhero and eternal bliss.....

Many people find the idea of their life being completely theirs,
of having ultimate responsibility for its course,
of living with the only purpose of surviving, procreating and enjoying themselves,
to be an utterly TERRIFYING situation.

Many people have an innate and fundamental need,
which is satisfied, only when it appears that they have a simple and just overall goal,
which they are making steady progress towards.

Humans often have a desire for their lives to have greater meaning.
No matter how shit you feel, 
no matter how depressed you are, 
no matter how useless and pointless you imagine yourself to be,
IF you can _believe_ (or at least convince your conscious mind) 
that an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal conscious being, 
which created and now transcends all that there is,
created your life and cares for you and loves you personally 
and hopes to teach you wonderful things during the blissful everlasting state of consciousness,
in which you will somehow find yourself, obviously facilitated by his unquestionable power and benevolence,
ONLY AFTER you've dutifully, continually contributed the products of your life's labours to the establishment,
every day, until THE DAY YOU DIE.





and yeah,
if there ever was a God,
He left this Earth a long time ago.


----------



## ebola?

idler said:
			
		

> But then, when someone asks a hard question about the plausibility of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, incomprehensible and transcendent Creator of the Universe, you say you believe that God is actually just "everything".
> or whatever other lame definition you can come up with, that dodges the original question.



1.  Why would the classical (read: dominant) Xian definition of God hold a monopoly, particularly in this thread?
2.  I find the pantheist god the most valuable formulation that I've encountered.

ebola


----------



## veaux1

The meaning of god to me is simply, black holes in space.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Idler, just to let you know I'm going to delete any further drugfaced rants you post in this thread. This thread is not a place for you to air your beef, or your manifestos.

Just let people answer the original question as they wish. kthx.


----------



## FreedomOfTheMind

My definition of God or the divine is the holistic potency that animates the universe.
I equate God with the universe and I view the universe as an empty, ceaselessly transforming reflection of the unmanifest. A union between emptiness and form. All that has been, all that is and all that will ever be.


----------



## Portillo

junctionalfunkie said:


> ^Yep.
> 
> And as for the common monotheistic belief that god is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful, it can be argued that evidence exists to _refute_ it:
> 
> http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nicholas_tattersall/evil.html
> 
> "When it comes to believing in God, I really, really tried, but, the more you look around, the more you realize something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. This is not good work. If this is the best that God can do, I’m not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a Supreme Being."
> 
> -George Carlin



Half those things are man made problems.


----------



## FractalDancer

Idler, I've been an athiest for many years previously so I have never been afraid to admit I don't know whether there is a god of any sort at all! 

Lately however, I have become more spiritual and you're right - 'everything' was a convenient way of summing my ideas up, instead of writing a long ramble. It's much easier than the pain of looking back at my posts in years to come to realise that I was most likely in some sort of deluded hippyfied state due to overuse of psychedelics  

I love to think about collective consciousness , energy and other spiritual theories you mentioned but being a scientist, my sensible analytical side often kicks and from day to day I have conflicting views... I certainly don't believe in the 'traditional' view of god anyhow, and wouldn't pretend that was the case for the superficial reasons you mentioned.  It was perceptive of you to say that what I said allows one to swing both ways - indeed I do, far too much for my liking!  Luckily, it's not something I need to discuss with people in day to day life very often, they would find me a very confusing person indeed!


----------



## dtrip

It was whatever you regard to be your higher power.


----------



## bbell

PsYcHoAcTiViSt said:


> I tried to answer but I erased it because I don't know if it was what I really believe. I struggle with this too much. there are just too many possibilites. I can tell you some of the things I DONT believe. Like for instance I certainly DONT believe that the earth was created in 7 days. I have too many thoughts. There is no way I would ever be able to confine myself to one particular belief. It would just change 5 minutes later.


one day with the lord is like 1000. Dos'nt it  seem posible now?


----------



## somethingaboutmary

The_Idler said:


> _believing that there is "no God"_
> is no better than
> _believing that there is "God"_
> 
> 
> Due to lack of evidence, weak logic, blatant absurdities and the nature of human society and individuals throughout history,
> I do not believe that there is "God".
> 
> The most simple and probable explanation seems to be that organized religion (and so the classical conception of Lord Creator) exists and survives because it is extremely useful and effective a controlling people completely, yet subtly.
> 
> It is almost as  beautifully effective as consumerism/global capitalism.
> 
> It's good because it convinces people to subscribe to the systems and procedures of this organization,
> by explaining the creation of the universe, the meaning of life, the purpose of their existence, the nature of this world, history, morals etc. through very simple stories that they can comprehend.
> The people want these things to be true (because they can't understand string theory, while Genesis is pretty self-explanatory), and so they find it easy to accept them.
> They are also taken in by those two little perks, eternal life and absolution from wrongdoing.
> 
> _"So, just do everything we tell you, and I promise you will spend eternity in bliss,
> after the point where your heart has stopped and lack of blood to the brain has caused complete cessation of cognitive activity.....
> Wha-?
> Nonono, do not worry yourself about HOW this could be possible, or about how I can know this is true.
> Tis the power and mystery of GOD.
> You must simply believe it is true, and then He will reward you.
> Ah yes, GOD. This is the omnipotent, omniscient, infinite and unfathomable Creator.
> He can do anything. He knows everything. He is greater than all that there is.
> He fashioned this Universe, in all its complexity, from nothing, in a few days.
> Pretty powerful huh?
> Oh yeah, the best bit is, he LOVES you.
> Whenever you are alone, He can comfort you.
> Whenever you make a mistake, He can forgive you.
> Whenever you cannot comprehend happenings in and properties of this world, He is there as a convenient catch-all.
> Whenever you feel used by society; worthless, except for being enslaved to a system of great injustice for the benefit of a few exploitative individuals, He gives you an excuse of a reason for your existence."_
> 
> the best bit is where they say you HAVE to believe them,
> to live forever and be forgiven for your mistakes.
> This manages to ensnare, also, people who realise the absurdity of the proposition,
> but whose desire for the (considerable) benefits outweighs (consciously or otherwise) the embarrassment inflicted upon ones intellect by purposefully informing others that one holds a belief, even when one finds it absurd.
> 
> Then they have FAITH, which is satisfactorily self-perpetuating.
> Because the rewards of God/Religion depend on belief,
> People cannot know why they feel God must exist, or why they do just trust that guy in the robe with the universe's greatest questions....
> If they realised, like Pascal, the only reasoning that supports the idea that subscription to this system was worthwhile for themselves, well....
> The magic is lost.
> They realise that they only put up with doing everything the man in the robe said,
> working all day for someone else's benefit,
> paying and honouring the King, because he has been granted the supreme and unquestionable right to rule and exploit and do what he will with an entire nation of people, by an all-powerful, all-knowing, conscious being, which created and transcends our entire universe.
> They realise that they only bought that piece of shit justification for their enslavement,
> only because they chose to believe in God,
> only because they got told that, if they do that, they will live forever in bliss.....
> 
> Many people just subconsciously suppress their doubts (they are constantly reminded never to doubt).
> This is due to various combinations of:
> fear of the unknown;
> fear of personal responsibility;
> fear of death;
> fear of the sense of pointlessness and regret that results from their consideration of the idea that they are actually "just" a fantastically and inspiringly formed being, which grew from a single cell, hosting an astoundingly elegant and effective _consciousness_, as a non-physical manifestation of the machinations and interactions within its brain, which is comprised of about 100,000,000,000 neurons (a galaxy of stars, also about the number of galaxies in the visible universe).
> Because that's just depressing without magic, a superhero and eternal bliss.....
> 
> Many people find the idea of their life being completely theirs,
> of having ultimate responsibility for its course,
> of living with the only purpose of surviving, procreating and enjoying themselves,
> to be an utterly TERRIFYING situation.
> 
> Many people have an innate and fundamental need,
> which is satisfied, only when it appears that they have a simple and just overall goal,
> which they are making steady progress towards.
> 
> Humans often have a desire for their lives to have greater meaning.
> No matter how shit you feel,
> no matter how depressed you are,
> no matter how useless and pointless you imagine yourself to be,
> IF you can _believe_ (or at least convince your conscious mind)
> that an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal conscious being,
> which created and now transcends all that there is,
> created your life and cares for you and loves you personally
> and hopes to teach you wonderful things during the blissful everlasting state of consciousness,
> in which you will somehow find yourself, obviously facilitated by his unquestionable power and benevolence,
> ONLY AFTER you've dutifully, continually contributed the products of your life's labours to the establishment,
> every day, until THE DAY YOU DIE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yeah,
> if there ever was a God,
> He left this Earth a long time ago.



Right on to that good post


----------



## marissaaaaaa

hm.
i believe there is a God out there.
as well of the existence of other god's.
kind of like the government. God's like the president, and other god's from greek/roman myths, angels, and mother nature are like the president's cabinet, and seantors.

one being ruling the show, with a bunch of other's helping out.

i agree on a lot of buddhist beliefs, and think that that religon is the closest we'll get to really knowing how shit works.

i don't really agree with the idea of God expressed through my catholic upbringing, which is why i didn't make my conformation. in my faith if you don't make the big c's-christsening, communion, confirmation: "God" believes you're not commited to Him(why is it a him i must ask), and you can't get into "heaven".
and here is my major issue with that idea held in a lot of religon's.
if God is such an all-loving, all-forgiving character, why must you commit, work so hard, live by so many difficult standards, and never stray, to be saved from an eternal fiery torturing?

that being said i don't know if i believe in an afterlife the way i was brought up to believe it.
there's definatly something that happens after you die. there can't be just eternal darkness and unconciousness. that would kind of negate any point to the existance of anything, don't you think?

maybe we all get re-born, with no memory of the past life. into any human, animal, insect, virus, etc, in any time period.
maybe we turn into trees.
maybe we go to the pearly gates.
maybe we don't really go anywhere, and stick around earth.

but i do hope that something beautiful happens, and you feel better there, then you do on any drug were chasing here on earth.

and hopefully there's some God out there, with some plan.

this world and this life's cruel enough, our religious belief's, and afterlife shouldn't have to be.

:]

i have a nice blog on my myspace that sort of pertains to this subj.
if anyones interested im going to try to somehow post it up on my blulight profile.
if not, maybe ill make a thread about the afterlife and post it up despite how scrutinous some of you posters can be   



REALLY RANDOM. but i just saw a commercial for some quit-smoking thing chantix, that caused people to attempt and commit suicide.
holy shit what the fuck is the government passing these days to give to us poor helpless citizens.
don't they fucking test shit anymore?


----------



## junctionalfunkie

Portillo said:


> Half those things are man made problems.



And the other half of them are not.

Did you read the definition of the Argument from Evil? The point is that a god that is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good would not allow them to exist. Of course, the standard monotheist's response is that god endowed Man with "free will."


----------



## jimmyblaze1

A way of people explaining "miracles" back in the day -

Q:"who did such a thing?!?!" - 
A"Why it must have been someone...but noone could do that..." - springing forth much theological discussion...then people hear about people having dreams & being talked to by a radiant being in their dreams etc.

It's an innocent concept here.

Then later on rulers of lands etc start to coin it and tell the people that this GOd person will smite you down if you don't go to CHURCH and obey the laws of the church...

The Church is of course a bunch of people in on the scam, and also a bunch of nutters to boot.

This leads to mass indoctrination - "the opiate of the masses".

So in short, what probably started out as an innocent thing was transformed into an oppressive tool against the lower ignorant classes/castes etc in the case of the major relgions.


----------



## rhinorider

"A mother is God in the eyes of a child"


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

*I am the Thumb of God*

In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.

Animals are the most complex of the organic observers on this Earth.
The human race is the most complex observer that lives among the animals,
and I am the most complex man that lives among the human race.

Imagine that God is rooted in dimensions higher than ours, and he has his hand set into our universe. God has many fingertips, and each fingertip is an observer, an "eye" of God.
Each of these fingertips are interconnected with each other through love, and the strongest of the connections is focused on the thumb.
I am God's thumb. I give unconditional love, while receiving mostly suffering in return. I do not think I am Christ. I am just the most complex observer at this moment in time. I really do not know what exactly it is that I ultimately am supposed to do, but logic has led me to this point so far, and I want to let you all know that I will do all I can do to let humanity avoid eternal recurrence, and embrace transcendence to heaven.

I don't believe in anything biblical; what was said in the bible, if worth anything, has been distorted through translation. I just believe in logic. Through quantum physics, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, I have found myself here now at this point in time. I believe it is here where I should use our will to decide our next move. Anonymously that is, to become aware of the reaction that this provokes.

Call me manic or psychotic, I do not expect you to believe me. I expect you to mock me. But in doing so you will enlighten me, and widen my understanding of the suffering of man.

I really only just _want_ to be a thumb of God. I believe that God is above everything, but I have faith that he will save us


----------



## swilow

> Call me manic or psychotic, I do not expect you to believe me



I'll not call you either- I just don't believe you. Your essentially saying you are superior to everyone else. I think your shortsighted in assuming people will mock you- hence your complexity is rather narror. Anyway, whats so important about complexity?


----------



## delta_9

> In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.


Where do you get this probability from?


----------



## rocksteady&bebop

hahahaha you believe in logic


----------



## The_Idler

yeah delta 9

this is P&S,

such a proposition is perfectly reasonable,
because logic doesnt exist in the minds of the spiritual.

just whatever they _feel_ is right.


----------



## BurnOneDown

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.



Why? How do you know that there has existed anything more complex than man in the history of time? Why will there never be a more complex entities?



SpunkySkunk347 said:


> Each of these fingertips are interconnected with each other through love, and the strongest of the connections is focused on the thumb.
> I am God's thumb. I give unconditional love, while receiving mostly suffering in return. I do not think I am Christ. I am just the most complex observer at this moment in time. I really do not know what exactly it is that I ultimately am supposed to do, but logic has led me to this point so far, and I want to let you all know that I will do all I can do to let humanity avoid eternal recurrence, and embrace transcendence to heaven.



This is jst self-aggrandizing bullshit.



The_Idler said:


> yeah delta 9
> 
> this is P&S,
> 
> such a proposition is perfectly reasonable,
> because logic doesnt exist in the minds of the spiritual.
> 
> just whatever they _feel_ is right.



Perfectly reasonable? This is just rhetorical masturbation. Such selfish purposes are not philosophical or spiritual.


----------



## The_Idler

i was taking the piss =P

this guy is clearly on coke or maybe just stupid


----------



## huntmich

Yea, I believed all that shit once too; then the mushrooms wore off.


----------



## The_Idler

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> In our particular dimensional branch *[what?]*, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe *[no]*. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone*[what?]*, and this universe will fade into darkness.*[why?]*
> 
> Animals are the most complex of the organic observers on this Earth.
> The human race is the most complex observer that lives among the animals,
> and I am the most complex man that lives among the human race.*[no]*
> 
> Imagine that God is rooted in dimensions higher than ours* [you are "high", right?]*, and he has his hand set into our universe. God has many fingertips, and each fingertip is an observer, an "eye" of God. *[wat]*
> Each of these fingertips are interconnected with each other through love, and the strongest of the connections is focused on the thumb.*[probably not the case]*
> I am God's thumb.* [and i am Satan's thumbscrews] *I give unconditional love, while receiving mostly suffering in return. *[doubtful]* I do not think I am Christ. *[no, you think you are the Thumb of God]* I am just the most complex observer at this moment in time *[probably not]*. I really do not know what exactly it is that I ultimately am supposed to do *[die]*, but logic has led me to this point so far *[delusion]*, and I want to let you all know that I will do all I can do to let humanity avoid eternal recurrence* [i'm comforted by your commitment]*, and embrace transcendence to heaven *[how does one transcend TO something?]*.
> 
> I don't believe in anything biblical *[that would be far too sensible]*; what was said in the bible, if worth anything, has been distorted through translation *[my god you spoke some truth]*. I just believe in logic.* [LOL LOLOLOLOLOLOL BELIEF IN LOGIC HE ACTUALLY SAID HE BELIEVED IN LOGIC LOLOLOL]* Through quantum physics, philosophy, psychology, psychiatry, and neuroscience, *[of which you apparently know nothing]* I have found myself here now at this point in time. I believe it is here where I should use our will to decide our next move. Anonymously that is, to become aware of the reaction that this provokes.*[cue cliché mysterious hollywood music]*
> 
> Call me manic or psychotic, I do not expect you to believe me. I expect you to mock me. But in doing so you will enlighten me, and widen my understanding of the suffering of man.* [WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA]*



-Ed


----------



## Xorkoth

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.
> 
> Animals are the most complex of the organic observers on this Earth.
> The human race is the most complex observer that lives among the animals,
> and I am the most complex man that lives among the human race.



This is a complete assumption - have you been to the far reaches of the universe?  How do you know there is nothing more complex than us?  Or that there never will be?



> Imagine that God is rooted in dimensions higher than ours, and he has his hand set into our universe. God has many fingertips, and each fingertip is an observer, an "eye" of God.
> Each of these fingertips are interconnected with each other through love, and the strongest of the connections is focused on the thumb.



I agree with this.



> I am God's thumb. I give unconditional love, while receiving mostly suffering in return. I do not think I am Christ. I am just the most complex observer at this moment in time.



What has led you to believe this?  I believe that we're all of the same capacity, not that any one person is above any other.  This is a common ego-driven delusion when exploring spirituality, mostly through psychedelic drugs.  Don't get trapped by your ego's games.



> I am God's thumb. I give unconditional love, while receiving mostly suffering in return.



You're not giving unconditional love.  You're proclaiming your superiority over everything and everyone else in the universe.  And you're also playing the martyr.

Bottom line - your ego is masturbating.  You need to rise above your ego and realize your part.  And your part is not to be above everyone else, but to be an equal cog in the wheel of existence.  We all have the responsiblity of giving unconditional love and being a "finger of "god"", and we all suffer.  You are not special in this regard.

Trust me, I know it's easy to get caught up in the grandiose feelings from when you realize what we really are.  It's a novice explorer's mistake.  But by believing your ego when it tells you that you're the center of it all, you accomplish the opposite of what you intend to.


----------



## Heresy

Look into "Body without organs", I think Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari coined the term (Read Anti-Oedipus: Schitzophrenia and Capitalism).


----------



## twentysix

Interesting.

But I think that maybe we all the center.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

OP, I believe that your moments of insight were genuine. (That is, I don't think you're 'crazy'). But I think your interpretation and wording of them are in need of a bit of refining. More on this when I get a free minute.


----------



## delta_9

The_Idler said:


> yeah delta 9
> 
> this is P&S,
> 
> such a proposition is perfectly reasonable,
> because logic doesnt exist in the minds of the spiritual.
> 
> just whatever they _feel_ is right.



Actually such a notion is completely absurd.  As Xorkoth pointed out the OP has not traveled the universe or even left this planet, so assuming humans are the most complex life in the universe is complete unfounded and nonsensical.

The OP can _feel_ whatever he wants is right, but what is actually right is another story.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

> Call me manic or psychotic, I do not expect you to believe me. I expect you to mock me.



Looks like your wish was granted. Be careful what you wish for.



SpunkySkunk347 said:


> I am the most complex man that lives among the human race.



This is the sentence I (and others) have a problem with. The other main points of yours, as I read them, I could buy:
* your existence in the present moment is of paramount importance
* you have an important mission in life to fulfill
* we're all part of a great interconnected One
* all is fleeting

Although I agree that from your eyes, you are the world's most important person, (since half of your world is made up of your inner world alone), I find 'complex' a dangerous and not quite accurate way to conceptualize this. I see a recognition that others' inner worlds are as complex as your own, to be absolutely foundational to a worldview based on compassion for other travelers along the great Way. The minute you elevate yourself above others in this regard, you begin to live in a state of greater alienation from others, as well as from your true self.

True, YOUR life's mission is what is relevant to YOU, NOW. And also true that it is your unique mission alone; you are the best man for the job.

Note that rephrasing it this way doesn't imply a comparison or competition with anyone else.


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

The_Idler said:


> yeah delta 9
> 
> this is P&S,
> 
> such a proposition is perfectly reasonable,
> because logic doesnt exist in the minds of the spiritual.
> 
> just whatever they _feel_ is right.



I am prepared to give you a completely scientifical essay explaining how with fundamental math I have come to this understanding.
Or you can sit on your throne and not give me a chance to share with you possibly the most crucial information you and I will ever become aware of.
"spiritual" metaphysics aside, I will present you with equations that all current models of physics show to be irrefutable.

I do not think any more significantly about myself than I do you or anyone else. How can you value yourself over yourself? - We can not - The fact we are able to become aware of anything at all is evident towards the idea that a fundamental will to live is supporting the occurence of life. Furthermore, that same will to live has a pinnacle. We are quite close to that pinnacle. What I have to say is basically a much more scientifical version of what everyone else has to say. We all are trying to say one thing. We all have just one idea, but it becomes distorted through time and space. Do you know what the idea is? It is the same idea that is behind nearly all religion. The idea is "Unification Through Communication". Can you grasp that?

To me, you only exist _a priori_; as well as I only exist _a priori _to you. We are all essentially right, and in turn none of us wants to be wrong. I do not expect anyone to accept any of my ideas; _How could you_ accept any of my ideas?



BurnOneDown said:


> Why? How do you know that there has existed anything more complex than man in the history of time? Why will there never be a more complex entities?



Biological and in turn technological advancement points towards its own exponential growth. We are soon to reach the single Y value of the parabola.
Excuse my self-gratifying behaviors if you have picked up on them, does it offend you? Does the thought of being wrong scare you? If you can acknowledge this, then we are atleast making a step in the right direction. From this can be asked, "Is there any human behaviour that is not self-gratifying?"



Xorkoth said:


> This is a complete assumption - have you been to the far reaches of the universe?  How do you know there is nothing more complex than us?  Or that there never will be?


Would you like me to share the math for you? I will gladly, if you want me to.



> What has led you to believe this?  I believe that we're all of the same capacity, not that any one person is above any other.  This is a common ego-driven delusion when exploring spirituality, mostly through psychedelic drugs.  Don't get trapped by your ego's games.


_Everything is Water_, all of humanity, and furthermore all of existence, is unified.
I am an observer. All that I know is merely observation and exists _a priori_. I look inwards towards myself in order to piece together a representation of the universe I reside in _a priori_. Therefore, as my own entity, I am my own God. Just as you are your own God, and everyone else in all of everything is their own God. Together we exist unified in a dimension above ours, perverted tragically into only being able to make observations of the dimension below us. 
Do you grasp that? We observe the dimension below us, which is the spatial dimension. We reside and are rooted in the dimension above us, which is perceived by us as the dimension of time. Those two are locked in a continuum with each other, and can be expressed by the equation E=MC²
If you can mentally grasp how Einstein was able to come up with that equation, then you can easily understand everything else I am going to say, it is only a few more steps away from that. Really, my philosophy is merely being able to visualize Einstein's discovery and applying it egotistically.




> You're not giving unconditional love.  You're proclaiming your superiority over everything and everyone else in the universe.  And you're also playing the martyr.


Oh I believe I am far too selfish to be a martyr. I believe we are too selfish to be anywhere close. A pessimistic thought, but unfortunately a fundamental one that can not be avoided when dealing with such psychological topics.



twentysix said:


> Interesting.
> 
> But I believe that we are all in the center, and that it's infinitely complex- but very simple. Too broad?


Too broad? - Not at all, and in fact that expression is essential.





> In regard to my own experience.. I have somewhat of a "Messiah complex", and a feeling of being this "center" of everything. I try not to let it interfere with things, though. I see the center everywhere I choose to look... though it is easier to see myself as the center. The ego is a very tricky thing.


Every single human, myself included, has this complex. Do not try and tell the others of your own sense of superiority however, they will never be able to believe you without your detailed explanation, or better yet until they find it for themselves.



> I know in your state of mind that no man can convince you other-wise.. Hell.. I'm there too, bro. I won't go into my reasons, because they're just so complex, and "sticky", that it's hard to swallow. I don't expect anyone to understand.



No man will ever be able to convince another man to deny his own Christ complex. Doing so would end the very will that governs us.



delta_9 said:


> Actually such a notion is completely absurd.  As Xorkoth pointed out the OP has not traveled the universe or even left this planet, so assuming humans are the most complex life in the universe is complete unfounded and nonsensical.
> 
> The OP can _feel_ whatever he wants is right, but what is actually right is another story.



"What is actually right?" Our reality is within our minds. That which we have not observed unfortunately does not exist to our conscious awareness. We will have to admit that what other observers the Earth provides is all we will know. What we see is what we get.


----------



## BurnOneDown

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> Biological and in turn technological advancement points towards its own exponention growth. We are soon to reach the single Y value of the parabola.
> Excuse my self-gratifying behaviors if you have picked up on them, does it offend you? Does the thought of being wrong scare you? If you can acknowledge this, then we are atleast making a step in the right direction. From this can be asked, "Is there any human behaviour that is not self-gratifying?"
> 
> What about a behavior that is self-deprecating?
> 
> I see what you are saying. And, yes, in one sense it is true. But it is completely extreme interpretation of a truth. If you truly believe in what you say, then someone will institutionalize you IRL. And they will do so to protect you from yourself. Such beliefs are not the product of a healthy mind.


----------



## delta_9

> I am prepared to give you a completely scientifical essay explaining how with fundamental math I have come to this understanding.
> Or you can sit on your throne and not give me a chance to share with you possibly the most crucial information you and I will ever become aware of.
> "spiritual" metaphysics aside, I will present you with equations that all current models of physics show to be irrefutable.


If you have evidence to support your claims, please present it.


> "What is actually right?" Our reality is within our minds. That which we have not observed unfortunately does not exist to our conscious awareness. We will have to admit that what other observers the Earth provides is all we will know. What we see is what we get.


I dont agree.  Reality is something external, it is not in our minds.  If I die today reality will continue to be.  
Yes, what we see is what we get, but that is not all there is.  We do not have the whole picture and I doubt we ever will.


----------



## twentysix

> I don't know if he exsists, but if he does, I've sold my soul to him.
> I sold it to him in exchange for him making a girl fall in love with me.



Did you ever have any luck?


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

BurnOneDown said:


> What about a behavior that is self-deprecating?
> 
> I see what you are saying. And, yes, in one sense it is true. But it is completely extreme interpretation of a truth. If you truly believe in what you say, then someone will institutionalize you IRL. And they will do so to protect you from yourself. Such beliefs are not the product of a healthy mind.



Indeed it is a quite radical interpretation of the truth. The scary conclusion is however, that it is the interpretation all of us have made about ourselves subconsciously. It lies far beyond the human ego. Can we harvest this out? Can we apply this knowledge to our ego? Can we make ourselves aware of our own sense of superiority over all others?



twentysix said:


> "I sold my soul to Satan"
> 
> 
> Did you ever have any luck?



The harsh conclusion for a truth-seeking mind is: The more complex our moral intelligence becomes, the harder it becomes to stay emotionally content. Radical emotions bring radical conclusions. Wise men have to learn to keep emotions out of the equations one way or another.



delta_9 said:


> If you have evidence to support your claims, please present it.


I have dozens of different writings that I've worked on trying to pin-point my philosophy, and they vary quite a bit. If you would like a more/less technical writing just ask, but I will give you one of them that would seem to me to be a good summary of my evidence. Most of the mathematical questions can be answered with a quick search on whatever subject I might be talking about. Without bombing this thread with technical equations, I will give a much more philisophical and less mathematical writing that I made a few weeks ago:

_ _ _ _

What is true? What is false? We can not know precisely. There is an uncertainty in all values. The best we can do is reach a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt – and it is here where the common man falls short.

What am I?
I work to bring balance towards my oppositions. I attempt to find certainty in uncertainty. I am the Apollo to my Dionysus, and the Dionysus of my Dionysus. I am the counterweight that is relatively proportional to the opposition’s effort. I am the collapse of infinity into the finite. I ride upon the highest value in a sea of indefinite values.

Let’s see just how omniscient we can become in a world created upon the unknown. 

Is life a meaningless tragedy, or an optimistic eternity? Furthermore, did we have a choice in determining this outcome? Those are moral questions, and in order to understand them I believe we must look into the physical laws that govern our existence.

Say that perhaps our one goal as living beings is to become aware of what we really are, but due to the very nature of our actions we are incapable of doing so. Even if we were capable of this enlightenment, wouldn’t accomplishing it undo our own existence?
Unfortunately, I think the evidence points towards the fact that we may never find true transcendence during life, because we would need to solve an infinite amount of variables. How can we solve an infinite amount of variables if we have difficulties knowing if we have even solved one or any at all? But aren’t infinity and singularity synonymous? So if we ever were to solve one variable, create one point of certain value, wouldn’t we descend to a lower value? Then how are we here, considering our ability to observe is evidence of at least some value being made certain. It is here that I conclude that this “point of certain value” can only exist a priori. These points are the illusion presented to a systematic observer. Observation requires time, and time requires uncertainty. This would seem to call for a disassembling of the systematic observer in order to create a “point of real/certain value”. However, I believe it actually calls for a unification of all observers. The misconception of a disassembly being necessary for unification is due to a “low thought impulse”.

In the absence of thought/logic, a “low thought impulse” becomes action, as it is the most direct action that can be made when energy is absent or depleted. In other words, a “low thought impulse” outweighs in probability any action that requires energy, because a “low-thought impulse” does not require energy. Whenever singularity is achieved (or perhaps even before it can be achieved), expansion immediately follows.

This is much like the concept of a balloon. If we were to apply energy to a sphere, it is difficult to cause change while applying work inwards than if we were to cause that same amount of change while applying work outwards, this is because applying work outwards requires more space, and hence more energy is needed to continue causing change. If we pushed on a balloon inwards to try and condense it, it would pop. However we can change the structure of the balloon by blowing into it and letting it reach a certain volume of air before popping. Or we could let the balloon slowly diffuse its contents over time. This is why balloons do not continually inflate, and instead require energy in order to inflate. The more a balloon inflates, the more space it takes up, and the larger it gets. While a balloon is deflating, it takes up less space, and energy is given up from itself.
Think of the universe as a giant balloon, the latex that makes up the balloon is the edge of our universe. The more energy in our universe (the more we blow into the balloon), the larger its boundaries become. The boundaries of our universe are defined by the speed of light in all directions from a singularity since the moment when our universe was first created. Our universe before the big bang was an empty balloon. Energy was added to our universe, and the universe began to expand. Through astronomy, it would appear that our universe is still in the process of expanding. However, like a balloon, if it gets to a certain point it will pop. Assuming our universe hopefully doesn’t “pop”, which could very well be a possibility, then our universe must eventually begin to shrink back down to a singularity. Like a balloon, over time it will deflate.

Think about it though, the hotter a balloon becomes (or the more energy it has), the more it inflates and the larger it gets. However, the number of oxygen atoms would stay the same. Space is made between those oxygen atoms when heat-energy is applied to them. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle suggests that when those oxygen atoms possess more energy, their probable location becomes larger.

From this it can be assumed that energy is “relative uncertainty”, and gravity is “relative certainty”. Time implies the existence of energy, which produces space, which reduces relative certainty, which diminishes the effect of relative gravity, which is certainty. Space is therefore an illusion created by energy, and in turn time and uncertainty are also illusions created by energy. In the complete absence of energy, we are all touching in one point of singularity. If this seems hard to grasp, it might be enlightening to view Einstein’s theory of relativity.

The speed of light serves as a universal speed limit, because if anything were to exceed that speed it would eventually go past the edge of the universe, where existence ceases. This paradox implies that the only reason it serves as a universal speed limit, is because you can not travel faster than the information you produce. When anything exceeds the speed of light, then it would transcend to a higher dimension of existence and in doing so it would disprove the universe it came from. Since the universe was a point of singularity at creation, all possible paths of time were already set in place. If any matter had at any point exceeded the speed of light, then it would exist outside of that original point of singularity, and therefore would not exist in the universe that the singularity creates. In effect, we can never escape our own universe, and our matter will be eternally bound within this universe until singularity is reached once again. Note: It can be seen in most models of physics that once matter reaches the speed of light, it becomes light (energy) itself.

The universe can be assumed to end in a “reverse expansion”, in which the universal boundaries will travel inwards (as the contents of the universe appear to be traveling outwards) and the boundaries devour the universe itself. When this happens, the boundaries of the universe will metaphorically “weigh” all the contents of the universe into the most probable location. It will then set the probable positioning of all matter as a point. This point becomes a point in another dimension, assumed to be information, which is then radiated in all directions from a particle in another dimension. When this bit of information comes in contact with another particle in a higher dimension, it is attracted towards the direction that the gravity came from. As a particles location changes, gravity is emitted. When gravity is emitted, a particle’s location will change. Energy and gravity are within a constant continuum known as the space time continuum. The continuum is so entangled, that even gravity itself can cause energy, and even energy itself can cause gravity.

Infinite gravity, or absolute certainty, creates a relative singularity. We know this as “black holes”. Black holes are only infinitely certain relative to the matter that makes itself up. Lets not get caught up in black holes though, that is another whole discussion.

We can assume that our thoughts form a singularity a priori, within a systematic observer’s inward projection of information that is relevant to its own position in time and space. This position in time and space can never be completely self-known to an observer, as this would collapse the observer into infinity.

Our thoughts form a quantum field (an illusionary singularity), which is what we perceive as ourselves. How can we perceive ourselves at all if there is a constant delay in the travel of information? We can never perceive our current self, only our past self. Our current self is unified as a fractioned point in a higher dimension. Our past self however, exists as its own reality. It is a “point within a point” so to speak. Perhaps the variance in location of all matter in a spatial dimension is because all observers rooted in a time dimension will observe the space differently.

*Physical Religion?*
We ourselves, as observers, exist as a virtual pathway of connections: our neuronal network. Since this virtual pathway must exist because we exist, it exists in singularity (in certainty). The point “that is”. Do religions illustrate this? Christianity has its way of describing the path to a unified point, which is to love (or make connection) and enter heaven upon death. Buddhism has its way of describing the path to a unified point, which is to release our desires that cause reoccurrence, so that we may be relinquished from reoccurrence and transcend. This raises the question “Is there some mysterious value a person must reach?” I can’t really provide an answer for that, and the answer seems to collapse in upon personal preference. Concerning religion however, what I am saying is merely personal self-questioning and it is open to interpretation. Could it be possible that the 5th dimension, which is above time, is morality? With that, this writing is concluded, as that question seems to be answered only with philosophical opinions.

*Part 2*
To begin, lets announce these basic ideas:

_Information must be made up of energy.

All matter, energy, and the action of the forces that dictate the two, can only travel as fast as the speed of light.

Energy causes change, and in a sense energy is change.

If matter has energy, the matter is also moving. Since both are equivalent, all matter is moving.

Matter in relationship to itself is motionless.

Matter in its relationship to other matter, will be perceived as moving.

Every time an interaction of matter with matter occurs, energy is transferred.

An interaction between matter can only occur when matter detects the presence of other matter through means of a force carrier._

Matter could be defined as collected energy that is not currently causing change and is not under the effect of time. But essentially, what is matter? More specifically, what is a single point of matter? Matter is simply an “on” value, surrounded by an “off” value. A single point or bit of matter would seem to be a hollow sphere, with a surface that is infinitely thin. This hollow sphere (which I shall refer to from here on as “point matter”) exists as a single entity of itself. It is in all aspects uncertain, but possesses the ability to make miniscule observations. When this point matter is not being observed (which is impossible, but still imagine the concept), its location is completely indefinite. The more a point matter is being observed, the smaller it becomes relevant to the observer. The less a point matter is being observed, the larger it becomes relevant to the observer. This raises the question of “How does a point matter exist, if observation of itself is necessary in order for it to exist?” This can be explained by knowing that the point-matter makes inward observations towards itself (within the sphere) to determine relative location. “Observation” from the surface of the point matter is sent in towards itself at the speed of light, in order to determine its own relative location. We witness this effect as a “force”. Depending on certain variables, this force may be witnessed as one of many things such as electromagnetism or gravity.

The speed of light is reached when matter reaches the maximum allowed speed and becomes pure energy.

The Effect of Gravity:
Here is a very simplified model that summarizes the cause of gravity:

When two pieces of matter detect each other at the same time, they both send information towards each other. This information that is sent could be thought of as “bits”. 
Both bits of information collide with each other, and produce two bits of “reverse information”. This “reverse information” is under the effect of reverse time, and will travel back to its original source. Since the original source has moved in the time that the “information” was traveling, colliding, and traveling back as “reverse” information, a triangle is formed of the three paths (the three paths being the information path, the travel path of the source, and the path of the reverse information). Since the “reverse information’s” travel time back to its source must be precisely equal to the amount of time it took to travel to the point of collision, the negative information will in effect exceed the speed of light while traveling back to its source. This in effect, bends the space-time continuum.

Once it reaches its source, the source matter will then regain the lost value that it had to use to originally produce the information. However, the matter will have to compensate for its violation of exceeding the speed of light, and will have to move back in time as if it had never released the energy in the first place. Since the space-time continuum has been bent, the matter (which was the original source of the information) will instantaneously move a short distance down the path that the “reverse information” traveled. This is the effect of gravity.

Why does this happen? Imagine it like this. Everything originated as a singularity. This singularity simply “was”. It existed because there was no alternative other than non-existence (non-existence was a point of its own which I will discuss later in other essays). This point of existence simply “had value” (more specifically it had an “on” value). This singularity somehow for some reason (or perhaps no reason or an inherent reason) had uncertainty in its value. Uncertainty can be expressed in additional dimensions. This caused for the point to be plotted on a line, or in other words the point had a line going out of it in two directions, or perhaps two lines going out of it in two directions. One direction was certainty, and the other direction was uncertainty. This line went on infinitely. When something has an infinite value, it transcends to a higher dimension. Basically meaning that the two ends of the line eventually met in infinity, and this formed another point. This also defined a circle. With these two points, space and time were unified as a line. Both points could be anywhere on the line, but could never exist in the same exact location. These two points had opposite integer charges.

Nothing was stopping these two points from each creating another point. Eventually (or instantaneously?) that happened, and two points turned into three (or another imagined shape for this could be a “Y” shape) which turned the circle into a cylinder, which in turn became a sphere, and that sphere turned into a hyper-sphere, and the process continued infinitely. 

Since all points were touching in a different dimension, there is a relevancy between those points that is transferred. This is seen as gravity – a flaw in inter-dimensional transit.

There is an infinite amount of dimensions. An observer exists with the perception of the dimension below him (to us this is space), and the perception of the dimension above him (to us this is time). Both the above dimension, and the below dimension are perceived by the observer to be constant with each other. For us, this is the space-time continuum. Any dimensions that are further above or below are unknown to the observer, although dimensions further below space can be assumed to exist. The below dimension is perceived as a “set”, and the above dimension is perceived as “uncertain”. The above dimension is really only perceived because of a change in the set dimension. 

An observer can only observe the dimensions below that which it is placed (certainty), but it itself is placed within the dimension above it (uncertainty). The observer is aware that it exists in time, but does not know where in time it exists. Without the observer becoming apparently aware of it, the observer is moving in the dimension that exists above it in not one, but two directions. In one direction lies existence, and in the other direction lies non-existence. This begs for the discussion to enter morality.


----------



## twentysix

> Wise men have to learn to keep emotions out of the equations one way or another.



 definitely. you are right.

or they will in turn be fools.

You said many things that related to my own experience, and the bit about the line being an infinite circle- I just finished making a simple line in illustrator with that in mind.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

delta_9 said:


> We do not have the whole picture and I doubt we ever will.



Indeed.


----------



## Xorkoth

SpunkySkunk said:
			
		

> Would you like me to share the math for you? I will gladly, if you want me to.



Yes, I do.  Please.

Upon clarification, I see what you're saying and I mostly agree with you.  Your wording often throws me off though, especially in your first post.  You mean *you* in the sense that we are all the same, not in the way that *you* are superior over "us".  Correct?  it's hard to word that sort of thing correctly since language tends towards describing the illusion of separation between us.


----------



## rickolasnice

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> In our particular dimensional branch, this planet Earth is home to the most complex observers that are ever probable of existing in this universe. Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.



I beg to differ.


----------



## swilow

> The speed of light is reached when matter reaches the maximum allowed speed and becomes pure energy.



See, thats a fallacy or somesuch there. The speed of light cannot be defined as "maximum allowed speed" if you want to retain your ultimate complexity. Becuase, I highly doubt you invented the laws governing this 'fact' as you put it- hence, there are things you don't know and cannot observe or control (this maximum speed for one), leading me to think your not all that complex. You assume light has a maximum speed- why? Who set it? Also, light has been shown to have similar qualities to matter at a sub atomic level, showing that such as energy and matter are not different. For somethng to become pure energy, as you say, "if matter has energy...." how can it become something it already contains? Where does this extra, purified energy come from? Or is matter shed at such speeds?

Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.


----------



## delta_9

> Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.


Correct.  The universe _had_ to have expanded faster than light during the first few micro/milliseconds of it's existance, or else it couldn't be as large as it is today.
However, it's my understanding that during this time, gravity and the other 3 forces had not yet begun to exhibit any force on matter/light, which could possibly help to explain it.  I dunno


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

swilow said:


> See, thats a fallacy or somesuch there. The speed of light cannot be defined as "maximum allowed speed" if you want to retain your ultimate complexity. Becuase, I highly doubt you invented the laws governing this 'fact' as you put it- hence, there are things you don't know and cannot observe or control (this maximum speed for one), leading me to think your not all that complex. You assume light has a maximum speed- why? Who set it?


Just because the concept of a "universal speed limit" is hard for you to grasp does not mean it is not true. It is the same type of argument that common men used centuries ago when they were saying the Earth was flat instead of round. They dismissed any scientist who said otherwise as a crack-pot. When the scientist would present evidence (such as a boat's sail sinking below the horizon through a telescope), the common man would come up with a superstitious explanation. Without straying off-topic, let me say that this is also the same type of argument used in attempt to de-bunk biological evolution. Not only must you give evidence when making a significant claim, but you must also give evidence when attempting to make a claim against the claim of another. "There are things you don't know and cannot observe or control" fails to be a valid argument on multiple fronts. For one, this could be used as evidence against literally _any_ piece of fundamental knowledge. For example, one could ask you "_Is this piece of paper white or is it black?_" and either option you pick, they could invalidate your solution by saying "_How would you know, you haven't seen all the colors in the world. You don't know for sure, you might just be blind_".
"_It might_" statements are usually not accepted as valid solutions in a problem, especially when trying to maintain a scientific view. I student could answer every problem on a test their math teacher gave them by answering "It _might be_ one." for all problems. If you can accept that, then you can also accept that in order for us to get as close as we can to a "true fact", that we need to atleast get to a point of "Beyond a reasonable doubt." If you can give me some proper evidence against that logic, then maybe you should also go in front of a national senate and tell them the errors in their ways, as it would probably be much easier than trying to disprove Einstein's laws. If you really need me to explain to you the reasoning of why the speed of light is the maximum speed in our universe, then you can use wikipedia to find the answer; If google isn't good enough for you, you can go attend a high school physics class. If after that you still aren't satisfied, you can go take it up with college professors, but take my word for it that you wouldn't want to; Professors have egos which are more dense than boulders.



> Also, light has been shown to have similar qualities to matter at a sub atomic level, showing that such as energy and matter are not different. For somethng to become pure energy, as you say, "if matter has energy...." how can it become something it already contains? Where does this extra, purified energy come from? Or is matter shed at such speeds?


Now you are starting to think similar ideas which the community of quantum physicists have been trying to bring accurate explanations to for centuries! You'll have to pass your own judgement over the information that is available, but my own biased advice is to keep in mind that some of the information out there is more thought-out than other information, and you are going to find certain issues in which both debating parties hold adamant arguments. Try not to pick a side until the bloodshed is done.



> Anyway, try and reconcile E=MC2 with the big bang- presumedly, at some point in the first microseconds of the explosion, matter had to travel faster then light which may or may not have existed. For tis matter that emnates light, as we see it.


Usually most physicists point out that it is inaccurate to describe the big bang as an "explosion", and that our current information suggests "expansion" as a much more accurate term.
In any sense, trying to use values of perceptual time when describing the big bang, would be seen as foolishness in any serious attempt of physics. A basic argument against your basic argument, is that matter and light can be in a sense "converted" into each other, and some models of physics go so far to say that the values between what is matter and what is energy are really oscillating, and a particle is never completely one or the other.



Xorkoth said:


> Yes, I do.  Please.


Very well then, first we must come to the understanding the concept of what "redshift" is. Redshift is when electromagnetic radiation has an increase of wavelength, and in turn a decrease of frequency. 

When z is the amount of redshift that took place, then:

z = ( λ observed - λ source) / λ source
and
1 + z = λ observed / λ source

Basically, the redshift in electromagnetic radiation will increase the further away the observer was from the source. What does this imply? An object is moving faster the further away it is.

V = z*c

This is evident in Hubble's Law, in which the universe is expanding. 

H = V / D

Where H is Hubble's Constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding. The acceleration of this rate is:

A = DH^2

This suggests a Spin-1 graviton is given off by all particles to all other particles, according to this : http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/cosmological-distance-at-trinity-college/

After this point, throw in some of Friedmann's equations, which say our Universe either has a spheric spatial curvature, a hyperspheric curvature, or a flat spatial curvature.
As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that. If there was a "spatial curve", then we could no longer consider it space, as it would have to add an extra dimension. This basically is saying "For an object with mass M and energy E, its mass and energy are inversely proportional in a vacuum." or even simpler, it is saying "All the mass in the universe is inversely proportional to all the energy in the universe." Tah dah.... Einstein's E=mc²
E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the value that raises a point of mass in the 3rd dimension to a point of energy in the 4th dimension, i.e. the speed of light. 1/c² is the value that lowers a point of energy in the 4th dimension to a point of matter in the 3rd dimension.

Our existence is an oscillation between matter and energy.


----------



## swilow

> Just because the concept of a "universal speed limit" is hard for you to grasp does not mean it is not true. It is the same type of argument that common men used centuries ago when they were saying the Earth was flat instead of round.



Its not hard for me to understand- while I can not imagine how fast such a thing is, I presume its reality. But anyway, you are getting condesending really- speaking of common man, as if your different. I thought your point was that we are all the same. Anyway, you misunderstood what I was saying about the speed of light, or as you put it (this is crucial IMO) the "maximum allowable speed".



> If you really need me to explain to you the reasoning of why the speed of light is the maximum speed in our universe, then you can use wikipedia to find the answer; If google isn't good enough for you, you can go attend a high school physics class. If after that you still aren't satisfied, you can go take it up with college professors, but take my word for it that you wouldn't want to; Professors have egos which are more dense than boulders.



Not why, but who? Who determined it- or is it just as it is? Because, in your own proclaimed complexity, shouldn't you know that? Thats my problem with the universe; we have rather definite laws regarding the nature of nature- but no idea as to any "law" which governs these laws. I just find it funny that your not looking even further beyond yourself- you've admitted the speed of light is the maximum "allowed" speeed, a trait presumedly given unto light by its Creator- what I want to know is who is it? Who allowed this? And, by something being allowed, certainly does not rule out the notion of rules being broken. 

I don't know what your point is Spunky, but its gone over my head and out the window. I can certainly accept your initial premise as applying to all of us, or none of us, not just  one of us- You.

Anyway, complexity isn't neccesarily a positive trait. The more complexity, the more quantum uncertainty, and the greater likelihood of chaos entering the picture. I would suggest that simplicity is actually the highest achievement of a race or species- thus, images like squares and circles and the such seem to reveal a lot more about us and our brains then does the abstarct work of picasso or somesuch. Trapped as we are at the doorway of becoming and being, we can only watch shadows of reality- things like mathematics and meta-physics are probably the only way for us to watch things that cannot be easily observed. Such as the true nature of reality, whatever that is.


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

swilow said:


> Its not hard for me to understand- while I can not imagine how fast such a thing is, I presume its reality. But anyway, you are getting condesending really- speaking of common man, as if your different. I thought your point was that we are all the same. Anyway, you misunderstood what I was saying about the speed of light, or as you put it (this is crucial IMO) the "maximum allowable speed".
> 
> 
> 
> Not why, but who? Who determined it- or is it just as it is? Because, in your own proclaimed complexity, shouldn't you know that? Thats my problem with the universe; we have rather definite laws regarding the nature of nature- but no idea as to any "law" which governs these laws. I just find it funny that your not looking even further beyond yourself- you've admitted the speed of light is the maximum "allowed" speeed, a trait presumedly given unto light by its Creator- what I want to know is who is it? Who allowed this? And, by something being allowed, certainly does not rule out the notion of rules being broken.


The speed of light is as fast as the observer can perceive it. If we collapsed an observer down to singularity, the speed would simply be an "on" value. The speed of light only seems to have been "given" a value because we gave it the value of 299,792,458 meters per second. But if you had no tools to measure that, the speed of light would seem like a simple "on" or "off". Like it or not, it is how it is, and you haven't thought deep enough about it. The illusion of having thought deeply enough about it occurs to you, but unfortunately there are not many physicists backing your claim.

From a singularity, yes, we are all equal. But as individuals extracted from that singularity, we all have different values for different variables that collectively add up to that singularity. Intelligence is a value, and it evident that by no means is it equal. I may think myself to be more intelligent than you, you may think yourself to be more intelligent than me, but involve a third party (say perhaps a psychoanalyst trained in finding intelligence quotients). When you involve that third party it is no longer self ego determining intellect. If you do not find a simple third member enough to determine intelligence, then go ahead and add three, four, and five seperate parties who are trained in measuring intelligence. It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine - as you ignore presented evidence which had references (you obviously didn't even look into any of them as more than a mere failed thought process in your own mind), and then you provided _not one_ reference of your own. I'm not talking about books/websites as references, I'm talking about a simple name of a scientist who has a college degree or the simple name of another scientifical theory or any mathematical formula as references - and you couldn't even provide one. Well then now is your chance; what are the names of ANY scientists or the names of any formulas that even make a simple attempt at supporting your _"It's true because I said so" _Theory?



> I don't know what your point is Spunky, but its gone over my head and out the window. I can certainly accept your initial premise as applying to all of us, or none of us, not just  one of us- You.


If what I am saying has gone over your head, are you saying that you believe that you don't even exist?



> Anyway, complexity isn't neccesarily a positive trait. The more complexity, the more quantum uncertainty, and the greater likelihood of chaos entering the picture. I would suggest that simplicity is actually the highest achievement of a race or species- thus, images like squares and circles and the such seem to reveal a lot more about us and our brains then does the abstarct work of picasso or somesuch. Trapped as we are at the doorway of becoming and being, we can only watch shadows of reality- things like mathematics and meta-physics are probably the only way for us to watch things that cannot be easily observed. Such as the true nature of reality, whatever that is.


"The more complexity the more the quantum uncertainty" is true depending on the context you are using. However, with the human psyche (which I've undoubtedly been talking about) the opposite is true; the more complex the human psyche is, the less the quantum uncertainty.


----------



## Roger&Me

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> Nothing more complex will ever again exist in this universe after we are gone, and this universe will fade into darkness.



That's ridiculous, given the reality of infinity we can expect everything that is happening now to happen again -- and an infinite number of times. And indeed also every other conceivable combination of variables -- an infinite number of times. 

Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

Roger&Me said:


> That's ridiculous, given the reality of infinity we can expect everything that is happening now to happen again -- and an infinite number of times. And indeed also every other conceivable combination of variables -- an infinite number of times.
> 
> Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.



Yes I agree with you - but in this particular oscillation in the wave of infinity, could you agree that your mind will not exist again until a recurrence of some sorts takes place?

Furthermore: 
Imagine you were to completely simplify what we are right now as a point on a line, and that point had to change values (change positioning on the line) in one direction only. If you were to say "that point will cross over the same value on the line eventually" this implies one of two things (or perhaps both): 
a) The line is infact a circle.
b) The point is oscillating in value on the line.

-I believe "Time" to be a duality of those two concepts. Now, collapsing the infinity of time to a single point (much like the concept of how a sphere has an infinite number of different radii that lead to its center), we only see _one_ value of what we consider "now", only one value of what the coordinates of matter were in space ten minutes ago, only one value of what the coordinates of matter were in space 10 minutes in the future.
However, upon introducing the idea of "real chance" or "real choice" into the concept, we raise the idea to an even higher dimension, in which the variant oscillations of infinity can lead to a different value on a different line with each corresponding wave of oscillation. This can be explained with the Frenet-Serret equations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frenet-Serret_formulas
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Frenetframehelix.gif

This shows that the process of infinity is all the more complicated than we had originally perceived. However, this can be satisfied to an extent with one of two (or perhaps both) concepts:
a) There are a set number (perhaps 10) of dimensions.
b) There an infinite number of dimensions which are collapsing/expanding into higher/lower dimensions in an infinite process.


----------



## h.a.

Roger&Me said:


> Time is a stationary dimension anyways, we only experience it moving linearly in one direction because of our temperature relative to 0 Kelvin. This is from the third law of thermodynamics for an isolated system.



That's interesting, I've never heard that before... but then again I did decide to change my major to psychology after trying to deal with physics 
Could you point me to some information on this per chance, my good sir?  Preferably something comprehensible to a simple fool like myself 

OP:  I will concede your position as thumb on the condition that I get to be the penis.

May I inquire your general age?  Not to denigrate your points, but many of us philoso-philes tend to go through a stage of grandiosity--many times at around the age of 19 - 22, I have found.

I tend to chalk it up to having wonderful new vistas of insight just as our psychology happens to be going through it's wonderful phase of self-identification.

Peace,
h.a. -- putting the "philo" back in philosophy since 1994


----------



## swilow

^Is it not the second law of thermodynaics, that heat cannot spontaneously pass from a cold body to a hot one, while the inverse is indeed possible, what kinda puts a kink in the notion of space expanding; for presumedly, with expansion comes loss of heat, so where does the outer radiation express itself without breaking that law? If it were to a colder body then itself- that is, colder then the universe, thats an odd fact....

BTW, I have no fucking idea relly about any of this stuff; its just popping out of my head when I read this thread. 



> If what I am saying has gone over your head, are you saying that you believe that you don't even exist?



No, I believe I exist- just no-one else damnit.



> The speed of light is as fast as the observer can perceive it. If we collapsed an observer down to singularity, the speed would simply be an "on" value. The speed of light only seems to have been "given" a value because we gave it the value of 299,792,458 meters per second. But if you had no tools to measure that, the speed of light would seem like a simple "on" or "off". Like it or not, it is how it is, and you haven't thought deep enough about it. The illusion of having thought deeply enough about it occurs to you, but unfortunately there are not many physicists backing your claim.
> 
> From a singularity, yes, we are all equal. But as individuals extracted from that singularity, we all have different values for different variables that collectively add up to that singularity. Intelligence is a value, and it evident that by no means is it equal. I may think myself to be more intelligent than you, you may think yourself to be more intelligent than me, but involve a third party (say perhaps a psychoanalyst trained in finding intelligence quotients). When you involve that third party it is no longer self ego determining intellect. If you do not find a simple third member enough to determine intelligence, then go ahead and add three, four, and five seperate parties who are trained in measuring intelligence. It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine - as you ignore presented evidence which had references (you obviously didn't even look into any of them as more than a mere failed thought process in your own mind), and then you provided not one reference of your own. I'm not talking about books/websites as references, I'm talking about a simple name of a scientist who has a college degree or the simple name of another scientifical theory or any mathematical formula as references - and you couldn't even provide one. Well then now is your chance; what are the names of ANY scientists or the names of any formulas that even make a simple attempt at supporting your "It's true because I said so" Theory?



Your an arrogant cock. I'm not launching any theory whatsoever; just trying to point out that you are by no means all that complex. You can't understand what I am saying- that is, sure there is a maximum speed that light can travel, but you cannot tell me why that is so. You also cannot even discern from my post the question that I'm asking.



> It is here you will see that your intelligence collapses as a mere stupidity compared to mine



Oh. My. Lord. You are going to realise very soon, child, how inconceivably little intelligence you are showing. An inteligent person has doubts, test theories- does not exhibit a certainty about things no-one in the universe is certain of- thats called being blinded.

Anyway, this debate just became unpleasant. If your the thumb of god, I'd suggest it be reinserted into His anus abruptly. 

Unless you are too complex to exhibit kindness or some sort of self-restraint, then I feel the next stage of spunky human evolution is kinda piss poor.


----------



## The_Idler

ok so your first post was a load of shit about how good you are.

this, you revised to be a load of shit about how good _all of us_ are (gaining some listeners in the process, like i never seen that trick before...)

Now you have mentioned some physics theories, 
of which you have kindly presented us _your own_ interpretations, 
the perfect efficiency of which ...
I could never hope to match.

So, in this case, I shall leave it in your capable hands.... ah, _thumb_, Thumb.

Don't provoke. Kthx. -- MDAO


----------



## Xorkoth

SpunkySkunk347 said:
			
		

> Xorkoth said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a complete assumption - have you been to the far reaches of the universe?  How do you know there is nothing more complex than us?  Or that there never will be?
> 
> 
> 
> Would you like me to share the math for you? I will gladly, if you want me to.
Click to expand...




SpunkySkunk347 said:


> Very well then, first we must come to the understanding the concept of what "redshift" is. Redshift is when electromagnetic radiation has an increase of wavelength, and in turn a decrease of frequency.
> 
> When z is the amount of redshift that took place, then:
> 
> z = ( λ observed - λ source) / λ source
> and
> 1 + z = λ observed / λ source
> 
> Basically, the redshift in electromagnetic radiation will increase the further away the observer was from the source. What does this imply? An object is moving faster the further away it is.
> 
> V = z*c
> 
> This is evident in Hubble's Law, in which the universe is expanding.
> 
> H = V / D
> 
> Where H is Hubble's Constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding. The acceleration of this rate is:
> 
> A = DH^2
> 
> This suggests a Spin-1 graviton is given off by all particles to all other particles, according to this : http://coraifeartaigh.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/cosmological-distance-at-trinity-college/
> 
> After this point, throw in some of Friedmann's equations, which say our Universe either has a spheric spatial curvature, a hyperspheric curvature, or a flat spatial curvature.
> As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that. If there was a "spatial curve", then we could no longer consider it space, as it would have to add an extra dimension. This basically is saying "For an object with mass M and energy E, its mass and energy are inversely proportional in a vacuum." or even simpler, it is saying "All the mass in the universe is inversely proportional to all the energy in the universe." Tah dah.... Einstein's E=mc²
> E is energy, m is mass, and c² is the value that raises a point of mass in the 3rd dimension to a point of energy in the 4th dimension, i.e. the speed of light. 1/c² is the value that lowers a point of energy in the 4th dimension to a point of matter in the 3rd dimension.
> 
> Our existence is an oscillation between matter and energy.



Okay, thanks for the explanation of Einstein's theory.  But how is it that this explains that there is nothing more complex in the universe than us?

Arrogance is unbecoming in anyone.  Even the almighty Thumb of God.



> May I inquire your general age? Not to denigrate your points, but many of us philoso-philes tend to go through a stage of grandiosity--many times at around the age of 19 - 22, I have found.



Well last year or so the OP was in high school as I understood it from his trip report, ODing on prescription drugs.   So I believe you're not far off.


----------



## h.a.

I would like to do a study to prove statistically what shall hitherto be known as h.a.'s law

h.a.'s law:  individual (20 +/- 2yrs) age + use of psychedelic or dissociative drugs = grandiosity centering on some half-baked, semi-coherent understanding of post-Einsteinian physics.
I swear if I had a penny for every thread fitting this equation I've read on drug related forums, I'd have a good few dollars in my pocket.  At least enough to get a dose of something to make those theories seem much more convincing.


----------



## Xorkoth

^ Good theory.  I fit into that for a while, although to a much lesser extent than this guy.  Mine was always based upon the idea of love.

Like I said, spunkyskunk... one day you'll grow up a little and have a good chuckle at the ego-driven silliness you displayed as a youngster.  Of course you can't see that now, nor could one expect you to.  But the majority of kids grow up.  You seem intelligent (though you must be insecure about it to feel like you need to constantly assert your intellectual superiority over others publically), so I hope you make it.  Otherwise you're in for a lonely, sad little life.


----------



## Roger&Me

h.a. said:


> h.a.'s law:  individual (20 +/- 2yrs) age + use of psychedelic or dissociative drugs = grandiosity centering on some half-baked, semi-coherent understanding of post-Einsteinian physics.



Hahaha great observation; and very true. But that's probably a good thing, as psychedelics get people thinking even if they happen to be "wayyy off." :D

And to your query about thermodynamics and the time dimension, the simple explanation is that we experience time linearly in one direction because of particle motion; to which the Kelvin temperature scale is a descriptor of. The closer you get to 0 kelvin, the slower particles move. So if a system were to tend towards 0 K, then the particles would tend toward a state of no movement in which time is a stationary dimension. Because of our temperature relative to 0 K, we experience particle motion and therefore we can only experience time linearly.


----------



## swilow

^What about if the universe is contracting, and time is running backwards, hence we remeber the past and it would still appear that we are in an expanding universe? Time could be running backwards, but we wouldn't neccesarily know. 

Then again, the whole concept of entropy kinda determines that we are moving forward in time, unless things decay before they take full form. 

Nice post Xorkoth 



> As we can expect, there is no spatial curve, and recent technologies show just that



That the universe is not curved? Care to link to that- sounds intriguing.


----------



## qwe

> I want to let you all know that I will do all I can do to let humanity avoid eternal recurrence, and embrace transcendence to heaven


um.  well thanks i guess?

so you are the most complex observer?  does that mean you see the most patterns, the most accurate patterns, the most accurate vision of how things really are?  aka, you are the most intelligent person, as far as reality is concerned (that is, not taking into account our social games)?

there's a problem with that... i think I'M the most complex observer.  sorry!


----------



## qwe

swilow said:


> ^What about if the universe is contracting, and time is running backwards, hence we remeber the past and it would still appear that we are in an expanding universe? Time could be running backwards, but we wouldn't neccesarily know.
> 
> Then again, the whole concept of entropy kinda determines that we are moving forward in time, unless things decay before they take full form.
> 
> Nice post Xorkoth
> 
> 
> 
> That the universe is not curved? Care to link to that- sounds intriguing.


the direction in which we experience time depends on how things get added to our memory and how our brains are set up in relation to time.  if we experienced time in reverse, we'd be totally different creatures, which operate on very odd physical laws and made up of weird composite particles we haven't thought much about!

entropy doesnt set an arrow for "time forward", it is arbitrary that we say "time forward" is "entropy increase".  if "time forward" was "entropy decrease" by definition, then you'd just have to change a lot of minus signs to plus signs and vice verse in the science literature, and we would technically be time-reverse travelling creatures

but it does make sense to define us as time forward travelling, i guess 

/stoned thoughts


----------



## swilow

^Ah, but on a metaphysical level, if time ran backwards and the future was a memory, presumedly the past is yet to come- hence, the past, being an expansion of the universe, would appear as the future to these guys, and the future, being a contraction would be "remembered" as the Big Bang. 

As I said above, I really have no idea what I'm talking about- the best definteion for entropy I read indicated that coffee going from hot to cold- was an example of entropy. I extrapolated that to mean all matter decaying, energy dispersing... Whats goes up must come down, as opposed to the reverse.

Egad this thread is bizarre. Me likes :D


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

swilow said:


> You can't understand what I am saying- that is, sure there is a maximum speed that light can travel, but you cannot tell me *why* that is so.



You said in an earlier post that your question was "not why, but who". 



> Not why, but who? Who determined it- or is it just as it is? Because, in your own proclaimed complexity, shouldn't you know that? Thats my problem with the universe; we have rather definite laws regarding the nature of nature- but no idea as to any "law" which governs these laws. I just find it funny that your not looking even further beyond yourself- you've admitted the speed of light is the maximum "allowed" speeed, a trait presumedly given unto light by its Creator- what I want to know is who is it? Who allowed this? And, by something being allowed, certainly does not rule out the notion of rules being broken.



Can you please clarify your contradiction for me please? Or was that paragraph of yours just rambling.



> Oh. My. Lord. You are going to realise very soon, child, how inconceivably little intelligence you are showing. An inteligent person has doubts, test theories- does not exhibit a certainty about things no-one in the universe is certain of- thats called being blinded.


Heed your own advice



> Anyway, this debate just became unpleasant. If your the thumb of god, I'd suggest it be reinserted into His anus abruptly.


I will reinsert it into his anus, considering it seems that his anus is in fact your mouth.



> Unless you are too complex to exhibit kindness or some sort of self-restraint, then I feel the next stage of spunky human evolution is kinda piss poor


Let me produce an appropriate inverse response, hmm.... "No, you're wrong! My dick is much bigger than yours!"

Perhaps you could reply again sometime, and we can degrade from profanity to simply barking at each other.



The_Idler said:


> of which you have kindly presented us _your own_ interpretations



I just simplified the theories into a few statements to save some time for those who chose to read that post.
If you see flaws in the simplification, please point them out.



Xorkoth said:


> Okay, thanks for the explanation of Einstein's theory.  But how is it that this explains that there is nothing more complex in the universe than us?


Since the only certain value you perceive is yourself, then you place a value on yourself that is higher than all other values.



h.a. said:


> I would like to do a study to prove statistically what shall hitherto be known as h.a.'s law
> 
> h.a.'s law:  individual (20 +/- 2yrs) age + use of psychedelic or dissociative drugs = grandiosity centering on some half-baked, semi-coherent understanding of post-Einsteinian physics.
> I swear if I had a penny for every thread fitting this equation I've read on drug related forums, I'd have a good few dollars in my pocket.  At least enough to get a dose of something to make those theories seem much more convincing.



Oh dear, how humiliated the individual must feel who is being referenced in this equation of yours!

Perhaps this individual would hold better odds of winning the popularity vote for his proclamations of grandiosity if he had incorporated ridiculous liberal ideals, a _pro-legalization of illicit drugs _ speech, and an arsenal of insults directed at the non-specific party of "stupid rednecks" into his strategy. Or to increase his disposition with the authority around him, he could have dropped to his knees and commenced a social dicksucking of the noble kings/queens around him (in the event of the stage being an online forum, maybe these nobles included some forum moderators or users with high post counts). Yes, if this individual had done all that, he perhaps would have won over his audience.

Instead the audience decided it would be much more exciting to socially gang-bang the individual in an orgy of narcissism.
If the audience could generate enough insults (measured as IPP - Insults Per Post - in the case of an online forum) then this would by some irrational means negate the need for them respond to the individual's referenced evidence (which still seems to be irrefutable until someone kindly disproves it), and instead just start screaming profanity and snuffing those who disagree with them. Maybe the audience could even bring up what the individual has done in the past as evidence that would somehow falsify the completely non-related physics which were originally the matter of discussion. Now the audience can delightfully take a shit in peace, while simultaneously orgasming from the increase in their now-massive ego. 

Am I too late to jump into the circle jerk?

Maybe the individual forgot to account for the age of the audience, which affects the validity of the audience's opinions due to a higher age.
Law of Age in Opinion Validity:
Opinion of dickwad A is *always true* if the age of dickwad A > age of cuntbag B



swilow said:


> ^What about if the universe is contracting, and time is running backwards, hence we remeber the past and it would still appear that we are in an expanding universe? Time could be running backwards, but we wouldn't neccesarily know.
> 
> Then again, the whole concept of entropy kinda determines that we are moving forward in time, unless things decay before they take full form.
> 
> Nice post Xorkoth
> 
> 
> 
> That the universe is not curved? Care to link to that- sounds intriguing.



Nice use of "kinda sorta could be" retarded physics that not only imply that you have _no idea_ what the hell you are talking about,  but you are talking about an idea that failed to make sense in your own mind because of your lack of understanding in the field of study you are trying to mimick an understanding of, then in the next paragraph you understood how stupid the first paragraph was:

_What if up is actually down, and gravity is running backwards, hence we fall up into the sky. Gravity could be running backwards, but we wouldn't necessarily know._

_Then again, the whole concept of heaviness kinda determines that we are falling down towards the ground, unless my thoughts decay before they make sensible form._

OH I SEE WHAT U DID THER



swilow said:


> Nice post Xorkoth



*Congratulations, your social disposition with Xorkoth has increased by +1 !!!!*

Notice how he adds the smiley face, as if Xorkoth wouldn't notice that swilow is trying to kiss his ass!

Your serious attempt of trying to gain a sense of self-significance by posing as a "*bad ass*" on an online forum is comical!



> That the universe is not curved? Care to link to that- sounds intriguing.


I'm sure you will completely misinterpret this, as you do with all other information that previously made sense, but here it is anyways:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Serious question - do you have a learning disability? If not - how old are you?



swilow said:


> As I said above, I really have no idea what I'm talking about



Ok, ok, its good to know that you are atleast aware of this.


----------



## qwe

i read a little of spunk's post.  glad i don't mod this board, or i'd have to read the rest!  chill out pplz. plur shroomz


----------



## h.a.

I apologize if you felt I was attacking you with my little thought, I was genuinely interested when I asked your age not because older = better, but I've noticed a trend and like examining patterns.  I'm a psychology major, it's what I've been doing for the past four years.  

I fell into h.a.'s equation as well with my own little messianic complex and probably still do, though I think to a lesser extent than when 19-22 (but there's always the distinct possibility I'll look back on now and have another opinion concerning my level of grandiosity).  We all fall prey to taking our little philosophies overly serious and thinking we're pretty super-amazing.  

C'est la vie.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

SpunkySkunk, that last post of yours was over the line on a number of counts. Now, I realize your ideas haven't been all that kindly received here. But you did say you expected that, so I just kind of let the free-for-all happen .

Don't really know what to tell you (or anyone else here), except to say that if you can't answer your critics in a way that doesn't involve flaming them, then there's little good that can come of keeping this thread open. I'm not running a pissing contest carnival booth here.

Most of the other posters here weren't trying to goad you, Spunky. They were just pointing out problems they saw in your philosophy in a frank, in-your-face manner that you seemed to be open to. So please, don't go apeshit when the conversation doesn't turn out the way you planned.

I'm not schooled or well read when it comes to the philosophical tradition. Like you, I reinvent wheels and come up with my own theories out of thin air, without reference to other thinkers. I sometimes come up with these theories after drug-induced experiences. I support people who want to do this -- the street corner or coffee house philosopher is a much underappreciated player in our society. But the flip side is, when I play this role, I have to be willing to learn as much as I teach, in terms of the responses I get. I'm seeking light, after all, not heat. I'm just playing with ideas. I'm not out to prove anything to anyone.

In conclusion, I have a mind to close this thread unless the conversation starts getting a little less combative.


----------



## swilow

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> babytalk.



Keep it up- this is hilarious :D Seriously, that was one of the posts of the year- a complex god getting all hot n bothered by getting a little jab to his ego. Get rid of that, if you can without dissolving, and then you might start growing up. Either way, bollocks to your and your nonsensical, maniacal rant.

Also- we're very aware you are indeed a child, so I will take it easy on you.  

I am sorry MDAO- I was indeed goading him. I do apologise for making this diffuclt to moderate.


----------



## qwe

i am assuming he just had a bad day, and displaced some mental energy

give him 24 hours to calm yeah?  he's made great posts too

p.s. i am not saying that no one else addy hommy'd..


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Let's hope.


----------



## swilow

qwe said:


> i am assuming he just had a bad day, and displaced some mental energy
> 
> give him 24 hours to calm yeah?  he's made great posts too



Agreed. In truth, I am strugglingly reading a book (The Mind of God by Paul Davies) which is basically on the same subject that Spunky is referring to. If you've read the book, yeah, I lifted my questions from that and then changed them when I forgot what I asked  Honestly, this subject intrigues me as we are talking about the fabric of reality- I hope I haven't dissuaded Spunky from posting.

Please remember that Bluelight is always dead serious; of course, there is a place for seriousness, but in such a thread, I genuinely thought that Spunky was "adopting" a role to put forward a theoretical idea. Either way, its been a good read, but I do apologise for my asinine behaviour. Seriously.

Fwiw, I do have a learning disorder  Its called lack of formal education but attempting to make up for it via reading and examing the world....


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ Nothing wrong with the School of Life, my friend. (Other than its fast pace, rather draconian discipline, and fairly consistently enforced no-retest rule  )

My attitude on how seriously this forum (specifically P&S) should be taken, changes daily. As a general rule though, I try not to let things people say here get to me, but at the same time try never to post things that I wouldn't say to someone's face.

Another recent book that comes at the whole fabric of reality thing in a similar way is Michael Talbot's 'The Holographic Universe'. Haven't read it, but just might get into it this summer.


----------



## h.a.

^ I really enjoyed that book.  Whether you put much stock in some of it's notions or not, it still gives some interesting food for thought.
I'll have to check out Mind of God.


----------



## swilow

Yeah, I've read the Holographic Universe- I really enjoyed, particualry its implications re: interconnectedness of....everything I spose.


----------



## Xorkoth

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> Xorkoth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...How does this determine that there is nothing more complex than us in the universe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the only certain value you perceive is yourself, then you place a value on yourself that is higher than all other values.
Click to expand...


Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see how this statement answered my question.  I understand what you're saying, but just because you don't place a higher value on something you don't know exists, doesn't mean it couldn't be more complex than you.  And I also fail to see how your explanation of Einsteinian physics implies what you just said in your reply to me above.



			
				spunkyskunk said:
			
		

> Instead the audience decided it would be much more exciting to socially gang-bang the individual in an orgy of narcissism.



Funny you mention narcissism, since your first post is about as narcissitic as it gets 



> If the audience could generate enough insults (measured as IPP - Insults Per Post - in the case of an online forum) then this would by some irrational means negate the need for them respond to the individual's referenced evidence (which still seems to be irrefutable until someone kindly disproves it), and instead just start screaming profanity and snuffing those who disagree with them.



There has been very little insulting of you, merely pointing out problems with your theory we have seen... which you expected us to do, and indeed asked us to.  The most insulting post I have yet seen in here has been the one of yours I am responding to.  If you're the almighty thumb of God, then why are you so offended?  Especially since you asked us to critique your post?



> Maybe the audience could even bring up what the individual has done in the past as evidence that would somehow falsify the completely non-related physics which were originally the matter of discussion. Now the audience can delightfully take a shit in peace, while simultaneously orgasming from the increase in their now-massive ego.



Yeah, I did that... sorry (regarding bringing up your age and OD).  Regarding ego though, do you really not see that your original post was to inflate your own ego?



> Maybe the individual forgot to account for the age of the audience, which affects the validity of the audience's opinions due to a higher age.
> Law of Age in Opinion Validity:
> Opinion of dickwad A is *always true* if the age of dickwad A > age of cuntbag B



Untrue.  I mentioned what I thought to be your age to lend support to h.a.'s theory, which I have found to often be true.

But you're right, trying to throw around age as a measure of rightness is an exercise in ignorance.  Mentioning it in support of a proposition is, however, an objective observation.



> *Congratulations, your social disposition with Xorkoth has increased by +1 !!!!*
> 
> Notice how he adds the smiley face, as if Xorkoth wouldn't notice that swilow is trying to kiss his ass!



Swilow's my friend... he thought I made a nice post.  Why must you transform that into some sort of ego game?



> Your serious attempt of trying to gain a sense of self-significance by posing as a "*bad ass*" on an online forum is comical!



May I remind you of what you're doing with this thread?  For SpunkySkunk's sake, man, you're trying to convince us that you're the crux of all evolution of complexity in the universe!  How is that not trying trying assert a sense of self-importance?  If you really are the "thumb of god" like you say, then why do you get pissed that we are telling you you're wrong?  Why did you need to tell people on an Internet forum in the first place?  



> I'm sure you will completely misinterpret this, as you do with all other information that previously made sense, but here it is anyways:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
> 
> Serious question - do you have a learning disability?



An example of the insults you seem to be railing against in this thread.  From the mouth of the thumb of god.

In short, you have weakened your original position with this reply.


----------



## SpunkySkunk347

_Swilow and I have resolved, I'm very glad we did. I really have to share the reply I gave to him with this thread, so here it is. I'll leave some "footnotes" that I have or whatever you want to call them in italics and parentheses:_

I don't hold grudges man, I don't hold grudges - I totally respect you, and I was really hoping that we would eventually be able to talk over private messages. I want to tell you why I made that thread, I'm going to try and be as honest as I can be.

A few days ago, I was overthinking everything. It used to happen to me a lot on psychedelics, you probably know what I mean, every psychedelic experience brings new understanding. I wasn't on pscyhedelics tho, my adderall prescription can make me overthink things; Not nearly on the same level as LSD or even cannabis, but adderall still makes me overthink things.
So I came up with this idea while listening to a few songs by Tool. I thought that maybe we all have this hidden desire to be God. In that aspect, I looked at it even deeper and turned it into "Everyone wants to think that they are Jesus". The idea bugged me, and as my adderall wore off it became harder and harder to think about. I knew I wouldn't be able to figure it out on my own, and I knew pieces of the "puzzle" were missing. I wanted to see how other people would react to my ego; I wanted to know if they would be able to agree, or if they wouldn't agree - I also wanted to hear why they didn't agree so that I could learn how to make my own beliefs better.

What I did when making the first post in that thread, is I answered this question: "What is the most accurate depiction of my own ego?" I didn't want to turn it into any sort of metaphor (_note: although in the process of doing so, I couldn't help myself from trying to make it all one big metaphor.)_, I just wanted to accurately tell everyone what exactly my own ego was saying to me. 

I knew that my ego was wrong, but I didn't know why. I wanted other people to tell me why it was wrong. Because honestly, it scares the fuck out of me to think that I'm in control of my own life. At the same time, it scares the fuck out of me to think that I'm not in control of my own life. And it flat out makes me fucking depressed to think that I am doomed to a fate which I didn't deserve. In a sense to me, it was a much less dramatic self portrayal of good and evil waging war, using my own mind as a battleground. 

I needed someone else, someone who would be brutally honest with me, _(I needed for someone else)_ to share the unsatisfying truth. I needed to be socially humiliated so I would realize just how selfish I was acting - I've been avoiding it my whole life, you know, isolating and shit. Doing whatever "drugs" I could find to help support my own ego, I was trying to avoid life altogether and I couldn't do it. I think we all need to find out our reason to live. For me, I realized that I couldn't ever find the right reason to live, because my goal is always one step ahead of me. There is a fishing pole that is strapped onto my head, with a bag full of chocolate and gold hanging on the fishing line out in front of me, just barely out of my reach, and I am running like a moron trying to get to it. I have almost figured it out now (and maybe thats all I ever will be, "almost figuring it out"). I am sort of realizing now what exactly I truly am, not what my ego tells me, but what others tell me.

I am weak. I am pathetic, and I am helpless. I am sad, scared, and alone. There isn't a way of justifying it. I will never be able to blame anyone besides myself _(or perhaps it shouldn't be blamed on anyone at all, I think "cause and effect" would have to be traced back to the begining of existence itself in order for us to completely understand who is "at blame" for our suffering, I think maybe the best we can do is learn from our mistakes so we don't let that same suffering torture us again)_ for why I am those things. What I believe isn't any better than what anyone else believes. 

The only thing I can do to help it, is trying to accept it, by trying to realize that I can't be perfect, but I can _(try to)_ have good intentions, and instead of living a life where I dwell on my failed goals, I'll try as hard as I can to learn from things that I've failed, so I can become a better person. Well, maybe not a better person, but a much more selfless person. I will live a life where I have faith that things will tend to unfold for me in the end. That being said, I'm going to visit a place I haven't been in far too long, and I don't know what you'll think about me when I say this, but I'm going to go back to church, and I'm going to try to go back and find the only unconditional love I have ever experienced in my life. People can believe in God or not believe in God if they want to. For quite some time, I have dwelled on the idea that "God is dead" - there is an unlimited amount of possibilities that argue both for and against the concept of God, and I am thinking now that it is personal choice as to which theory we want to believe. As for me, however, I am going to go back to Christianity. It is the one that gives me the love that I couldn't find, and it makes me a better person, and in turn will help me make society a better person. Maybe then we can unanymously make an effort to get out of this hole that we have dug ourselves. I have hope that mankind can fix its problems, and I have faith that things are not as bad as we make them at times seem to be.

Would you look at that: a stubborn pessimistic teenager finally surrending to other people, finally accepting that he is weak and helpless, coincidentally leading to the resolution of his unwinding teenage years. 

Yes, you all were right in telling me how young I am, and how I couldn't possibly realize how little I knew. I am 17, my name is Michael, and I live in Minnesota.

If _(everything)_ that is bad and evil in the world is about to chase us off an indomitable cliff, our only option that I can see is to jump off the cliff and have faith that God will catch us.

I guess if there is one thing I am trying to tell you out of all that, it is that I think we should have faith that things are not as bad as they seem, and I am sorry for arguing against you.

I hope this message reaches you, so I can redeem myself. There are many things that you know which I do not know, and I would really like to learn about them. 

-Peace Spunky


----------



## Roger&Me

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> it scares the fuck out of me to think that I'm in control of my own life. At the same time, it scares the fuck out of me to think that I'm not in control of my own life.



Well then you're doubly fucked bro, 'cuz both are true. :D

(Btw maybe lay off the adderall a bit )


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

SpunkySkunk347 said:


> _Swilow and I have resolved, I'm very glad we did. I really have to share the reply I gave to him with this thread, so here it is. _



He did agree to this, I trust...


----------



## The_Idler

has guy done acid?

guy should do acid.


maybe salvia.


----------



## swilow

Spunky said:
			
		

> The only thing I can do to help it, is trying to accept it, by trying to realize that I can't be perfect, but I can (try to) have good intentions, and instead of living a life where I dwell on my failed goals, I'll try as hard as I can to learn from things that I've failed, so I can become a better person.



Thats such a good attitude. Look, as we've spoken about, I am rather amazed at your intellectual prowess; there is no doubt you know your physics and in a capacity which I could only dream about. I can recte the theories, but never really grasp the mathematical implications. 

So I personall appreciate your use of links and whatnot  I understand that your OP kinda came out the wrong way- it happens. 

The fact you've shown humility now is a really great thing  Bear in mind- you could be right!  But its better to assume not....



> I guess if there is one thing I am trying to tell you out of all that, it is that I think we should have faith that things are not as bad as they seem, and I am sorry for arguing against you.



To the contrary, backing up your claims is a sign of strength and will. Particularly when a lot of people are opposed to your suggestion. Plus, courage to me is admitting fault, not being flawless 



> Would you look at that: a stubborn pessimistic teenager finally surrending to other people, finally accepting that he is weak and helpless, coincidentally leading to the resolution of his unwinding teenage years.



Good. If this thread helps you, then good. It can serve a purpose then, a positive one.

FWIW, I think no less of you at all- indeed, I deeply appreciate the fact we've resolved things. That you took my apology on board is a sign of maturity, not teenage angsty weirdness. Keep on postin', you have a lot to share.

Can I add though Spunky- that huge post with the quotes in pink- their is some utter comedy gold in there man, truly :D Lets bark!


----------



## TheAppleCore

Haven't read the entire thread, but I've got one thing to say:

SpunkySkunk, your attack on swilow for simply giving Xorkoth a friendly thanks was totally unnecessary. It was a total misinterpretation of a genuine act of kindness IMO.


----------



## socko

Hi Spunky,
Interesting thread. Aren't you in Duluth?


----------



## swilow

TheAppleCore said:


> Haven't read the entire thread, but I've got one thing to say:
> 
> SpunkySkunk, your attack on swilow for simply giving Xorkoth a friendly thanks was totally unnecessary. It was a total misinterpretation of a genuine act of kindness IMO.



S'all good, Spunky and me have made up....tis just the internet after all


----------



## ResinTeeth

Can we archive OP's post for the lulz of posterity?


----------



## DrGonzo899

You are not the most complex human on Earth.....

I AM THE MOST COMPLEX HUMAN ON EARTH!

next...

Repeat

Repeat

Repeat


----------



## DOB

How do you now that you are only one? Best peoples on earth never said they were better or superior.Image Jesus saying" Yo bitchis!!!! I am the son of the god and you are just dump primitive animals!! I am here to save your fucktarded souls,anybody want autogram? This is your special last chance,I will die soon,shit..."


----------



## The_Idler

I think he changed his mind after coming down.


----------



## medical_meccanica

*Does anyone actually believe in a god or deity?*

Hope this is not a boring repeat, I'm just very curious. 

This is NOT to discuss whether or not _religion_ or spirituality can or cannot be useful to people or society.

I want to know if anybody actually believes that a _conscious_ god exists who either created the world/universe or who watches over it and why.

I personally (and strongly) do not. This thread is not limited to any particular god from any religion, but my comments usually lean towards a Christian god because that's where most of my knowledge is. I cannot stress enough that this thread is about the existence of a deity, NOT the practice of spirituality or worship.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I believe in the overall "God" which I feel is basically, the collective loving energy and light of the Universe.

But beyond that, yeah I believe in things like lesser dieties, angels, stuff like that, if that's part of what you're referring to.


----------



## medical_meccanica

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I believe in the overall "God" which I feel is basically, the collective loving energy and light of the Universe.



This is beautiful, and I have experienced this before also.

What I'm more interested in, in this thread is this:



MynameisnotDeja said:


> But beyond that, yeah I believe in things like lesser dieties, angels, stuff like that, if that's part of what you're referring to.



Do you think these beings are conscious? What role do you think they play in the universe and why do you believe in them? Sorry if this seems intrusive, you don't have to answer, of course, I'm just curious.


----------



## stonerfromohio

Ive been reading an interesting book called Mark of Voodoo: Awakening to My African Spiritual Heritage, she uses many deities through her spiritual practice and through rituals in sub-Saharan Africa as a Voodoo Chief.  Before my buddy handed me this book I honestly thought that Voodoo would be some archaic religion of gobleygook but to my surprise it was nothing of the sort.  Sharon Caulder the author of the book is a PhD in depth psychology and mythology.  Throughout the book she contacts many of the Voodoo community's deities and is even bonded with a deity called Hervioso she is even renamed to Sogbosi which is another name for the deity Hervioso.  Through dreams, elaborate rituals, dance with rhythmic drumming, celebrations by the sea, sacrifices to awaken kundalini she is able to manifest these deities.  With her initial merging with Hervioso she meets him in a dream she is rocketed out of her body into the heavens where they spiritually intertwine and both return to her body and their spirits merge as one.  For anyone interested in African religions, deities, detailed recounts of voodoo rituals, manifesting deities, animal sacrifice this book is for you.  I had honestly never delved into voodoo or deities or really knew much about animal sacrifice until now.  Very intriguing topic.  I could go more in depth but I have a philo paper to write if you have specific questions let me know and I can tell you what she recounts in the book, type out some excerpts of her initial merging with Horvioso in dream.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

I do believe believe the Ultimate to be conscious, since we conscious beings are a part of him/her/it 

The 'dude in the sky' is a metaphor for this more basic truth that shamans have been in contact with since time immemorial. But unfortunately, it's a very crude metaphor indeed.


----------



## beardedadventurer

Deja,
It's interesting to hear that you believe in lesser deities. Do you also believe in forces of evil?
My roommate and I were once discussing things like this and he said he always asks people who say they believe in angels if they also believe in demons. 

As for myself, I can't say I really hold an idea of a higher power anymore. The closest concept that fits with me is God (I use this term as a general one) exists as the universe itself, as Deja has said before, or that God is perhaps the collective consciousness of the world.


----------



## stonerfromohio

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know" -Lao Tzu


----------



## Damien

I do.


----------



## qwe

> I believe in the overall "God" which I feel is basically, the collective loving energy and light of the Universe.


i believe the question then becomes, is this god conscious?  

i am curious too, if what you think of as "god" is a conscious living entity, or if it is more like "eintstein's" god, aka the beauty of the universe and mathematics and the wonder at what might be behind it all

personally---- certain types of beings that are "supreme" over certain 3-branes (universes) is possible.  doesn't seem to be the case in this particular universe, though


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Do you think these beings are conscious? What role do you think they play in the universe and why do you believe in them? Sorry if this seems intrusive, you don't have to answer, of course, I'm just curious.



Hmm. I believe in them because I've experienced them. I'll leave it at that, as I don't really like putting myself out there to be tore down by skeptics (not saying you guys would do that, but just in general).  And yeah, I believe in "evil" in some sense, in the way we might percieve something to be evil here on earth. But I think on a grand sense there is not actually good and evil, its more an illusion, a constant balancing of energy. Like yin and yang, all make a collective and awesome whole. 



> My roommate and I were once discussing things like this and he said he always asks people who say they believe in angels if they also believe in demons.



Yup. Believe in and have interacted with/experienced both. Understand that I am only using the words "angels" and "demons" as labels because these particular words seemed closest to accurately describing the beings I've experienced. I may or may not mean these words in the same way as someone else. I don't really think from our human perspectives we know enough to properly label any of these things.

I can go into more detail about my experiences if you guys want, let me know. It's just like I said, I don't like being mocked or doubted, and I am careful who I share certain parts of my life with because some people aren't very open minded.



> i believe the question then becomes, is this god conscious?



I wouldn't think enough of myself to answer that question. I couldn't possibly know what it's like to be God. But I do think God is somehow conscious, maybe not in the way we think of consciousness, but somehow.


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

The fact we're here and not nothingness is testament enough to the existence of a universal consciousness.  The whole is greater then the sum of its parts like a car.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

FrostyMcFailure said:


> The fact we're here and not nothingness is testament enough to the existence of a universal consciousness.  The whole is greater then the sum of its parts like a car.



SO simply, yet SO beautifully and accurately put! :D

You win the thread.


----------



## medical_meccanica

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I can go into more detail about my experiences if you guys want, let me know. It's just like I said, I don't like being mocked or doubted, and I am careful who I share certain parts of my life with because some people aren't very open minded.



No pressure at all, but I would love it if you did.


----------



## L2R

yes, that was a nice one, frosty.


whether it is conscious or not, well, in terms of consciousness that we experience or can understand probably not.


----------



## Enlitx

Nope, not at all.  My beliefs, which have empirical backing, are that humans have evolved to _want_ to believe in a god of somesort.  That doesen't make it any more true or plausible.  Frankly, I think some of these responses about a universal collection of energy and love are just a bunch of burnt out hippie mottos, but I am a very practical biochemist, so...%)


----------



## stonerfromohio

empirical backing..........


----------



## spaceyourbass

FrostyMcFailure said:


> The fact we're here and not nothingness is testament enough to the existence of a universal consciousness.  The whole is greater then the sum of its parts like a car.



I'm not so convinced of this universal consciousness.  To me, it seems like whether we like it or not, we are all the centers of our own universes.  There is never a stimulus that an animal experiences in which the animal is not the absolute center of its own world.  The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, because a group of people (and many other animals for that matter) can do things that one single being could never do.  For example- build a house, run a company, procreate.  But to suggest that the universe is in some way aware of itself, or that the universe itself has conscious thoughts that are seperate from that of any other consciousness...well I can't fully understand how that is plausible.  Could you explain?


To answer the OP, I do not believe in a conscious God or deity.  I do think that God exists and is very real within peoples' minds. God can do amazing things for people, things that they wouldn't be able to do without God.  But calling God a "he" os "she", unless for the sake of simplicity, seems strange to me.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

^ What you've hit upon is the great paradox of sentient existence. Your sentient experience of the world is an interface between an inner world and an outer world, which are both part of the same great whole. You're at the center of one, and far to the periphery of the other. This is one of the things that the Yin Yang symbolizes.

To me, universal consciousness is realized when sentient beings get together and realize that their inner worlds, which seem so separate and alienating, are actually all interconnected, and that our perception of ourselves as 'islands' can't possibly be real or lasting.

Your consciousness IS the universe's consciousness. So is mine. So is everyone's, including those yet to come into existence.

'God' is a word I tend to use very sparingly, and only in context, when I'm discussing metaphysics and spirituality, because it's a word loaded with the cultural baggage of 'an external agent reaching into and manipulating the universe', which is not what my experiences have led me to believe in. What I've read about the Dao or Isvara, seem much more on the mark, philosophically. But note that Taoists and Hindu philosophers are quick to point out that these concepts are extremely slippery to put into words, and are best approached indirectly, by way of art and metaphor.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I can go into more detail about my experiences if you guys want, let me know. It's just like I said, I don't like being mocked or doubted, and I am careful who I share certain parts of my life with because some people aren't very open minded.



I, an unabashed skeptic, would love to hear about your experiences and swear I wouldn't mock/criticize/question them, always fascinated by subjective "mystical" or metaphysical experiences.


----------



## spaceyourbass

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> ^ What you've hit upon is the great paradox of sentient existence. Your sentient experience of the world is an interface between an inner world and an outer world, which are both part of the same great whole. You're at the center of one, and far to the periphery of the other. This is one of the things that the Yin Yang symbolizes.
> 
> To me, universal consciousness is realized when sentient beings get together and realize that their inner worlds, which seem so separate and alienating, are actually all interconnected, and that our perception of ourselves as 'islands' can't possibly be real or lasting.
> 
> Your consciousness IS the universe's consciousness. So is mine. So is everyone's, including those yet to come into existence.




Ah that is very interesting, thanks for the reply.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

stonerfromohio said:


> how did you manage to become an "unbiased skeptic"?  Wouldnt you have a bias toward skepticism?  Arent there some unconscious biases that are seeping in there somewhere?  How about your environment you grew up in, your parents, friends.... none of those biases influence you?



unbiased? I said unabashed.... 

definition: unabashed ( ) adj. Not disconcerted or embarrassed; poised. Not concealed or disguised; obvious: unabashed disgust.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Frankly, I think some of these responses about a universal collection of energy and love are just a bunch of burnt out hippie mottos, but I am a very practical biochemist, so...



Well, I accept your viewpoint. Stuff like this used to anger me, but then I realized that your experience is your own, and I can't really look down on you or get angry at you for not having experienced what I have in life. I mean, if you'd have some of my experiences you wouldn't feel the way you feel, but if I'd never had any of MY experiences I might feel the way you feel as well. 

My only problem with sharing is when people try and convince me that the things that I've gone through were somehow imaginary or something like that. I don't like that at all. It usually leads to an argument. (not saying you would do this, just saying that people with your viewpoint tend to be the people who do)


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Well, I accept your viewpoint. Stuff like this used to anger me, but then I realized that your experience is your own, and I can't really look down on you or get angry at you for not having experienced what I have in life. I mean, if you'd have some of my experiences you wouldn't feel the way you feel, but if I'd never had any of MY experiences I might feel the way you feel as well.
> 
> My only problem with sharing is when people try and convince me that the things that I've gone through were somehow imaginary or something like that. I don't like that at all. It usually leads to an argument. (not saying you would do this, just saying that people with your viewpoint tend to be the people who do)



Well, aren't you trying to convince me that I am wrong by saying that if I would have had your experiences I would think like you? I could just as easily say that if you had a degree in biochemistry you would think like me .

I am not here to judge you for your opinions, I guess I would like you to expound upon what you mean.  To me, human emotions are just an evolutionary byproduct that facilitate certain behaviors.  Love isn't a form of energy unless you are referring to the electrical potentials in the neurons that represent the feelings of love.  Just saying "loving energy" is so vague it borders on useless as a term.


----------



## TheParty

I don't believe there is a conscious god, or conscious spirits.
I think when the feeling of a loving god is present (which i thought i had felt before), thats its just emotions making you think that.  
There may be an overall peaceful spirituality to the universe and nature, but nothing conscious out there.  And definitely nothing worth worshipping.  
:D


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Well, aren't you trying to convince me that I am wrong by saying that if I would have had your experiences I would think like you? I could just as easily say that if you had a degree in biochemistry you would think like me .



Uhhh did you read the second half of what I wrote? :



> *if I'd never had any of MY experiences I might feel the way you feel as well.*



But to be fair, a degree in biochemistry wouldn't change my views at all. Having a degree wouldn't change my psychic abilities or experiences... 



> To me, human emotions are just an evolutionary byproduct that facilitate certain behaviors.



 I respect your opinion but I can't imagine viewing life that way. It seems so cold and void of meaning.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> I think when the feeling of a loving god is present (which i thought i had felt before), thats its just emotions making you think that.



Yeah.. I feel like a lot of people think that way and that's why I'm not going to share much of my story.


----------



## daysonatrain

Interesting thread, thanks for posting OP.

"Your consciousness IS the universe's consciousness. "  Mydoorsareopen summed it up beautifully.  

I dont believe in a seperate God, what i think of as the common christian term for God (which i know not all christians are into ), something that looks down on us and judges.  

To me, God IS consciousness.  Beneath all the thoughts and sensations there is something deeper, the actual consciousness-- the very fact that we are observing/feeling something.  

This goes for all living things.  Trees and plants have the same consciousness as humans, just interpreted differently because of the myriad of needs that a plant has that a human (for example) doesnt.  

It is awareness.  

A plant is aware of where the sun is and grows towards it, where water resides and grows roots towards it, curls its leaves up during the dry season to conserve water, and on and on.  This is the same as humans (though humans tend to be much more complex because we possess a strong ego sense).  We get hungry, so we find food, we get horny so we find a mate... and on and on.  But beneath all the superficial overlays is this awareness, to be AWARE of being hungry, or cold, or being tickled, or tricked, or loud..........and on and on

To me, this is God.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> it is awareness.
> 
> A plant is aware of where the sun is and grows towards it, where water resides and grows roots towards it, curls its leaves up during the dry season to conserve water, and on and on. This is the same as humans (though humans tend to be much more complex because we possess a strong ego sense). We get hungry, so we find food, we get horny so we find a mate... And on and on. But beneath all the superficial overlays is this awareness, to be aware of being hungry, or cold, or being tickled, or tricked, or loud..........and on and on
> 
> to me, this is god.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Uhhh did you read the second half of what I wrote? :
> 
> 
> 
> But to be fair, a degree in biochemistry wouldn't change my views at all. Having a degree wouldn't change my psychic abilities or experiences...



To be fair, having your experiences wouldn't change my views at all.   And are you actually saying you have psychic abilities?  That might change my view about this whole issue.



MynameisnotDeja said:


> I respect your opinion but I can't imagine viewing life that way. It seems so cold and void of meaning.



You can't imagine it because humans have evolved to find patterns and significance where there isn't any.  My life is not cold and void of meaning though, I am perfectly happy.  I just choose to believe in what is actually real.


----------



## Enlitx

daysonatrain said:


> Interesting thread, thanks for posting OP.
> 
> "Your consciousness IS the universe's consciousness. "  Mydoorsareopen summed it up beautifully.
> 
> I dont believe in a seperate God, what i think of as the common christian term for God (which i know not all christians are into ), something that looks down on us and judges.
> 
> To me, God IS consciousness.  Beneath all the thoughts and sensations there is something deeper, the actual consciousness-- the very fact that we are observing/feeling something.
> 
> This goes for all living things.  Trees and plants have the same consciousness as humans, just interpreted differently because of the myriad of needs that a plant has that a human (for example) doesnt.
> 
> It is awareness.
> 
> A plant is aware of where the sun is and grows towards it, where water resides and grows roots towards it, curls its leaves up during the dry season to conserve water, and on and on.  This is the same as humans (though humans tend to be much more complex because we possess a strong ego sense).  We get hungry, so we find food, we get horny so we find a mate... and on and on.  But beneath all the superficial overlays is this awareness, to be AWARE of being hungry, or cold, or being tickled, or tricked, or loud..........and on and on
> 
> To me, this is God.




Why not just call it awareness?  Or response to stimuli?  Or in the case of humans, sentinence?  I did some research on plant response to environmental stimuli, so why not call it ACHe mediated calcium ion influx mediated by extracellular H20 concentrations? %)


----------



## 5tra1t tr1ppn

not a beliver. there has been scientific proof to prove that evoltion is real. i don't really know how anyone can deny it but it makes sence to me. i could go on for days about gods and beliefs but the truth is that if someone belives hard and long enough that something is real then it will become a reality to them, no matter how far fetched. also if someone is feeding u this shit from birth and u really don't have any knowlege on other beliefs and facts about existance around the world then that's what i call brainwashing. prime example would b catholicism. what a fucked up religion. what kinda of fucked up jesus seeker preech to people about not commiting sins and such the go fuck a little boy in the ass. i mean there is people all over the world that start "cults" and get looked down apon for it and chewed out. not saying they shouldn't b, i totally agree with shutting that shit down, but is religion not a cult in it's self. just because something has been around for hundreds, even thousands of years for some religions, this doesn't make them any more rite or real. i can c people back in history beliving in gods and such, but they didn't have the knowlege and know how that we do in this day and age. they wanted and answer so they created one. the truth is no one will ever know the real truth behind how everything started and how we were created and all that stuff. honestly i could care less. i'm here now and that is what i know for fact and what i can c for fact. i am not dedicating what is probly the only existance i will ever have to a book of fucking lies. i won't. enjoy the now, cherish it, love it. that is what matters because that's what we know. before i start to go off on a rant, lol, i just want to say to all u who belive in what ever figure u call god, think about things. do some research, get your facts then base your desision on that. don't just fall into the trap of religion because ur parents said it was what is rite. if in the end of all that u still feel that this is what u want to think, i really don''t care. just know what else is out there and don't limit your self to a fairy tail that was written before they could c the whole picture.


----------



## Fishface

Enlitx said:


> I just choose to believe in what is actually real.


Which is?

8)


----------



## Enlitx

Fishface said:


> Which is?
> 
> 8)



How about those things we have evidence for?  Evolution, biochemistry, physics, etc... Certainly not psychic abilities, gods, or "universal love energy", whatever the fuck that is.


----------



## Fishface

None of those things are 'real'. They are mere constructs with which to attempt to decribe the 'material reality' we experience.

I am unaware of the experiences mynameisnotDeja has had, but I know that if I recounted some of the experiences I have had during my near 54 years, you would not believe them, yet I know them to be 'real'.

This *waves hands around to indicate 'reality'* is nothing but an illusion or, as Albert Einstein said, 'Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one'.


----------



## Enlitx

Fishface said:


> None of those things are 'real'. They are mere constructs with which to attempt to decribe the 'material reality' we experience.
> 
> I am unaware of the experiences mynameisnotDeja has had, but I know that if I recounted some of the experiences I have had during my near 54 years, you would not believe them, yet I know them to be 'real'.
> 
> This *waves hands around to indicate 'reality'* is nothing but an illusion or, as Albert Einstein said, 'Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one'.



I define real as the quantam state that we are able to observe at any given moment.  It is as real as you are ever going to get.  According to your definition, nothing at all is real and everything is equally valid.  I suppose philosophically there is no way to prove an absolute reality, but that is a juvenile excercise that every PHIL 101 student thinks is some big epiphany.   I am not here to entertain that rather pointless philosophical notion.

I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally.  Theories are built around sound evidence.  You have to have some reference point to gauge what is real compared to what is not.  For example, psychic abilities have never been shown to exist nor has there ever been a mechanism that could explain their existence.  Thus, psychics are total bullshit.  Compare that to things like the speed of light, or the existence of photons, and you will see the difference between "real" and not.  

I am sure your experiences were real to you, care to share what they were?  I sincerely doubt they violated any of the natural laws.

I would hesitate to call everything around you an illusion.  How is it an illusion if energy from an environment interacts with a steady state system of cells and produces a holographic representation of the surroundings.  I don't consider that an illusion.  For our immediate surroundings and universe, the only one we are capable of knowing, things are very real.  There may be seperate universes, more dimensions, etc... but it is more productive to focus on those things that actually have an effect on your life.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Well, I accept your viewpoint. Stuff like this used to anger me, but then I realized that your experience is your own, and I can't really look down on you or get angry at you for not having experienced what I have in life. I mean, if you'd have some of my experiences you wouldn't feel the way you feel, but if I'd never had any of MY experiences I might feel the way you feel as well.
> 
> My only problem with sharing is when people try and convince me that the things that I've gone through were somehow imaginary or something like that. I don't like that at all. It usually leads to an argument. (not saying you would do this, just saying that people with your viewpoint tend to be the people who do)



I disagree with the "if you've experienced what I've experienced you would understand."

I have had a fair share of the magical/mystical experiences over the years from alien abduction, to elf contact, to connecting to "cosmic" gridworks, to communication with a overmind of sorts, to the absolute collapse of linear time, BUT i would NEVER say that I "believe" in any of these things.  I believe in the absolute fallibility of human consciousness in grasping the true nature of things.  I will gladly say that I think these experiences have SOME truth to them, I would hypothesize potential metaphysical claims that these experiences would hint to, but I find there to be an immense... arrogance to the assumption that such experiences are grounds for "absolute" belief.  I absolutely accept that metaphysical experiences and entity contact is an accurate representation of "reality" to a certain degree, but I feel like we as human beings are FAR FAR away from deciphering what exactly that reality is in relation to us... and I can't quite understand any statements regarding belief/certainty based on experiences by limited human consciousness.

hopefully this made some sense.


----------



## Fishface

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> I believe in the absolute fallibility of human consciousness in grasping the true nature of things





Psychedelic Gleam said:


> hopefully this made some sense.



Complete


----------



## yougene

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> I disagree with the "if you've experienced what I've experienced you would understand."



I think you do understand.  Your grounds for disagreement are completely different from someone who has no experience with these states.

Do you just go up to anyone talking about your experiences of alien abduction, elf contact, overminds, etc...?


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

yougene said:


> I think you do understand.  Your grounds for disagreement are completely different from someone who has no experience with these states.
> 
> Do you just go up to anyone talking about your experiences of alien abduction, elf contact, overminds, etc...?



I learned how quickly I would sound crazy even to 99% of believers if I talked about this...  So most people who "believe" just take me for a cynical godless nihilist because I would rather be that to them than an absolute lunatic.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> You can't imagine it because humans have evolved to find patterns and significance where there isn't any. My life is not cold and void of meaning though, I am perfectly happy. I just choose to believe in what is actually real.



I don't want this to turn into a debate. I'm NOT trying to debate you and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I don't like debating matters of spirituality, I find it upsetting. I've been through a lot in my life which has led me to the viewpoints I have now, some of the things upsetting or disturbing even, so debating/arguing about it is not something I enjoy. I didnt mean to imply that YOU life was cold and empty and I'm glad you are happy with your viewpoints. I only meant that for me, that viewpoint would seem void of meaning because of who I am as a person, because we are different. And it's fine to be different! 

 Like I said, I don't like debating, there is no debating in these matters, for me. 



> To be fair, having your experiences wouldn't change my views at all. And are you actually saying you have psychic abilities? That might change my view about this whole issue.



I think we ALL have psychic abilities, most people just aren't connected to that power within themselves. And yeah I've had a lot of psychic experiences, if you could call them that. (I don't mean psychic like psychic hotline tarot card fortune teller sort of psychic). I truly think more people will continue to wake up to these abilities over time in the future.



> Why not just call it awareness? Or response to stimuli? Or in the case of humans, sentinence? I did some research on plant response to environmental stimuli, so why not call it ACHe mediated calcium ion influx mediated by extracellular H20 concentrations?



All of these things + GOD are just semantics. Call it whatever you want. FInd whatever it means to you. It's okay that we all see it differently. I just don't like when science minded people try and convince me that God somehow isn't real, any more than I like when hardcore Christians try and convince me that Christ is the only way. If I had one wish it would be for EVERYONE to let go of some of their beliefs. Beliefs are always changing anyway, when you allow yourself to evolve mentally and spiritually.



> None of those things are 'real'. They are mere constructs with which to attempt to decribe the 'material reality' we experience.
> 
> I am unaware of the experiences mynameisnotDeja has had, but I know that if I recounted some of the experiences I have had during my near 54 years, you would not believe them, yet I know them to be 'real'.
> 
> This *waves hands around to indicate 'reality'* is nothing but an illusion or, as Albert Einstein said, 'Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one'.



TRUE! 



> I disagree with the "if you've experienced what I've experienced you would understand."
> 
> I have had a fair share of the magical/mystical experiences over the years from alien abduction, to elf contact, to connecting to "cosmic" gridworks, to communication with a overmind of sorts, to the absolute collapse of linear time, BUT i would NEVER say that I "believe" in any of these things. I believe in the absolute fallibility of human consciousness in grasping the true nature of things. I will gladly say that I think these experiences have SOME truth to them, I would hypothesize potential metaphysical claims that these experiences would hint to, but I find there to be an immense... arrogance to the assumption that such experiences are grounds for "absolute" belief. I absolutely accept that metaphysical experiences and entity contact is an accurate representation of "reality" to a certain degree, but I feel like we as human beings are FAR FAR away from deciphering what exactly that reality is in relation to us... and I can't quite understand any statements regarding belief/certainty based on experiences by limited human consciousness.



You aren't disagreeing, because I AGREE WITH YOU! Absolutely. We just don't have any idea how big the picture is, and we can't from our perspective, it's too limited. 



> I think you do understand. Your grounds for disagreement are completely different from someone who has no experience with these states.



I agree, you do understand. And I don't feel you are disagreeing at all. We each have a personal view of the things that happen to us, and that's good. We should all share these different views and realize that they all are REAL and NOT real at the same time.



> I learned how quickly I would sound crazy even to 99% of believers if I talked about this...



I hear you. Trust me! I haven't been able to share myself almost all of my life because I just can't emotionally deal with people not being able to accept my experiences. I've never once lied about them, and some of my experiences have been pretty serious/traumatizing, so it tends to upset me and I ended up just no longer going there for the most part.

Btw this is one for the pet peeves thread, but something that just grinds me the wrong way SOOOO much is people saying *"I believe that YOU believe this happened to you."*

WTF is that? It's so insulting. I'd prefer someone just call me a psycho than come at me like that.



> I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally. Theories are built around sound evidence. You have to have some reference point to gauge what is real compared to what is not. For example, psychic abilities have never been shown to exist nor has there ever been a mechanism that could explain their existence. Thus, psychics are total bullshit. Compare that to things like the speed of light, or the existence of photons, and you will see the difference between "real" and not.
> 
> *I am sure your experiences were real to you*, care to share what they were? I sincerely doubt they violated any of the natural laws.



 LOL...

I'm not going to share them for the reason I stated above, but I just wanted to say I DO respect your view of "reality", I just don't share that viewpoint. But like I said, many parts make the whole and all viewpoints are important!


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I think we ALL have psychic abilities, most people just aren't connected to that power within themselves. And yeah I've had a lot of psychic experiences, if you could call them that. (I don't mean psychic like psychic hotline tarot card fortune teller sort of psychic). I truly think more people will continue to wake up to these abilities over time in the future.




Hmmm, honestly, that makes me think that you will believe just about anything.  I think you believe what feels good or something that comes on whim, but I don't believe you have any rational or normal beliefs.  Honestly, if I met you in the streets and you talked like this, I would probably conclude you had done way too much acid and are now a burned out hippie.  

I mean, I could easily say I believe all that crap you do because of dreams or feelings or weird experiences that I attach meaning to, but do you know how Christianity got started?  The exact same shit you are talking about, people having weird dreams and experiences, then attributing them to a god.  I just thought that in this day and age our population would grow smarter, not a lot of luck so far.


----------



## ThaiDie4

This might not make a lot of sense...

I believe God is what we make "him"... to some people God is the overall universe, to others a conscious being, to others nature interacting, etc. I don't think there's 1 God that is "the" God... how can you even define what a God is anyway? It means so many things to different people.

That said, I'm not much of a spiritual/religious person... I have had no expierence with a conscious God.. I have at times felt as though a higher power has guided me through things, but I don't know if it was "real" or just my mind grasping for comfort in tough situations. I'm a bit like Enlitx, I stick to the laws of science for now. But I am open to whatever possibilities are out there 

That said, I can totally believe how someone like Deja has had expierences with the "supernatural" or whatever you want to call it... the thing is, God and angels and spirits and what have you are not SUPPOSED to follow the laws of science.. they TRANSCEND them... I think it's possible to have all the natural laws of the universe and then have a co-existing higher power that follow a different set of "laws" altogether. No, I am no scientist, but to me this makes sense and I just don't see why it has to be an "all or nothing" deal.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> Hmmm, honestly, that makes me think that you will believe just about anything.  I think you believe what feels good or something that comes on whim, but I don't believe you have any rational or normal beliefs.  Honestly, if I met you in the streets and you talked like this, I would probably conclude you had done way too much acid and are now a burned out hippie.
> 
> I mean, I could easily say I believe all that crap you do because of dreams or feelings or weird experiences that I attach meaning to, but do you know how Christianity got started?  The exact same shit you are talking about, people having weird dreams and experiences, then attributing them to a god.  I just thought that in this day and age our population would grow smarter, not a lot of luck so far.



Well this post wasn't very nice at all. If you can't open your mind to other peoples experiences without deeming them a burnt out hippie, that's fine. You are entitled to your views, but I am going to discontinue discussing this with you since you can't seem to express your views in a kind way.



> That said, I can totally believe how someone like Deja has had expierences with the "supernatural" or whatever you want to call it... the thing is, God and angels and spirits and what have you are not SUPPOSED to follow the laws of science.. they TRANSCEND them... I think it's possible to have all the natural laws of the universe and then have a co-existing higher power that follow a different set of "laws" altogether. No, I am no scientist, but to me this makes sense and I just don't see why it has to be an "all or nothing" deal.



Thanks, great post.


----------



## yougene

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Well this post wasn't very nice at all. If you can't open your mind to other peoples experiences without deeming them a burnt out hippie, that's fine. You are entitled to your views, but I am going to discontinue discussing this with you since you can't seem to express your views in a kind way.


It's like talking to a wall.  



I think all sorts of everyday experiences are "psychic experiences."  Every time we have a conversation with someone there is a mutual recognition of each others consciousness.


----------



## Cheshire Kat

Enlitx said:


> I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally.  Theories are built around sound evidence.


Why is this the best way to define reality? I don't mean to come off as argumentative, but it seems like you're assuming that your idea of real is the "real" concept of reality, and the views of some others are just confused or naive.

I don't think that's the only notion of reality which allows one to distinguish between varying levels of reality. 

My $0.02
The only thing I would describe as being remotely god-like, is that which is the sum of all existence, that which exists necessarily. It is inherently unknowable to our present forms of consciousness, as we are bound by certain forms of intuition. Is it conscious? I don't know if that's the sort of word that even applies. I suppose in some sense it is, in that I am conscious, but as to the whole, I don't think I could conceive of it being either conscious or non-conscious. But, this bears so very little to what the word "god" traditionally means, that I would not choose to describe it as such.


----------



## stonerfromohio

Enlitx said:


> I define real as the quantam state that we are able to observe at any given moment.  It is as real as you are ever going to get.  According to your definition, nothing at all is real and everything is equally valid.  I suppose philosophically there is no way to prove an absolute reality, but that is a juvenile excercise that every PHIL 101 student thinks is some big epiphany.   I am not here to entertain that rather pointless philosophical notion.
> 
> I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally.  Theories are built around sound evidence.  You have to have some reference point to gauge what is real compared to what is not.  For example, psychic abilities have never been shown to exist nor has there ever been a mechanism that could explain their existence.  Thus, psychics are total bullshit.  Compare that to things like the speed of light, or the existence of photons, and you will see the difference between "real" and not.
> 
> I am sure your experiences were real to you, care to share what they were?  I sincerely doubt they violated any of the natural laws.
> 
> I would hesitate to call everything around you an illusion.  How is it an illusion if energy from an environment interacts with a steady state system of cells and produces a holographic representation of the surroundings.  I don't consider that an illusion.  For our immediate surroundings and universe, the only one we are capable of knowing, things are very real.  There may be seperate universes, more dimensions, etc... but it is more productive to focus on those things that actually have an effect on your life.



I believe you have been entranced by mechanistic science, "I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally" how about all those new ideas outside the old scientific paradigm that were eventually considered "valid" but previous to proof were merely speculative... would you call those people insane because they didn't have your definition of proof?  And no map or concept is inherently real... the map is not the territory. 

It was the delusion involving the combination of these three senses of avidya or

marigpa that Nagarjuna, Aryadeva and subsequent Madhyamika interpreters of the Sutras

of the Second Promulgation referred to as the illusion of self-existence of entities. As we take our thoughts to perfectly correspond to an objective

reality and/or we confuse them with the sense data they interpret, we come to experience a

plethora of phenomena as though they were self-existent, as though they inherently

possessed such and such qualities, etc. However, this is a gross delusion, for phenomena in

general, whether of the type we call “mental” or of the type that we designate as “material,”

whether subjects or objects,33 lack the self-existence that individuals possessed by the

delusion called avidya or marigpa perceive them as having, and no map in terms of

thoughts can correspond exactly to the territory of the given, for nothing that can be

asserted concerning any region of reality or entity whatsoever can exactly correspond to it

or exhaust it. Even space and time lack the objective existence we experience them as

having. All of this is what the Madhyamikas had in mind when they used the term

emptiness or voidness (Skt. shunyata; Tib. tongpanyib; Chin. k’ung; Jap. kuc) to refer to the

lack of self-existence of entities (Skt. swabhava shunyata; Tib. rangzhinggyi tongpanyid,

which Tsongkhapa preferred to call rangzhingyi madrubpae), giving rise to what Tibetans

refer to as the Rangtongpaf subschools of Madhyamaka philosophy.34

Avidya or marigpa in the second of the three senses the Dzogchen


----------



## SececaRD

What does deity mean??


----------



## stonerfromohio

A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by human beings.  I look at them as psychic manifestations during meditation or rituals or psychedelic experiences that are merely manifestations of your own nature or represent displaced potential onto a all powerful entity because you refuse to see those qualities in yourself.  I think gods or deities are the utmost potentiality of humanity and they are ideals to strive for when we become like these gods which are envisioned as the highest human potential then we perfect our own nature which is that of humanities deities and gods throughout the ages.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

yougene said:


> It's like talking to a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I think all sorts of everyday experiences are "psychic experiences."  Every time we have a conversation with someone there is a mutual recognition of each others consciousness.



Yes, me as well! You put it beautifully. To me everything is a psychic or spiritual experience, it just depends on to what degree. Obviously some experiences are more memorable or "out there" in whatever way than others, but you illustrated my point, that all people are capable of that sort of expanded consciousness, they just have to realize it.

 I'm not sure if you were referring to me or someone else, but if so I'm sorry if I come across like talking to a wall.  I don't mean to. I honestly enjoy discussing these things, I just don't like that it can't be done without name calling (burnt out hippie IS name calling, IMO).



> My $0.02
> The only thing I would describe as being remotely god-like, is that which is the sum of all existence, that which exists necessarily. It is inherently unknowable to our present forms of consciousness, as we are bound by certain forms of intuition. Is it conscious? I don't know if that's the sort of word that even applies. I suppose in some sense it is, in that I am conscious, but as to the whole, I don't think I could conceive of it being either conscious or non-conscious.



Great post. I agree. Thank you for that. It's really cool and refreshing that other people see things sorta like I do. A lot of you guys describe what I see in a slightly different way than I see it, but you are basically saying the same thing as me. I appreciate and respect that a lot, it really helps broaden my perspective.


----------



## SececaRD

Is our existance an illusion ? I know this can be construde as a matrix thing but, how do we know that we physically exist ?

We seem to be able, given the right application, to be able to create a life that we feel is real.

I've read that we only utilise about 10% of of brain power, what is the rest for ?

We all dream, have aspirations, but are they real. Do we have the power to aspire to our dreams and what about those that do not ? What is the difference ?

Some people move along in their existence only to amount to nothing. Others move on to greater things. We have the same brains, but does everybody know how you use it to its full potential ?

It would appear that we are alone in the universe, we do not have the capability to go where we would like to.

Time constrains what we are able to acheive.

But we still strive to say that "We are not alone".

We might not be, but, we dont have the capability to know that.

Finding life on another planet seems real to us, but what do we know ? Life in another world could be something that we dont know about. 

Life is/should/must be out there, however we do not recognise it. Everything is relative to us.

And at the end of the day, what are we able to do about it ? Absolutely nothing.............

If anybody can tell me different or give me solid proof that we do exist.

There is no proof, there is no other life that will be relavent to us out there in the universe. If there is, we cant get there, and why have they not been in contact with us?

This may be basic but can anybody prove that I am wrong ?

We expect life to be be how we can perceive it. It could be right in front of us but we would not recognise it. Prove i'm wrong, but if you do, you couldn't be sure of it could you !
__________________


----------



## L2R

I think that it is foolish to rely completely on the current evolved form of consciousness/logic as the definitive kind. 



yougene said:


> I think all sorts of everyday experiences are "psychic experiences."  Every time we have a conversation with someone there is a mutual recognition of each others consciousness.



namaste


----------



## mdmantpa

I believe in my own personal higher power, who I call God.  He has always been there for me, and I feel no need to convince others to believe in what I do, unless they are interested.  I believe God is everywhere and a part of everything, especially in nature, love and family.  I feel very close to him and know that he is there even in my darkest times, it just doesnt always seem like it at the time.  Thank you for this thread though, I find it interesting to see what people believe in :D


----------



## L2R

i particularly like south park's take on god






i think it is wise not to mistake "in his image" with "in his physical likeness". a disc image looks nothing like a burnt disc


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

mdmantpa said:


> I believe in my own personal higher power, who I call God.  He has always been there for me, and I feel no need to convince others to believe in what I do, unless they are interested.  I believe God is everywhere and a part of everything, especially in nature, love and family.  I feel very close to him and know that he is there even in my darkest times, it just doesnt always seem like it at the time.  Thank you for this thread though, I find it interesting to see what people believe in :D



Yay! Yes!  These posts make me so damn happy and inspired.  This thread is beautiful, thank you guys.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Why not just call it awareness?  Or response to stimuli?  Or in the case of humans, sentinence?  I did some research on plant response to environmental stimuli, so why not call it ACHe mediated calcium ion influx mediated by extracellular H20 concentrations? %)



Thoughts on intelligence, exprience, awareness, and reality.

If you consider yourself more or less intelligent due to the type of thinking or knowledge or only sense of what is reality, then
think again!

We all have different forms of intelligence and differrent people are intelligent at different things, from which dominates and springs their intelligence and hence their experience and awareness.

You are only prevalent to your kind of intelligence, which may exclude the other forms. This means, you lack in understanding of the world view and experience of all the other types of intelligence.

You can agrue about something you believe as the only fact you know, but the fact remains, that others know better through other forms of intellect which you may lack and hence lack experience in! We do not possess all the answers of what full "reality" is. We are still trying to find other life in the Universe.

Just imagine centuries back would they know what is known today yet others already knew, through a certain type of intelligence that the masses did not posses, and hence thought of them as odd, witches, or even insane.

The single most important factor is not IQ, advanced degrees, or technical expertise, but the quality called “Emotional Intelligence".

Unlike IQ, which changes little after our teen years, emotional intelligence seems to be largely learned, and it continues
to develop through life and learn from our experiences.

The ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought, intuition and gut feeling

The capacity to sense messages from our internal store of emotional memory and over the eons – our own reservoir of wisdom and judgment.
This ability lies at the heart of self-awareness.

Lacking such sensitivity, people are-off-being emotionally tone deaf, whether from misconstruing
feelings or through a mechanical, out-of-tune bluntness or indifference that destroys rapport.

One form this lack of empathy can take is responding to other people as stereotypes rather than as *the unique individuals that they are. *
*They have had experiences unlike our own and unlike what is proven or can't be proven by the methods or intruments we have developed today by science,* it does not mean they do not exist, just simply not found the instrument of measure of those realities that may exist, *where special individuals have experienced.* Kerlian photography has shown patterned photons-light energy that could not be viewed before by anything else. It does not mean it was not there, just could not view it, yet the people said they could feel it. Perhaps emotional intelligence is what is needed to experience what is not experienced by the less sensitive others.

I hope that we are now starting to reconsider that false belief of knowing the facts of life our way only, which is a limited way or one view! Some individuals have extra sensory perception, and really experience what others cannot! By sensory, one needs to also be emotionally open and not simply think of life-but feel it with their heart fully open, ...and things happen then, that our minds can not conceive!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I will post this url, I found it interesting, even if others may not, I found it worth the reading!

http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multiple_intelligences.htm

http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Well this post wasn't very nice at all. If you can't open your mind to other peoples experiences without deeming them a burnt out hippie, that's fine. You are entitled to your views, but I am going to discontinue discussing this with you since you can't seem to express your views in a kind way.



Sorry, that kind of statement wasn't necessary.  My point still stands though.  Believing whatever you want because it feels good or because it is the first explanation or the most comforting explanation that pops into your head doesen't make it equally valid.  We have such odd formailities when it comes to religion and spirituality.  In every other issue, if there is no solid rational behind it, you are told you have naive beliefs.  When it comes to spirituality, everyone's belief is equally valid because so many people want to believe, they are afraid what would happen if logic was applied to their own personal beliefs.  So everyone gets a free pass.  I think Richard Dawkins said this a few years back.  

Yes, technically science cannot venture into the realms you are discussing, but you have to ask yourself is it possible that your brain, working under the laws of physics, has has made you think this stuff is real without any of it being real at all?  To me, one of those options is way, way more likely, for a plethora of reasons.


----------



## Enlitx

Cheshire Kat said:


> Why is this the best way to define reality? I don't mean to come off as argumentative, but it seems like you're assuming that your idea of real is the "real" concept of reality, and the views of some others are just confused or naive.
> 
> I don't think that's the only notion of reality which allows one to distinguish between varying levels of reality.



It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans.  People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want,  but don't expect me to believe it is real.

We have evidence for a brain that finds patterns and is capable of all kinds of abstraction and creation.  So, when people come up with these far out, vague, feel good theories about how the universe works, which is more likely, that they actually have figured out what hard working scientists across the world and time haven't, or that they probably just made up some shit that sounded good and stuck with it?

You are all forgetting that scientists don't simply leave the question of different universes/realities to rest.  Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc...  In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics.  Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.


----------



## Enlitx

stonerfromohio said:


> I believe you have been entranced by mechanistic science, "I define real as those things which can be measured and verified experimentally" how about all those new ideas outside the old scientific paradigm that were eventually considered "valid" but previous to proof were merely speculative... would you call those people insane because they didn't have your definition of proof?  And no map or concept is inherently real... the map is not the territory.



Entranced?  No.  I have just found the best method to figure out the truth.  There is a reason you expect your doctor to follow this method when your ass is on the line, because it comes up with actual, effectual results. 

If people can show good, sound reasons why they think something may be true, I wouldn't call them insanse.  For example, string theory is an awesome theory, but I wouldn't call it equally true and valid as quantam theory.  It needs to be tested and verified before it can be called "real".  Until now, it is just a nice idea.

Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death.  All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul.  So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.  

So map, which is made up of atoms, is not real?  Only, the ground, which is also made up out of atoms?  Or are you referring to the abstraction of the data on the map?    These kind of semantic arguments can get pretty silly.


----------



## Enlitx

SececaRD said:


> I've read that we only utilise about 10% of of brain power, what is the rest for ?



This is flat out wrong.  It was perpetuated a long time ago and has long since been shown to be false.  



SececaRD said:


> This may be basic but can anybody prove that I am wrong ?



Prove me wrong that a flying spaghetti monster doesen't rule the universe with an iron fist.


----------



## Enlitx

yougene said:


> It's like talking to a wall.
> 
> 
> 
> I think all sorts of everyday experiences are "psychic experiences."  Every time we have a conversation with someone there is a mutual recognition of each others consciousness.



I would say it is like talking to a bunch of hippies, but I am sure a lot of you actually _are_ hippies 

Why change the definition for psychic now?  I think the very common and accepted definition is that you can read other people's private thoughts verbatim.  It does not mean that you could deduce what they are thinking from they body gestures, words, etc... This is just normal human interaction.  You guys keep chaning the definition of words, it makes it very hard to have a meaningful conversation.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Thoughts on intelligence, exprience, awareness, and reality.
> 
> If you consider yourself more or less intelligent due to the type of thinking or knowledge or only sense of what is reality, then
> think again!
> 
> We all have different forms of intelligence and differrent people are intelligent at different things, from which dominates and springs their intelligence and hence their experience and awareness.
> 
> You are only prevalent to your kind of intelligence, which may exclude the other forms. This means, you lack in understanding of the world view and experience of all the other types of intelligence.



So, I am not intelligent because I won't accept far out theories?  Or because I don't have emotional intelligence?  Wow, that must mean that nobel prize winners were complete dumb asses, which you might actually think judging from your post.  Either way, the only two types of intelligence recognized that I know of are normal intelligence and emotional intelligence, but last time I checked we weren't talking about how well you can cuddle with your friends.



LivingInTheMoment said:


> You can agrue about something you believe as the only fact you know, but the fact remains, that others know better through other forms of intellect which you may lack and hence lack experience in! We do not possess all the answers of what full "reality" is. We are still trying to find other life in the Universe.



Better how?  Because they experienced it?  Subjective, anecdotal experience has sure served us well in the past (think Zeus, Jesus, Allah, etc..).  



LivingInTheMoment said:


> Just imagine centuries back would they know what is known today yet others already knew, through a certain type of intelligence that the masses did not posses, and hence thought of them as odd, witches, or even insane.



Such as?



LivingInTheMoment said:


> The single most important factor is not IQ, advanced degrees, or technical expertise, but the quality called “Emotional Intelligence".
> 
> Unlike IQ, which changes little after our teen years, emotional intelligence seems to be largely learned, and it continues
> to develop through life and learn from our experiences.
> 
> The ability to use emotions and emotional knowledge to enhance thought, intuition and gut feeling
> 
> The capacity to sense messages from our internal store of emotional memory and over the eons – our own reservoir of wisdom and judgment.
> This ability lies at the heart of self-awareness.
> 
> Lacking such sensitivity, people are-off-being emotionally tone deaf, whether from misconstruing
> feelings or through a mechanical, out-of-tune bluntness or indifference that destroys rapport.



Ok, but being emotional has nothing to do with the questions being asked here about god and what not.  In fact, it would be to your distinct disadvantage to be emotional about these issues.  It makes you believe stuff because it feels good, not because it is likely real.  

And I am sure a lot of people would like to jump to emotional intelligence and say they are just as intelligent as Einstein, because it doesen't involve the kind of work that science requires.  There are no right and wrong answers, just how you interact and feel with other people.  



LivingInTheMoment said:


> One form this lack of empathy can take is responding to other people as stereotypes rather than as *the unique individuals that they are. *
> *They have had experiences unlike our own and unlike what is proven or can't be proven by the methods or intruments we have developed today by science,* it does not mean they do not exist, just simply not found the instrument of measure of those realities that may exist, *where special individuals have experienced.* Kerlian photography has shown patterned photons-light energy that could not be viewed before by anything else. It does not mean it was not there, just could not view it, yet the people said they could feel it. Perhaps emotional intelligence is what is needed to experience what is not experienced by the less sensitive others.
> 
> I hope that we are now starting to reconsider that false belief of knowing the facts of life our way only, which is a limited way or one view! Some individuals have extra sensory perception, and really experience what others cannot! By sensory, one needs to also be emotionally open and not simply think of life-but feel it with their heart fully open, ...and things happen then, that our minds can not conceive!!



"Feeling" life will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer.  I am not saying we know everything, far from it, what I am saying is that people should stick to what we do know, and if you have a new hypothesis, use sound reasoning to suggest that it is real.


----------



## yougene

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Yes, me as well! You put it beautifully. To me everything is a psychic or spiritual experience, it just depends on to what degree. Obviously some experiences are more memorable or "out there" in whatever way than others, but you illustrated my point, that all people are capable of that sort of expanded consciousness, they just have to realize it.


Yes, just being around someone and not saying a word, you feel into their consciousness, into their emotional, and other states.  
Sometimes even into the actual contents of their mind.  Isn't that what observational humor is?  A bringing forth of shared thoughts/feelings/states.


The experience of telepathy is when their is an internal acknowledgement that you are feeling into their consciousness and they are feeling into yours.  But you are feeling into each others minds all the time anyways!  Every time there is a mutual sharing of perspective there is "psychic" ability.




> I'm not sure if you were referring to me or someone else, but if so I'm sorry if I come across like talking to a wall.  I don't mean to. I honestly enjoy discussing these things, I just don't like that it can't be done without name calling (burnt out hippie IS name calling, IMO).


I was referring to Enlitx but I'm starting to think( hope ) he is just looking for reactions here.  I feel a little bad for him if that's how he thinks and interacts with people on a daily basis.





> I think that it is foolish to rely completely on the current evolved form of consciousness/logic as the definitive kind.


Even the current constructs( modernism, postmodernism ) acknowledge their own boundaries on a logical level.  Some just choose to jump to the conclusion that nothing beyond those boundaries is real.  I think it's an absurd claim on an empirical level but I can see how someone can get stuck in that kind of wishy-washy thinking.  I know I was for a long time.

Namaste


----------



## stonerfromohio

Enlitx said:


> Entranced?  No.  I have just found the best method to figure out the truth.  There is a reason you expect your doctor to follow this method when your ass is on the line, because it comes up with actual, effectual results.
> 
> If people can show good, sound reasons why they think something may be true, I wouldn't call them insanse.  For example, string theory is an awesome theory, but I wouldn't call it equally true and valid as quantam theory.  It needs to be tested and verified before it can be called "real".  Until now, it is just a nice idea.
> 
> Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death.  All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul.  So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.
> 
> So map, which is made up of atoms, is not real?  Only, the ground, which is also made up out of atoms?  Or are you referring to the abstraction of the data on the map?    These kind of semantic arguments can get pretty silly.



illusion of self-existence of entities. As we take our thoughts to perfectly correspond to an objective

reality and/or we confuse them with the sense data they interpret, we come to experience a

plethora of phenomena as though they were self-existent, as though they inherently

possessed such and such qualities, etc. However, this is a gross delusion, for phenomena in

general, whether of the type we call “mental” or of the type that we designate as “material,”

whether subjects or objects,33 lack the self-existence that individuals possessed by the

delusion called avidya or marigpa perceive them as having, and no map in terms of

thoughts can correspond exactly to the territory of the given, for nothing that can be

asserted concerning any region of reality or entity whatsoever can exactly correspond to it

or exhaust it. Even space and time lack the objective existence we experience them as

having. All of this is what the Madhyamikas had in mind when they used the term

emptiness or voidness

And I am not referring to an abstract concept such as "ground which is also made up of atoms" Buddhist thought does not consider voidness to actually represent anything its merely a signpost to realization.  Another example:

"What is the color of the number three?" and "How can you hang a thief who doesn't exist?" These questions are calculated to produce a sort of "shock" effect on our thinking, and they are used to bring us to see that questions like "What is the meaning of a word?" also may be queer if we properly examine them in the light of the intricate variety of meanings evident in our ordinary use of language. The aim of the method is, by the use of intentional nonsense, to bring one to see the sense underlying the method.

And to clarify a more precisely:

Zen is characteristically anti-intellectual and a-systematic in its approach to life and the world. To understand this approach, it is essential to consider reality in terms of ineffability. Error, confusion, pain, suffering, anxiety, and perplexity stem from our effort to cut distinctions out of the ineffable reality. Per haps the best way to describe this effort is with reference to the Hindu term "maya." _Maya "the illusion superimposed upon reality as an effect of ignorance."_(1) And, in one case, the whole visible cosmos is described as maya, constituting nothing more than an "illusion superimposed upon true being by mans deceitful senses and unilluminated mind."(2) *The rational dis- tinctions we make represent a net we cast over the ineffable in our effort to get at the truth. But the truth is that concepts are not things, and all such distinctions are false. The more we try to get at reality by multiplying out concepts, the more we become entangled in our own net.*

The greatest error comes, however, when we begin to consider our concepts as being real in themselves, or when we assume that for every concept there is a thing which corresponds to it. Such a view leads to a false dualism, of which the ultimate expression is the subject-object split we make between ourselves and the world about us. This form of dualism also finds expression in conventional dualistic notions, such as body-soul, idea-thing, mind-matter; etc. These conventional dichotomies, enjoying the force of convention, over-shadow our will to discover the truth. D. T. Suzuki indicates the predicament of dualism in the following way:

We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent though not in reality, made thereby easier.(3)

If ideas and concepts, or, for that matter, any aspect of the intellect, are by their very nature false and erroneous, then any effort to convey ultimate truth about the world or ultimate reality by means of concepts is obviously bound to fail. If we are to get at the truth, we must employ a technique not bound to the intellect, and one which is able to go beyond the inherent limitation of the whole conceptual scheme. The method, whatever form takes, must be a radical departure from any conventional mode of thought.


"Is," "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

"The Tao that can be explained with words is not the Tao."

"Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know"

The fallacy is that one can judge the part in isolation from the whole is "the Lie that all men believe."

I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
Lao Tzu 

At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.
Lao Tzu 

Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.
Lao Tzu 

By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond the winning.
Lao Tzu

He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.
Lao Tzu

He who knows himself is enlightened.
Lao Tzu

Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy.
Lao Tzu

I just don't believe all the sages of the eons or academia's Karl Popper, or Alfred Korzybskie would at all agree with calling semantics "silly".  " No.  I have just found the best method to figure out the truth" Seems to be an arrogant statement.


----------



## Enlitx

yougene said:


> I was referring to Enlitx but I'm starting to think( hope ) he is just looking for reactions here.  I feel a little bad for him if that's how he thinks and interacts with people on a daily basis.



First of all, I do apologize for some of my remarks that characterized people as hippies.  That was out of line.  

I will not apologize for being critical of ideas though.  It is very counter productive to give all beliefs equal credence simply because someone holds that belief.  There are good beliefs, and there are bad beliefs.  Believing in something simply because it is so far removed from scientific scrutiny it couldn't be challenged does not mean that it is a good belief.  Like I have stated, I could believe that a spaghetti monster rules the universe, that we are all products of his noodles, and we all derive our consciousness from his meatballs.  He has explicit control of our thoughts as well.

Now, no one could disprove my theory.  It is just as good as a lot of the stuff being posted here, but where exactly would it get us as a people to believe in any wild assertion?

I am just hoping that people use critical thinking when determing their worldviews.  Emotional reasoning is what led to the religions of the world and all the problems that entailed.  Just because some people repackage their ideas into Eastern Philosophy and New Age Mysticism doesen't mean that they are suddenly OK.


----------



## Enlitx

stonerfromohio said:


> illusion of self-existence of entities. As we take our thoughts to perfectly correspond to an objective
> 
> reality and/or we confuse them with the sense data they interpret, we come to experience a
> 
> plethora of phenomena as though they were self-existent, as though they inherently
> 
> possessed such and such qualities, etc. However, this is a gross delusion, for phenomena in
> 
> general, whether of the type we call “mental” or of the type that we designate as “material,”
> 
> whether subjects or objects,33 lack the self-existence that individuals possessed by the
> 
> delusion called avidya or marigpa perceive them as having, and no map in terms of
> 
> thoughts can correspond exactly to the territory of the given, for nothing that can be
> 
> asserted concerning any region of reality or entity whatsoever can exactly correspond to it
> 
> or exhaust it. Even space and time lack the objective existence we experience them as
> 
> having. All of this is what the Madhyamikas had in mind when they used the term
> 
> emptiness or voidness



Yep, it is called the incompleteness theory in mathematics.  It is also evident in quantam theory that we are only perceiving one possible collapsed wave function out of the many probabilities.  I have no problem acknowledging that.  



stonerfromohio said:


> And I am not referring to an abstract concept such as "ground which is also made up of atoms" Buddhist thought does not consider voidness to actually represent anything its merely a signpost to realization.  Another example:



Don't really know where voidness came into the picture, although I agree it is just a concept in reference to something that actually exist.



stonerfromohio said:


> "What is the color of the number three?" and "How can you hang a thief who doesn't exist?" These questions are calculated to produce a sort of "shock" effect on our thinking, and they are used to bring us to see that questions like "What is the meaning of a word?" also may be queer if we properly examine them in the light of the intricate variety of meanings evident in our ordinary use of language. The aim of the method is, by the use of intentional nonsense, to bring one to see the sense underlying the method.
> 
> And to clarify a more precisely:
> 
> Zen is characteristically anti-intellectual and a-systematic in its approach to life and the world. To understand this approach, it is essential to consider reality in terms of ineffability. Error, confusion, pain, suffering, anxiety, and perplexity stem from our effort to cut distinctions out of the ineffable reality. Per haps the best way to describe this effort is with reference to the Hindu term "maya." _Maya "the illusion superimposed upon reality as an effect of ignorance."_(1) And, in one case, the whole visible cosmos is described as maya, constituting nothing more than an "illusion superimposed upon true being by mans deceitful senses and unilluminated mind."(2) *The rational dis- tinctions we make represent a net we cast over the ineffable in our effort to get at the truth. But the truth is that concepts are not things, and all such distinctions are false. The more we try to get at reality by multiplying out concepts, the more we become entangled in our own net.*
> 
> The greatest error comes, however, when we begin to consider our concepts as being real in themselves, or when we assume that for every concept there is a thing which corresponds to it. Such a view leads to a false dualism, of which the ultimate expression is the subject-object split we make between ourselves and the world about us. This form of dualism also finds expression in conventional dualistic notions, such as body-soul, idea-thing, mind-matter; etc. These conventional dichotomies, enjoying the force of convention, over-shadow our will to discover the truth. D. T. Suzuki indicates the predicament of dualism in the following way:
> 
> We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent though not in reality, made thereby easier.(3)
> 
> If ideas and concepts, or, for that matter, any aspect of the intellect, are by their very nature false and erroneous, then any effort to convey ultimate truth about the world or ultimate reality by means of concepts is obviously bound to fail. If we are to get at the truth, we must employ a technique not bound to the intellect, and one which is able to go beyond the inherent limitation of the whole conceptual scheme. The method, whatever form takes, must be a radical departure from any conventional mode of thought.
> 
> 
> "Is," "is." "is" — the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know what anything "is"; I only know how it seems to me at this moment.
> 
> "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
> 
> "The Tao that can be explained with words is not the Tao."
> 
> "Those who know do not speak, those who speak, do not know"
> 
> The fallacy is that one can judge the part in isolation from the whole is "the Lie that all men believe."
> 
> I do not concern myself with gods and spirits either good or evil nor do I serve any.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> Be Content with what you have; rejoice in the way things are. When you realize there is nothing lacking, the whole world belongs to you.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond the winning.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> He who conquers others is strong; He who conquers himself is mighty.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> He who knows himself is enlightened.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> Health is the greatest possession. Contentment is the greatest treasure. Confidence is the greatest friend. Non-being is the greatest joy.
> Lao Tzu
> 
> I just don't believe all the sages of the eons or academia's Karl Popper, or Alfred Korzybskie would at all agree with calling semantics "silly".  " No.  I have just found the best method to figure out the truth" Seems to be an arrogant statement.



I mean "silly" in the sense that there is no objective truth or understanding ever, so you could always question any statement.  It is also the reason philosophers are the butt of many jokes, things like I can't have lunch because I don't know if I am real.  

I am not trying to degrade philosophy, it has asked many great questions of the universe and many great thinkers have been far from "silly".  What I am saying is that if you want to propose a model for how the universe actually works, beyond grandiose abstractions that you can come up with, you need to use the scientific method.

Anything else is just the musings of the mind, and like I have stated, any wild assertion could be considered equally valid.  What we should be doing as people is trying to find, for our own subjective purposes, what corresponds for all people on this planet.  That means one experiement in the US will hold up in Germany.  That is about the most objective we can get, and it has served us so much better in day to day life than any other discipline.


----------



## stonerfromohio

> Don't really know where voidness came into the picture, although I agree it is just a concept in reference to something that actually exist.



This was clarifying the passage which started illusion of self-existence of entities and I was just making it clear that the voidness in which they speak is not in essence real but merely a signpost for realization.  Im not so sure you can ever calculate how the unvierse "actually works".  I understand that you can understand neurology, neurotransmitters, we know a lot about genetics, quantuam physics but they are all theories, models, maps they are not how the universe "actually works".  Some of the theories may get the physiological processes and/or mechanisms down but they are still cutting processes down to isolated processes away from the whole and using a concept that is agreed upon in consensus reality and all the theories and maps are subject to change.  To me this is not understanding "how things work" its a mental model to help clarify but its no substitute for the real thing.  Everyone is concerned with What is being instead of just being, thats the whole zen philosophy instead of asking what everything is you just bask in the isness asking questions or delving into metaphysics ends up with theories of suffering.  Im not saying the sciences dont have physical correlation to improvement in our life they do, but they also have dramatic detrimental affects.  And I think if people are familiar with the buddhist meta-narritives it can be great signposts to realization, science is a meta-narritive that doesnt acknowledge its a meta-narritive whereas buddhism knows its a meta-narritive and merely a signpost pointing the way.


----------



## Enlitx

stonerfromohio said:


> This was clarifying the passage which started illusion of self-existence of entities and I was just making it clear that the voidness in which they speak is not in essence real but merely a signpost for realization.  Im not so sure you can ever calculate how the unvierse "actually works".  I understand that you can understand neurology, neurotransmitters, we know a lot about genetics, quantuam physics but they are all theories, models, maps they are not how the universe "actually works".  Some of the theories may get the physiological processes and/or mechanisms down but they are still cutting processes down to isolated processes away from the whole and using a concept that is agreed upon in consensus reality and all the theories and maps are subject to change.  To me this is not understanding "how things work" its a mental model to help clarify but its no substitute for the real thing.  Everyone is concerned with What is being instead of just being, thats the whole zen philosophy instead of asking what everything is you just bask in the isness asking questions or delving into metaphysics ends up with theories of suffering.  Im not saying the sciences dont have physical correlation to improvement in our life they do, but they also have dramatic detrimental affects.  And I think if people are familiar with the buddhist meta-narritives it can be great signposts to realization, science is a meta-narritive that doesnt acknowledge its a meta-narritive whereas buddhism knows its a meta-narritive and merely a signpost pointing the way.



I agree we will never know how the universe really works.  We can know a lot about how we experience the universe though.  Like a famous scientist said, "I don't know if an electron is actually real, but the concept of it is really useful".  That is how I feel, we will never know if something is entirely real, but we just have to accept that and deem things as "real" as we can measure them to be.  

I don't think buddhist philosophy has anything over science though.  It is surely better than Christianity, but it is still a very vague and untestable way of describing things.  To me, the best way will always be to follow the scientific method.  I will never know the objective truth, but I can know what theories are valid and which are just nice ideas.  I can also distinguish what theories are purely the product of wild speculation and emotional wishes.  I tend to hate it when people suggest the latter are just as valid as well accepted scientific theory.


----------



## Cheshire Kat

Enlitx said:


> It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans.  People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want,  but don't expect me to believe it is real.
> 
> We have evidence for a brain that finds patterns and is capable of all kinds of abstraction and creation.  So, when people come up with these far out, vague, feel good theories about how the universe works, which is more likely, that they actually have figured out what hard working scientists across the world and time haven't, or that they probably just made up some shit that sounded good and stuck with it?
> 
> You are all forgetting that scientists don't simply leave the question of different universes/realities to rest.  Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc...  In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics.  Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.



Applied universally? It seems like most concepts of reality can be applied universally, in some sense they have to in order to be a concept of reality, but I'm not entire sure what you mean by that term. 

Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is? 

It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it. 

To deny their accuracy does not necessarily lead into some metaphysical anarchy of willy-nilly hippy talk where no one knows what anything is. I don't accept reality as you define it, and I get as much utility out of my concept as you or anyone else, and I don't have trouble interacting with the world in any practical sense. Nor do plenty of Hindus and Buddhists, or people like MynameisnotDeja (from what little I know of her). The concept of some sort of Metaphysical Utilitarianism strikes me as problematic on a number of levels, but it doesn't even seem to really support your conclusion.





> Great post. I agree. Thank you for that. It's really cool and refreshing that other people see things sorta like I do. A lot of you guys describe what I see in a slightly different way than I see it, but you are basically saying the same thing as me. I appreciate and respect that a lot, it really helps broaden my perspective.



I'm glad you have such a healthy attitude! Here's a little bit more of my theory (the whole thing would take dozens of pages), if you would like to further broaden your perspective (or get a good laugh).

While that first short paragraph in my last post does seem understandable to many, this right now is the point where I tend to really lose people. I think that there is only one thing in existence (something like Parmenides' "it", he's influenced me greatly), but that thing consists of perceptions (illusions) of dualities. I'm a visual person, so I tend to _metaphorically_ describe abstract concepts as physical forms, that's how I visualize and understand things in my head. So bear with me.  I see the world as a spherical eye that sees in all directions at once, and that eye is encased in an inside-out disco ball with infinitely many mirrors. It is only one thing, but it can never look at itself as one thing, it sees only unlimited fragments of itself, overlapping, but separate, and sharing some common familiarity. The eye can never look itself in the eye. Every single thing in "existence" is just one of those infinitely many mirrors; only instead of being a square touching 4 other square mirrors, they each touch multitudes of other mirrors. Their borders (that which connects them) are our concepts of perception such as space and time and causation and duality and quality, (and perhaps consciousness itself? I'm still working on that part), etc. I think that for a mirror to have infinitely many borders, is something like the nirvana that Buddhists strive for, a total oneness with all of existence. Only then can the mirror reflect the whole eye, but even then the eye cannot see itself as there are still infinitely many mirrors; that is, a part of the eye (that part which is reflected in that one mirror) can see the whole eye (as that mirror with infinitely many borders would cover the entire inside of the disco-ball, and thus "see" all sides of the eye), but the whole eye cannot see the whole eye, as there are still infinitely many mirrors. I'm still not sure if this is attainable or not, I go back and forth. 

Another problem is that it might be attainable if the relationships between the mirrors are constantly changing, which it seems like they would have to, the way I have described them; but then that is looking at the mirrors and their relations in terms of time, and time is one of the things whose relations is being evaluated. That particular problem with my metaphor has been troubling me a lot, to the point where I've been trying to think of a new, better metaphor for existence. Reading this thread has been helpful in giving me food for thought. 

So, I don't think my concept of reality is really that of a deity or God, although I guess you call it that in some way.

EDIT: typos up the yin yang


----------



## Jackal

Not at all.

And totally.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

Enlitx said:


> It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans.  People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want,  but don't expect me to believe it is real.



Frankly I think the concepts of Chi/Chakras/Energy fields are pretty cross cultural without cultural contact, ie. from South American Ayahuasca shamans to Yogi's in India, to the dreamtime artwork of Aboriginal Australia,  to the Tree of Life in Kabbahlistic Judaism.  I personally have witnessed energy nodes within myself and others during certain experiences.  This experience is undeniably real, if this experience transcends cultures/space/time perhaps it has SOME reality to it, perhaps not in a physical sense, but rather these images are an integral part of human consciousness much as Archetypical beings such as Faeries/Angels/"little people"/Aliens have been seen in shamanistic art throughout the ages.  I would find the argument that such things aren't "real" is absolutely false.  They ARE real as they are cross culturally emergent without contact, BUT the real question comes down to HOW exactly are these real? What are they?  Do they exist external to human consciousness? (I tend to say no) Do they exist inside of human consciousness? (I would say probably so).  If these are manifestations of human consciousness than the real question is why exactly are these archetypical and common symbolic figures in our minds, how did they get their, etc etc.  

Perception and experience has a grounding in some sort of reality, the real question is what is the nature of this reality from which these experiences emerge, thus the whole argument that they aren't "real" is absurd, limited, and antithetical to true skeptical inquiry.  Such attitudes are providing a Black/White, Yes/No answer to a realm in which such attitudes are limiting and short sighted.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Wow, this thread took off since I looked at it last night. Rock on for the good discussion. 



> Yes, technically science cannot venture into the realms you are discussing, but *you have to ask yourself is it possible that your brain, working under the laws of physics, has has made you think this stuff is real without any of it being real at all?* To me, one of those options is way, way more likely, for a plethora of reasons.



I wrote you back before I saw this. Thanks for the PM.  
It seems my friend, we just have different criteria for what is "real" and what is not real. Is simply don't see reality the same way you do. To me, the things that happen in my brain ARE reality. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have very, very different ways of looking at the universe, which is cool. Perhaps your science minded perspective could give me a more rounded out opinion on some of the things I've experienced *(that I mentioned in my pm)* such as kundalini, chi healing/energy work and martial artists who can do insanely badass things just by manipulating energy *and this is something I've experienced in real life*



> It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans. People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want, but don't expect me to believe it is real.



Damn, if only I could introduce you to some friends of mine.. they could send you flying across the room using nothing but energetic force. Then you might change your mind. Go spend some time with some serious, high level martial artists and they could show you some things that would definitely make you think twice about us being nothing but blood sacks filled with organs and goo and chemical reactions.



> Quantam physics talks about an infinite number of realities/universes, there is time travel in Einstein's physics, etc... In fact, I would be willing to bet some of the implications of quantam physics are much weirder than the philosophical theories here, but the key difference is that scientists have evidence for quantam physics. Believing in stuff purely on faith is what children do.



Quantam physics is a part of my spirituality. Ever seen the movie What the Bleep do we know? I love that movie and it really made me interested in how science and spirit can go hand in hand.



> Compare that with the idea that we live on after our death. All evidence points towards our brain representing who we are, our body needing to survive to fuel the brain, and no scientific mechanism that could explain the existence of a soul. So, if you believe in that, I would have to conclude that you are doing it for emotional reasons, not valid ones.



Hmm. That's a bit unfair. You are not accounting for vast amounts of perspectives which are very spiritual yet do not believe that "we" live on after death. I do not believe that ME, this girl that I currently am, will live on after death. That isn't my spirituality at all. Every single person that has a life is only that person once. Even if you believe in reincarnation, each life is still it's own life and it's own person. SO while there might be some people who believe a soul is born, becomes a person, lives dies and then walks around being that person in ghost form forever, understand that not all of us believe that. I absolutely believe in life after death but I don't see it that way at all.



> Why change the definition for psychic now? I think the very common and accepted definition is that you can read other people's private thoughts verbatim.



*That is a very limited definition of the word psychic. * My own psychic experiences have mostly been pre-cog in nature, as well as being able to pick up on energetic disturbances or "see spirits" you could say. I think being a "mind reader" is a very silly and un-informed definition of psychic, the sort that is perpetuated by people who watch the psychic network commercials and think that is the reality. ALL sorts of people with all sorts of different abilities are considered psychic, from people who channel, to see the future, to read minds, to see into other realms, etc etc. I know, you don't believe in any of that stuff and I get that, I'm just saying, I don't think thats a fair definition of psychic.



> "Feeling" life will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer.



Haha! Dude.. it's the *ONLY *thing that has ever given me correct answers.



> There are good beliefs, and there are bad beliefs.



Hmm.. well I disagree strongly with that. A belief is a belief, it's an opinion. It's impossible for an opinion to be "good" or "bad" as that in itself is just another opinion.



> Like I have stated, I could believe that a spaghetti monster rules the universe, that we are all products of his noodles, and we all derive our consciousness from his meatballs. He has explicit control of our thoughts as well.



A spaghetti monster absolutely COULD rule the universe! I agree with you there. ANything is possible. And that's the difference between you and me, lol. I WOULDN'T feel the urge to "disprove" that. If that's the way someone sees the universe, then it's correct. And the way I see the universe is correct as well. There is no one truth.



> Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is?
> 
> It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it.



 Good post!



> While that first short paragraph in my last post does seem understandable to many, this right now is the point where I tend to really lose people. I think that there is only one thing in existence (something like Parmenides' "it", he's influenced me greatly), but that thing consists of perceptions (illusions) of dualities. I'm a visual person, so I tend to metaphorically describe abstract concepts as physical forms, that's how I visualize and understand things in my head. So bear with me. I see the world as a spherical eye that sees in all directions at once, and that eye is encased in an inside-out disco ball with infinitely many mirrors. It is only one thing, but it can never look at itself as one thing, it sees only unlimited fragments of itself, overlapping, but separate, and sharing some common familiarity. The eye can never look itself in the eye. Every single thing in "existence" is just one of those infinitely many mirrors; only instead of being a square touching 4 other square mirrors, they each touch multitudes of other mirrors. Their borders (that which connects them) are our concepts of perception such as space and time and causation and duality and quality, (and perhaps consciousness itself? I'm still working on that part), etc. I think that for a mirror to have infinitely many borders, is something like the nirvana that Buddhists strive for, a total oneness with all of existence. Only then can the mirror reflect the whole eye, but even then the eye cannot see itself as there are still infinitely many mirrors; that is, a part of the eye (that part which is reflected in that one mirror) can see the whole eye (as that mirror with infinitely many borders would cover the entire inside of the disco-ball, and thus "see" all sides of the eye), but the whole eye cannot see the whole eye, as there are still infinitely many mirrors. I'm still not sure if this is attainable or not, I go back and forth.



Woah.... that just gave me a mental orgasm. That made a lot of sense to me and I see things in my mind in a very similar way. Beautiful! Damn you're awake. Rock on for you.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> *}It is the best concept because it can be universally applied and also provide utility for humans.  People can spout off about Shakras and Energy of Chi and whatever else far out stuff you want,  but don't expect me to believe it is real.
> *
> 
> When you consider that *the Chakras* *are* *the neural plexuses* and the libidinal/emotive energy that flows through and rediate there, what you say dispays that you simply run from one side of your brain, or limiting your knowledge to only what you knowin the way that you have learned to describe it from the right brain!
> 
> You know you can train a donkey to do tricks, but you can't retrain a schience student after they form a pretty rigid view of knowledge about the world viewed from different perspectives. If you jump over to the right side of the brain, the view is so different yet talking about the same things but the view is so much more colourful!!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> So, *I am not intelligent because I won't accept far out theories?*
> 
> >(that was not said!! reread the post)..
> 
> Or because *I don't have emotional intelligence?*  Wow, that must mean that nobel prize winners *were complete dumb asses,*
> 
> >I never called you unintelligent for that would be an error in judgement....just that people *have other form of intellect advanced*.
> 
> which *you might actually think *judging from your post.
> Either way, the only two types of intelligence recognized that I know of are normal intelligence *and emotional intelligence*, ....
> 
> >(which you misinterpet the latter)!
> 
> but* last time I checked we weren't talking about how well you can cuddle with your friends.
> *
> >Again, you misinterpret the latter!!
> 
> 
> Better how?  Because they experienced it?  Subjective, anecdotal experience has sure served us well in the past (think Zeus, Jesus, Allah, etc..).
> 
> >( ?????????????????????are we talking about religion??
> The link was placed for you to view the speach and different thought which comes from emotional intelligence but you misinterpreted that too, so I removed it! I don't think you can understand the meaning of my words unless you come OFF the cutting rational intelligence and get into the other side of your brain!
> Just different language describing the same thing perhaps, but one needs to be in that part of their brain to take what is relevant to the issue on hand!! Art Apreciation, might assist to explain the type of language you will use.... perhaps?
> 
> Such as?*****************
> >Alchemy was the activity people did until they invented chemistry!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
> Some of the most fortunate and intelligent people in the late 16th and early 17th centuries practiced alchemy which was a widely respected scientific practice during the 16th and 17th centuries.
> The practical aspect of alchemy generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances
> 
> 
> Ok, but *being emotional* has nothing to do with the questions being asked here about god and what not.
> In fact, it would be to your distinct disadvantage to be emotional about these issues.  It makes you believe stuff because it feels good, not because it is likely real.
> 
> 
> >Hmmm, spiritulity requires you to go through the right side of your brain, and I don't think you can get there if you are on the other side of it!...but I understand that you are not getting my drift, so lack of being on the same page!=misunderstandings!
> 
> >****there is a different language describing things,  not *emotional* but a language of description that comes from the other side of the brain that cold left brain side academic intelligence explains things one way where as the artists operate from the other side.
> You need to be on that side, to understand the intelligence that comes from their work, or their description of things. You are misinterpeting what I mean!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> And I am sure a lot of people would like to jump to emotional intelligence *and say they are just as intelligent as Einstein, because it doesen't involve the kind of work that science requires*.  (Don't indirectly put down people who have different intelligence to scientific intellect, they are different intellects)
> 
> >Eintein's work comes from one form of intelligence, and is for science-you can't measure everything with a scientific too. You appreciate Art or music, poetry or spirituality...etc. not with a scientific tool, but with the intelligence of the right side of your brain.
> 
> *There are no right and wrong answers*, just how you interact and feel with other people.
> 
> ^******exactly, what I am trying to say in both of these posts. *The ayes have it!! *GREAT! We came to some understanding...at last!
> 
> 
> *"Feeling" life *will not give you more correct answers, it will probably give you fewer.  I am not saying we know everything, far from it, what I am saying is that people should stick to what we do know, and if you have a new hypothesis, use sound reasoning to suggest that it is real.



>Nothing to do with "*feeling life*" the emotive side of our brain does not just feel but has a deep intellect of its own and wisdom!!!!....but experience also accounts, the right side emotional brain has its own intelligence which is totally different to the left side, and today they do not use this dichotomy to classifications and descriptions of intelligence. 
>I repeat, you misinterpreted! Fully!

You are "Interpreting/reading" my posts from the left side of your brain, shift over for a while!

******************************

}*I will cover your post with these answers here, rather then chew them up, just try to understand the meaning* in relation to my other post!

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com/multi...elligences.htm

http://www.personalityresearch.org/intelligence.html 

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


Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria.

Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena. Although considerable clarity has been achieved in some areas, no such conceptualization has yet answered all the important questions and none commands universal assent. 
Indeed, when two dozen prominent theorists were recently asked to define intelligence, they gave two dozen somewhat different definitions.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple intelligences
Main article: Theory of multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences is based on studies not only on normal children and adults but also by studies of gifted individuals (including so-called "savants"), of persons who have suffered brain damage, of experts and virtuosos, and of individuals from diverse cultures. 
This led Gardner to break intelligence down into at least eight different components: logical, linguistic, spatial, musical, kinesthetic, naturalist, intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences. 

He argues that psychometric tests address only linguistic and logical plus some aspects of spatial intelligence; other forms have been entirely ignored. Moreover, the paper-and-pencil format of most tests rules out many kinds of intelligent performance that matter in everyday life, such as social intelligence

Most of theories of multiple intelligences are relatively recent in origin, though Louis Thurstone proposed a theory of multiple "primary abilities" in the early 20th Century.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/mtypes.html

The Seven Types of Intelligence
Neuroscience
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right Brain vs. Left Brain


This theory of the structure and functions of the mind suggests that the two different sides of the brain control two different “modes” of thinking. 
It also suggests that each of us prefers one mode over the other.

Experimentation has shown that the two different sides, or hemispheres, of the brain are responsible for different manners of thinking. The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

Left Brain 

Logical

Sequential   

Rational

Analytical

Objective

Looks at parts
---------------------

*Right Brain* 

*Random   

Intuitive

Holistic
Synthesizing

Subjective

Looks at wholes

The arts, creativity, and the skills of imagination and synthesis.*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emotional Intelligence
(Nothing to do with cuddles and hugs)

For decades, a lot of emphasis has been put on certain aspects of intelligence such as logical reasoning, math skills, spatial skills, understanding analogies, verbal skills etc. 
Researchers were puzzled by the fact that while IQ could predict to a significant degree academic performance and, to some degree, professional and personal success, there was something missing in the equation. Some of those with fabulous IQ scores were doing poorly in life; one could say that they were wasting their potential by thinking, behaving and communicating in a way that hindered their chances to succeed.

One of the major missing parts in the success equation is emotional intelligence, a concept made popular by the groundbreaking book by Daniel Goleman, which is based on years of research by numerous scientists such as Peter Salovey, John Meyer, Howard Gardner, Robert Sternberg and Jack Block, just to name a few. For various reasons and thanks to a wide range of abilities, people with high emotional intelligence tend to be more successful in life than those with lower EIQ even if their classical IQ is average.

http://www.queendom.com/tests/access_page/index.htm?idRegTest=1121

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Practical Intelligence.


Professor Robert Sternberg, an eminent psychologist at Yale University in the US and the world's leading expert on intelligence. His research reveals the existence of a totally new variety: practical intelligence.
Prof Sternberg's astonishing finding is that practical intelligence, which predicts success in real life, has an inverse relationship with academic intelligence. In other words, the more practically intelligent you are, the less likely you are to succeed at school or university. Similarly, the more paper qualifications you hold and the higher your grades, the less able you are to cope with problems of everyday life and the lower your score in practical intelligence. 

http://www.caribvoice.org/Health/intelligence.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Enlitx

Cheshire Kat said:


> Applied universally? It seems like most concepts of reality can be applied universally, in some sense they have to in order to be a concept of reality, but I'm not entire sure what you mean by that term.



I meant that concepts can be tested and found to be true across the board, for example, the speed of light is found to be the same in London and New York.  



Cheshire Kat said:


> Believing stuff purely on faith? To me, that sounds like exactly what you're doing. You seem to have faith that what your senses show you is an accurate reflection of reality. I mean, what evidence do you have for your brain being the seat of your consciousness? The fact that a long series of percpetions linked by space and causality seems to show it is?



As I have already stated, there is no way to ever obtain a completely objective reality.  The only thing we can work with is our human experience.  It is not faith to admit that and then obtain objective (well, as much as it can be) experimental results.  You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



Cheshire Kat said:


> It seems like both of those concepts are just "feel good" concepts; or rather, ones your consciousness is bound by, and to assume that it is therefore an accurate reflection of reality is a "feel good" concept. I mean, how pleasant a concept is it to think reality really is the way we perceive it, and there's all sorts of nice rules and laws that explain it and bind it.



It is not feel good to demonstrate a physical theory by constant experimental scrutiny.  That is much different than a theory about positive energy and gods that was entirely the product of an imagination.  Again, you keep trying to throw everything out because we are bound by a subjective experience.  That is foolish.  We can still get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method.



Cheshire Kat said:


> To deny their accuracy does not necessarily lead into some metaphysical anarchy of willy-nilly hippy talk where no one knows what anything is. I don't accept reality as you define it, and I get as much utility out of my concept as you or anyone else, and I don't have trouble interacting with the world in any practical sense. Nor do plenty of Hindus and Buddhists, or people like MynameisnotDeja (from what little I know of her). The concept of some sort of Metaphysical Utilitarianism strikes me as problematic on a number of levels, but it doesn't even seem to really support your conclusion.



Denying their accuracy based on your reasons leads exactly to willy-nilly hippy talk and anarchy.  If there is no common and reliable method to determine truth, then everything is equally as valid.  Like I said before, when you go to the doctors you will accept nothing less than the scientific method, and I am sure you won't be asking a brain surgeon to re-align your Shakra or Mental Energy if you had brain tumor would you?  

Your idea about how the universe works (mirrors) is a perfect example of why the scientific method is best.  I don't want to attack people here, but it honestly strikes me as laziness when people come up with half-baked theories and then try to say they are equally as valid as anyone else's.  Something analagous to your idea might be the hypothesis of fractals being the driving building block in our universe.  The difference between that theory and yours is that mathematicians must actually derive equations, test their predictions with the laws of physics, and generally be reviewed by many other scientists before they would even consider their idea any good.  This requires a lot of hard work and intellectual growth.  Where are you equations, pieces of evidence, derivations, and predictions?  What are the laws of physics that correspond to your hypothesis, and exactly how (in mathematical form)?   Most people would rather take the easier approach and just say their ideas are immune from criticism, since after all, it is _their_ belief.    

But people come on here and say their ideas are just as good as any others and people are intolerant or stubborn if they won't accept that. Ugh.


----------



## Enlitx

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Frankly I think the concepts of Chi/Chakras/Energy fields are pretty cross cultural without cultural contact, ie. from South American Ayahuasca shamans to Yogi's in India, to the dreamtime artwork of Aboriginal Australia,  to the Tree of Life in Kabbahlistic Judaism.  I personally have witnessed energy nodes within myself and others during certain experiences.



You _witnessed_ an energy node?  Kind of sounds like people who "witnessed" biblical miracles back in the old days.  Anyways, if they are real, why can they not be detected experimentally?



Psychedelic Gleam said:


> This experience is undeniably real, if this experience transcends cultures/space/time perhaps it has SOME reality to it, perhaps not in a physical sense, but rather these images are an integral part of human consciousness much as Archetypical beings such as Faeries/Angels/"little people"/Aliens have been seen in shamanistic art throughout the ages.  I would find the argument that such things aren't "real" is absolutely false.  They ARE real as they are cross culturally emergent without contact, BUT the real question comes down to HOW exactly are these real? What are they?  Do they exist external to human consciousness? (I tend to say no) Do they exist inside of human consciousness? (I would say probably so).  If these are manifestations of human consciousness than the real question is why exactly are these archetypical and common symbolic figures in our minds, how did they get their, etc etc.



I would tend to agree with you on this part.  Mysticism and religion have been a part of human culture for a long time.  Evolutionary biologists have studied that phenomenom for a while too.  Certain facts make me realize that they are nothing more than a product of our biological wiring.  First of all, certain electromagnetic waves have been able to stimulate a precise area of the brain and cause "mystic" experiences or contacts with "gods".  Certain drugs, when hitting the right receptors, can do the exact same thing.  Finally, there have been so many different ideas who or what god is throughout the ages it is patently clear that humans invent god for their own purposes.  It is like when a schizophrenic hallucinates, the experience is real to him, but that doesen't mean what he sees is actually real.



Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Perception and experience has a grounding in some sort of reality, the real question is what is the nature of this reality from which these experiences emerge, thus the whole argument that they aren't "real" is absurd, limited, and antithetical to true skeptical inquiry.  Such attitudes are providing a Black/White, Yes/No answer to a realm in which such attitudes are limiting and short sighted.



The grounding in reality you refer to is simply the product of the brain creating the experience.  Like I said, they may be real to the observer, but objectively (before any jumps on my back, I mean as objective as humans can be) they are not real.  What is limiting and short sighted is to approach these issues without a method to determine truth.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I wrote you back before I saw this. Thanks for the PM.
> It seems my friend, we just have different criteria for what is "real" and what is not real. Is simply don't see reality the same way you do. To me, the things that happen in my brain ARE reality. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have very, very different ways of looking at the universe, which is cool. Perhaps your science minded perspective could give me a more rounded out opinion on some of the things I've experienced *(that I mentioned in my pm)* such as kundalini, chi healing/energy work and martial artists who can do insanely badass things just by manipulating energy *and this is something I've experienced in real life*




I wish I knew what kundalini was, I will have to look it up.  I will respond in the PM too here in a sec. My initial guess though is that nothing special happened with the martial artists or healing energy.  If healing energy was real, doctors would be using it all the time.  When the scientific method was first utilized ideas like that were some of the first to go, because people realized it was a scam.  If the martial artists was doing anything that might befuddle physicists, they would be quick to research why.  Since I haven't seen any recent publications about amazing martial artists, I will assume it is all pretty normal.



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Damn, if only I could introduce you to some friends of mine.. they could send you flying across the room using nothing but energetic force. Then you might change your mind. Go spend some time with some serious, high level martial artists and they could show you some things that would definitely make you think twice about us being nothing but blood sacks filled with organs and goo and chemical reactions.



I could send you flying across the room with nothing but energetic force too.  Pushing some is transferring kinetic energy, which is an energetic force.  Now if you are referring to throwing someone across the room without touching them, that is patently absurd.  If it were true, they would be all over TV and magazines.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Quantam physics is a part of my spirituality. Ever seen the movie What the Bleep do we know? I love that movie and it really made me interested in how science and spirit can go hand in hand.



That movie grossly misrepresents a lot of quantam physics.  It was made by a cult that wanted to recruit members.  One of the professors interviewed was extremely pissed because they edited what he was saying to make it look like he was saying something else.  One of the people who they interviewed was a chiropracter, who had no formal education in quantam physics.  The lady with the weird accent actually claimed to be a 35,000 year old entity in the body of someone, I think it was her that ran the cult.  The water experiement was discredited as soon is it came out.  I could go on and on, but basically if you base your knowledge of quantam physics on that movie, you really have a bad picture of how it works.



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Hmm. That's a bit unfair. You are not accounting for vast amounts of perspectives which are very spiritual yet do not believe that "we" live on after death. I do not believe that ME, this girl that I currently am, will live on after death. That isn't my spirituality at all. Every single person that has a life is only that person once. Even if you believe in reincarnation, each life is still it's own life and it's own person. SO while there might be some people who believe a soul is born, becomes a person, lives dies and then walks around being that person in ghost form forever, understand that not all of us believe that. I absolutely believe in life after death but I don't see it that way at all.



What exactly is your belief then?  What I am saying is that there is no evidence for _any_ life after death.  So applying occam's razor, we don't live on after we die.  I couldn't even think of a probable mechanism that would allow us to live on after death, in any form.  Humans want so badly to believe in this concept, they won't accept the obvious truth staring them in the face.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> *That is a very limited definition of the word psychic. * My own psychic experiences have mostly been pre-cog in nature, as well as being able to pick up on energetic disturbances or "see spirits" you could say. I think being a "mind reader" is a very silly and un-informed definition of psychic, the sort that is perpetuated by people who watch the psychic network commercials and think that is the reality. ALL sorts of people with all sorts of different abilities are considered psychic, from people who channel, to see the future, to read minds, to see into other realms, etc etc. I know, you don't believe in any of that stuff and I get that, I'm just saying, I don't think thats a fair definition of psychic.



OK, I just assumed the classical definition was what we were working with.  And you are  correct, I don't believe in any of that stuff.  Science has discredited telepathy, psychic abilites, etc... for a long time.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Haha! Dude.. it's the *ONLY *thing that has ever given me correct answers.



I would venture to guess it has given you the answers you _wanted_, not necessarily the correct ones.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Hmm.. well I disagree strongly with that. A belief is a belief, it's an opinion. It's impossible for an opinion to be "good" or "bad" as that in itself is just another opinion.



OK, so I take it you are cool with having a 12 year old perform brain surgery using his medical "opinions"?  After all, every opinion is the same, so the 40 year old Harvard graduate wouldn't have a "better" opinion on how to perform it right?  




MynameisnotDeja said:


> A spaghetti monster absolutely COULD rule the universe! I agree with you there. ANything is possible. And that's the difference between you and me, lol. I WOULDN'T feel the urge to "disprove" that. If that's the way someone sees the universe, then it's correct. And the way I see the universe is correct as well. There is no one truth.



Lol, I don't think we are ever going to see eye to eye %)


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> When you consider that *the Chakras* *are* *the neural plexuses* and the libidinal/emotive energy that flows through and rediate there, what you say dispays that you simply run from one side of your brain, or limiting your knowledge to only what you knowin the way that you have learned to describe it from the right brain!



What?  There is no special "emotive" energy, it is all the same action potentials on both hemispheres of the brain.  The only difference with emotion is that the action potentials activate different parts of the brain, which results in different behavior.  I am not quite sure what that last sentence was supposed to mean, could you be clearer?



LivingInTheMoment said:


> You know you can train a donkey to do tricks, but you can't retrain a schience student after they form a pretty rigid view of knowledge about the world viewed from different perspectives. If you jump over to the right side of the brain, the view is so different yet talking about the same things but the view is so much more colourful!!



I am open to all kinds of new ideas.  You just can't expect a science student to believe any crackpot theory after he has been formally trained on how to tell good ideas from bad ones.  Having a more activity right hemisphere might alter the way I feel about my experience, but it wouldn't change my ability to distinguish junk from science.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment -

Emotional intelligence will not help answer any of the questions here.  It won't help you understand how the universe works, it only helps you with your interactions with people.  I would hesitate to even call it intelligence, it is more like emotional abilities.  You are right, some people are better with emotions than with logic, so these people shouldn't assume their theories about how things work are just as good as any other theory out there.  Just like I wouldn't assume I could be the most empathetic person alive.  Play with the cards you are dealt.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

I do agree with Enlitx about "What the Bleep" that movie is one of the worst thing to happen to the evolution of modern metaphysical thought around.  Not only that but the quantum scientist who they quoted throughout was INFURIATED that they had cut and pasted his quotes to make him say that science actually supports the message of the film.  And Dr. Emoto is an ABSOLUTE clown, refuses to have ANY of his research peer reviewed, sells 40 dollar bottles of his "magic" water, and i saw him give a lecture where he tried to tell everyone that "water dragon spirits" caused the Tsunami...


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Yeah, Enlitx, I respect you, you're a nice person but I really can't discuss this anymore. This response about said it all:



> Now if you are referring to throwing someone across the room without touching them, that is patently absurd. If it were true, they would be all over TV and magazines.



Hun, there are things in this world that you just don't have a clue about. 



> OK, I just assumed the classical definition was what we were working with. And you are correct, I don't believe in any of that stuff. Science has discredited telepathy, psychic abilites, etc... for a long time.



*Science doesn't know about everyone who's out there living. I've never had a scientist come and study the experiences of me and my friends.*

Anyways, thanks for the convo, thats all I have to say on this topic. There really is nothing else I can say to you. You won't believe any of my experiences, and I don't take well to people calling me a liar or implying I have a good imagination. And since my experiences and the experiences of others are what I have to reference, that about stops the possibility of conversing further.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> I do agree with Enlitx about "What the Bleep" that movie is one of the worst thing to happen to the evolution of modern metaphysical thought around.  Not only that but the quantum scientist who they quoted throughout was INFURIATED that they had cut and pasted his quotes to make him say that science actually supports the message of the film.  And Dr. Emoto is an ABSOLUTE clown, refuses to have ANY of his research peer reviewed, sells 40 dollar bottles of his "magic" water, and i saw him give a lecture where he tried to tell everyone that "water dragon spirits" caused the Tsunami...



P.S. I am aware that EVERYTHING in that movie is not perfectly accurate. It was meant to be food for thought and that's why I mentioned it.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Hun, there are things in this world that you just don't have a clue about.



Ugh, you sound like Christians who say the same thing about their god.  Or Muslims about theirs.  Or any other myth.  I gurantee you that if some guy could push someone across the room with mental force this message board would not be the only place I have heard about it.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> *Science doesn't know about everyone who's out there living. I've never had a scientist come and study the experiences of me and my friends.*



I gurantee you if they could actually do the things you claim there would be a scientist there in a second.  Make a video and post it on you tube of these powers and show everyone you aren't lying.  I am guessing that isn't going to happen.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> Anyways, thanks for the convo, thats all I have to say on this topic. There really is nothing else I can say to you. You won't believe any of my experiences, and I don't take well to people calling me a liar or implying I have a good imagination. And since my experiences and the experiences of others are what I have to reference, that about stops the possibility of conversing further.




Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind.  If a person told you that he was seeing little green people, would you think there was something wrong with him or that you are just not being open minded?


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> P.S. I am aware that EVERYTHING in that movie is not perfectly accurate. It was meant to be food for thought and that's why I mentioned it.



If I had to guess I would say you probably saw the movie and automatically incorporated some of the points into your spiritual ideas without any further research.  That is what happens when you take the easy way out, you get half cocked theories that are often wrong and then you get upset because other people have the gumption to point out just how far off you are.


----------



## hoopyfrood

qwe said:


> personally---- certain types of beings that are "supreme" over certain 3-branes (universes) is possible.  doesn't seem to be the case in this particular universe, though



This is sorta my idea, too.

The thing that I have the most 'belief' in is that when it comes down to it, all hypothetical, imaginable, and unimaginable things are, will, and did happen in some universe or another.  So in some universe (I don't think in this one), there IS a supreme, conscious being.


Chances are I'm wrong, but that just seems to be the best explanation I can think of.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

(edit-meant for the post above yours)^LOL No. I didn't. I don't even remember the details from the movie, just that I thought it was interesting. I certainly wouldn't base my spirituality around a movie any more than I'd base it around any one book, religion, or set of ideas.



> If a person told you that he was seeing little green people, would you think there was something wrong with him or that you are just not being open minded?



I wouldn't think anything either way. My first thought wouldn't be that there was something wrong with him, *no*. That's clearly what YOUR first thought would be, because little green people most certainly couldn't exist, right? Because science knows everything about the universe, right? Unlike you, my first thought to LISTEN to the person describe his experiences.



> show everyone you aren't lying.



You know, I've treated you nicely and accepted your apology after you called me a burnt out hippie. But I am a damned honest person and I don't like being challenged in that way, I don't deserve it, and I certainly should not have to PROVE I'm not lying when I have never told a fucking lie about any of this stuff in my entire life. You know damned well a lot of the stuff I'm talking about can't be proven by some youtube video and thats why you are trying to call me out on it, to make me look stupid so YOU can be right. It's sad.

You don't have a clue the things I've been through in my life, so go ahead and stay on your high horse with your closed off mind and think you know it all. I don't have the energy to keep trying to get you to see someone elses perspective because God knows, in your mind other perspectives clearly don't exist.



> The thing that I have the most 'belief' in is that when it comes down to it, all hypothetical, imaginable, and unimaginable things are, will, and did happen in some universe or another.



Yup.


----------



## Cheshire Kat

> It is not feel good to demonstrate a physical theory by constant experimental scrutiny. That is much different than a theory about positive energy and gods that was entirely the product of an imagination. Again, you keep trying to throw everything out because we are bound by a subjective experience. That is foolish. We can still get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method.



I'm not trying to throw anything out. I'm saying that I don't think reality is as simple as you believe. Basing your concepts of reality upon the limitations of space and time and plurality, is fine. But to assume that they must be accurate, that reality must be the way you indeed percieve it? That's just having faith. There's no reason to believe that, other than you "want" to believe it, or you have a hard time believing otherwise. You can't give a solid reason why that has to be the "right" way other than saying that other ways seem foolish to you (that, and your argument about metaphysical utility, which as I mentioned earlier, doesn't seem to hold up as many people don't share your beliefs achieve just as much utility.) I never said that we can't get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method. I'm saying that whatever is real, whatever it is that we are studying, is something beyond space and time and plurality and color and depth, and that we cannot know its true nature. Reality is inherently unknowable. We can't know reality through measuring and experimentation, as you claimed. That doesn't at all imply that the scientific method is useless or serves no purpose, or that I don't want surgeons to use science when operating on me. 



> Denying their accuracy based on your reasons leads exactly to willy-nilly hippy talk and anarchy.


 To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.


> If there is no common and reliable method to determine truth, then everything is equally as valid.


Why?


> I don't want to attack people here, but it honestly strikes me as laziness when people come up with half-baked theories and then try to say they are equally as valid as anyone else's.


I don't mean to sound sexist, but a woman's place is in the kitchen. Doesn't the previous sentence sound foolish and absurd at best, and downright offensive at worst?

People in this thread, myself included, disagree with you rather strongly. But I have tried be civil and respectful towards your views, and tried to reach some point where we better understand each other, and the issue at hand, through some discussion. But you've made several ad hominem arguments and some good-old-fashioned insults against myself and others. It's can be an easy thing to fall into when you get fired up with someone who you disagree with strongly, but it poisons a thread and its potential for meaningful discourse, and it needs to stop.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.



So true. Thanks CK.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx, the definitive proof you are seeking is like trying to measure mass with a cricket bat. This pursuit is both foolish and futile.

Recognise that some things are strongly *evident* from a different point of view from your own and learn to respect them. Only then would you have any chance to find any *evidence*.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

^amen!!!


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

DOUBLE AMEN! lol


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> What?  There is no special "emotive" energy, it is all the same action potentials on both hemispheres of the brain.  The only difference with emotion is that the action potentials activate different parts of the brain, which results in different behavior.  I am not quite sure what that last sentence was supposed to mean, could you be clearer?
> 
> 
> 
> I am open to all kinds of new ideas.  You just can't expect a science student to believe any crackpot theory after he has been formally trained on how to tell good ideas from bad ones.  Having a more activity right hemisphere might alter the way I feel about my experience, but it wouldn't change my ability to distinguish junk from science.


I expect a science student already having booked the throne he is going to seat on, with his godly image of himself! but it does not speak for everyone else, some science people are so well balanced that makes up for the some!

It is  pretty obvious that balance is lacking in your hard core single minded low class morality and contempt you have inbred into your system.

Grandiocity can account for that!


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I wouldn't think anything either way. My first thought wouldn't be that there was something wrong with him, *no*. That's clearly what YOUR first thought would be, because little green people most certainly couldn't exist, right? Because science knows everything about the universe, right? Unlike you, my first thought to LISTEN to the person describe his experiences.



So you have no prejuideces at all?  Anything you hear at all is just as equally valid to you?  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> You know, I've treated you nicely and accepted your apology after you called me a burnt out hippie. But I am a damned honest person and I don't like being challenged in that way, I don't deserve it, and I certainly should not have to PROVE I'm not lying when I have never told a fucking lie about any of this stuff in my entire life. You know damned well a lot of the stuff I'm talking about can't be proven by some youtube video and thats why you are trying to call me out on it, to make me look stupid so YOU can be right. It's sad.



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  As expected, you don't actually have anything tangible to back up your claims, so what would you expect a rational person to think?



MynameisnotDeja said:


> You don't have a clue the things I've been through in my life, so go ahead and stay on your high horse with your closed off mind and think you know it all. I don't have the energy to keep trying to get you to see someone elses perspective because God knows, in your mind other perspectives clearly don't exist.



Who said I am not seeing your perspective?  I am just challenging the validity of some of your claims.  Seeing your perspective does not equal agreeing with you.


----------



## Enlitx

Cheshire Kat said:


> I'm not trying to throw anything out. I'm saying that I don't think reality is as simple as you believe. Basing your concepts of reality upon the limitations of space and time and plurality, is fine. But to assume that they must be accurate, that reality must be the way you indeed percieve it? That's just having faith. There's no reason to believe that, other than you "want" to believe it, or you have a hard time believing otherwise. You can't give a solid reason why that has to be the "right" way other than saying that other ways seem foolish to you (that, and your argument about metaphysical utility, which as I mentioned earlier, doesn't seem to hold up as many people don't share your beliefs achieve just as much utility.) I never said that we can't get a good idea of how the universe works by employing the scientific method. I'm saying that whatever is real, whatever it is that we are studying, is something beyond space and time and plurality and color and depth, and that we cannot know its true nature. Reality is inherently unknowable. We can't know reality through measuring and experimentation, as you claimed. That doesn't at all imply that the scientific method is useless or serves no purpose, or that I don't want surgeons to use science when operating on me.



Just as much utility?  What exactly has metaphysics done to cure diseases, construct buildings, develop technology?  The things I believe in I consider right because there is *evidence* for them.  There used to be a time when there wasn't evidence for anything and mystical claims were everywhere, it was called the Dark Ages.    And I have agreed time and time again that we can never know the true nature of the universe or have an objective understanding, where is the argument?  What I have constantly stated is that we can't say any idea is just as valid when there is no proof for it.  



Cheshire Kat said:


> To the contrary, some of the greatest minds of human history have rejected their accuracy in the sense we're discussing. You yourself have yet to give a solid reason to put so much faith in them.



Questioning the accuracy is one thing, providing an alternative or better method is quite another.  I will stick with what has stood up to scrutiny.



Cheshire Kat said:


> Why?



How could you possibly say one idea is better than another without any kind of standard?



Cheshire Kat said:


> I don't mean to sound sexist, but a woman's place is in the kitchen. Doesn't the previous sentence sound foolish and absurd at best, and downright offensive at worst?
> 
> People in this thread, myself included, disagree with you rather strongly. But I have tried be civil and respectful towards your views, and tried to reach some point where we better understand each other, and the issue at hand, through some discussion. But you've made several ad hominem arguments and some good-old-fashioned insults against myself and others. It's can be an easy thing to fall into when you get fired up with someone who you disagree with strongly, but it poisons a thread and its potential for meaningful discourse, and it needs to stop.



What am I supposed to think when I am called narrow minded because I don't think that what someone who has dreamed/pieced together ideas through personal anecdotes is on par with someone who has conducted research and published their ideas for peer review?  Listen, I understand that there is philosophy that science can't touch, what I have been trying to say all along is that you can't say your far out theory which has absolutely no evidence is just as valid as quantam theory.  It might be possible, but the _probability_ of it being true is just not the same.  That is all I have been trying to convey.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> Enlitx, the definitive proof you are seeking is like trying to measure mass with a cricket bat. This pursuit is both foolish and futile.
> 
> Recognise that some things are strongly *evident* from a different point of view from your own and learn to respect them. Only then would you have any chance to find any *evidence*.



Hmmmm, pretty sure I have made it very clear that there will never be a definite proof of anything.  

Something being evident means hardly anything, Muslims believe Allah is evident, Greeks believed Zeus was evident, schizophrenics believe all kinds of "evident" stuff you wouldn't accpet.  

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind, it only serves as an indicator for further testing.  Doling out equal respect to every theory would be like trusting your keys equally to every person.  Sure, you could do it, but it would be stupid.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> I expect a science student already having booked the throne he is going to seat on, with his godly image of himself! but it does not speak for everyone else, some science people are so well balanced that makes up for the some!
> 
> It is  pretty obvious that balance is lacking in your hard core single minded low class morality and contempt you have inbred into your system.
> 
> Grandiocity can account for that!



Godly image of myself?  I have promoted the scientific method, not my own merits.  Address my points if you want a discussion, don't be upset because I favor certain methodology.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

Enlitx said:


> Godly image of myself?  I have promoted the scientific method, not my own merits.  Address my points if you want a discussion, don't be upset because I favor certain methodology.



Just reading a little bit of post-modern philosophy would really help you realize the absurdity of the certainty with which you think and argue your point.  Unfortunately your perspective is a wee bit dated as far as contemporary philosophy goes...


----------



## Enlitx

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Just reading a little bit of post-modern philosophy would really help you realize the absurdity of the certainty with which you think and argue your point.  Unfortunately your perspective is a wee bit dated as far as contemporary philosophy goes...




Like I have said already, none of my claims are made with absolute certainty.  Some ideas are just much more supported than others.  Exactly how is it dated to say idea A seems to be true based on what we know and idea B is completely speculative without a shred of verifiable evidence?  If I am not mistaken, that is still how people determine what is likely real or not.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As expected, you don't actually have anything tangible to back up your claims, so what would you expect a rational person to think?



No, extraordinary claims require FAITH.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> No, extraordinary claims require FAITH.



"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason."
Benjamin Franklin

"Faith is spiritualized imagination."
Henry Ward Beecher

"Humanity’s first sin was faith; the first virtue was doubt."
Anonymous


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Damn, such a sad, bleak view of the Universe. I'm so glad that's not me.


----------



## Enlitx

And if you knew someone who could throw someone across the room with their thoughts, you shouldn't have any problem taping it.  The fact that you can't produce the evidence tells me that it is simply a lie.  Why else wouldn't you _want_ and _try_ to show people something amazing like that?

I mean, I could tell you that I shit pure gold bricks, but I would *really* hope you wouldn't believe such an extraordinary claim without some kind of proof from me.  Then again, you might....


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Damn, such a sad, bleak view of the Universe. I'm so glad that's not me.



Yes, Benjamin Franklin was such a sad, bleak individual 8).  Just because people won't accept any idea that is thrown at them doesen't mean they enjoy life any less than you do.  On the contrary, I would consider an uninformed and ignorant position to be more sad and bleak.

And I love how you can throw in snide little comments about how I am bleak, sad and you are glad you aren't me but I get chastized for what I say.  Sigh.


----------



## SececaRD

*The Jesus Christ of History*

There are more than 20 ancient, *non-Christian *witnesses to various aspects of the public career of Jesus. Most of these consist of writings from the first to the mid-second century; a few are archaelogical finds. Together they reveal an enormous amount of information.

This is not to say that the New Testament alone is not a trustworthy source of information about Jesus. As a literary document, it provides better material than any other ancient classical writing. The New Testament has far more manuscript portions than other ancient texts, and the copies have proven much closer to the originals in both accuracy and date. In addition, no portions of the New Testament books are missing, while large amounts have been lost from other classical works. (Roman historians have especially suffered: about 75 percent of Livy’s and about 50 percent of Tacitus’s histories have disappeared.)

Still, the skeptics around you might be interested to know that at least 17 ancient written sources, representing a variety of persons and circumstances, confirm and complement biblical accounts of Jesus’ life. Here are some of those sources:

Ancient historians. The Roman historian Tacitus (as well as his contemporary Suetonius) provides significant information about Jesus and his followers. Writing around A.D. 115, Tacitus notes that Christ was killed at the hand of Pontius Pilate while Tiberius was emperor; that Christ’s teachings had already spread to Rome; and that Christians were considered criminals and tortured in a variety of ways, including crucifixion (Annals 15:44). In addition, a disputed passage by the Jewish historian Josephus tells of Jesus’ virtuous conduct, his choosing of disciples, his crucifixion and death under Pilate, and the disciples’ reported appearances of the risen Jesus three days later (Antiquities 18:3). Yet another historian, Thallus, relates a very early (ca. A.D. 52) report of the crucifixion, attributing the darkness which occurred at Jesus’ death to an eclipse of the sun.

Ancient politicians and social commentators. Roman government officials such as Pliny the Younger and even two Caesars, Trajan and Hadrian, wrote intriguing letters mentioning Jesus and early Christian origins. Pliny, for example, writing about A.D. 112, describes weekly gatherings of early Christians (of all ages and social classes) who met before dawn, singing and worshipping Christ as Deity, and agreeing not to sin. Pliny, who required Christians be killed unless they denied Christ and worshiped the gods and emperor, asserts that true believers would not recant (Letters X:96).

Other Gentile evaluations of Jesus and the early church were written by Greek satirist Lucian of Samosata and a Syrian named Mara Bar-Serapion. Lucian wrote that Jesus taught the brotherhood of believers to deny other gods and to obey his laws. Christians, we are told, did not fear death because they were persuaded of their immortality: furthermore, they shared material possessions and frequently read from Scripture (The Death of Peregrine 11–13).

Non-Christian religious sources. The Talmud (an authoritative body of Jewish tradition), the Toledoth Jesu and several gnostic writings also offer relevant details about Jesus. One of the most interesting reports from this religious literature is the earliest reference to Jesus in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a), which states that Jesus was “hanged” (compare Galatians 3:13 and Luke 23:39) on Passover eve after the Jews were going to stone him for sorcery and for leading Israel astray. The account adds that anyone who wished to defend Jesus could have done so, but no one volunteered.

Archaeological sources. Recent digs have provided key background information. One inscription, for example, indicates that a Judean census occurred during the reign of Emperor Augustus (23 B.C. – A.D. 14), lending credibility to Luke’s story of the Roman taxation which brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem. Other relevant finds include the skeleton of Yohanan, a first century crucifixion victim, which reveals the basic technique of such capital punishment, and the Nazareth Decree, a stone which gives details of Jewish burial. Both back up details of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial mentioned in the Gospels.

In total, about one-third of these non-Christian sources date from the first century; a majority originate no later than the mid-second century. Noted historians such as Michael Grant and A. N. Sherwin-White explain that, compared to many ancient writings, these dates are quite early and close to the events themselves. Furthermore, these sources do not depend on the New Testament for their data. Numerous facts reported by Pliny, Lucian, the Talmud and others are recorded nowhere in the Gospels.

But, some might ask, “Don’t these ancient sources, unlike the New Testament, teach a non-supernatural Jesus?” Surprisingly, seven relate the belief in the deity of Jesus, and ten either state or imply his resurrection.

Post-New Testament Christian writings. Several non-New Testament Christian writings also relate details concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus. Some of these works, such as Clement of Rome’s Corinthians and Ignatius’s seven epistles, are early (A.D. 95 – 115); significantly, these writers were close to apostolic sources.

*From all of these non-Christian, archaeological and Christian sources (as well as oral traditions later recorded in the New Testament), we can glean well over 100 different details concerning the life, teachings, death and even the resurrection of Jesus. Almost every major facet of his ministry reported in the Gospels is recorded. The claim that we cannot know the historical Jesus is not true. Jesus’ life is one of the most substantiated in ancient history.*


The question isnt did Jesus actually live, cause its been documented throughout history, even by Non-Christians on hundreds of occasions, so its clear that Jesus did live. 

The question is, is he the son of God? If you can explain the many miracles he did, unless he was the David Coperfield of that time which I doubt that, if you beleive that you explain his death on the cross and ressurection. Id say he is the son of God..

THis is my opinion


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Yes, Benjamin Franklin was such a sad, bleak individual . Just because people won't accept any idea that is thrown at them doesen't mean they enjoy life any less than you do. On the contrary, I would consider an uninformed and ignorant position to be more sad and bleak.



I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the idea that there is something wrong with the concept of faith. Faith is what guides my life, it's everything to me. I am far from sad and bleak, my life is beautiful, I get absolutely everything I want in every way, I am blessed beyond words, but thanks for your concern. If you say you are happy, I'm happy for you. I don't mean to be mean, but you really come across like a condescending ass and if I came across with an attitude, that is why. I apologize, and like I said, good luck.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> Hmmmm, pretty sure I have made it very clear that there will never be a definite proof of anything.
> 
> Something being evident means hardly anything, Muslims believe Allah is evident, Greeks believed Zeus was evident, schizophrenics believe all kinds of "evident" stuff you wouldn't accpet.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind, it only serves as an indicator for further testing.  Doling out equal respect to every theory would be like trusting your keys equally to every person.  Sure, you could do it, but it would be stupid.



*Everyone deserves respect.* To not "dole it out" equally is stupid as it just highlights your own biases and prejudices.


----------



## ebola?

SececaRD said:
			
		

> [material]



Please cite what you quote:

http://www.intervarsity.org/studentsoul/item/was-jesus-real


ebola


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I wasn't referring to him. I was referring to the idea that there is something wrong with the concept of faith. Faith is what guides my life, it's everything to me. I am far from sad and bleak, my life is beautiful, I get absolutely everything I want in every way, I am blessed beyond words, but thanks for your concern. If you say you are happy, I'm happy for you. I don't mean to be mean, but you really come across like a condescending ass and if I came across with an attitude, that is why. I apologize, and like I said, good luck.



Benjamin Franlkin and Thomas Jefferson had a very big bone to pick with faith, so by implication you think they are bleak and sad.  In fact, many great minds have considered faith a very weak cop out for an unintelligent idea.  It has nothing to do with sadness/bleakness and everything to do with a system of rational beliefs.

Is this the first time your beliefs have been challenged?  I mean, do you ever actually approach MD's or PhD's and make the same assertions you make here?  Scrutinizing ideas is a healthy and normal part of developing ideas.  That is how good ideas get advanced.  

I am not even going to respond with an ad hominem in kind with yours.  I would just like to comment that it is pretty funny everyone was on my ass about personal attacks but its perfectly OK for you to use them.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> *Everyone deserves respect.* To not "dole it out" equally is stupid as it just highlights your own biases and prejudices.



Everyone may deserve respect, but not every theory.  If you actually read what I wrote I said that every theory does not deserve equal respect.


----------



## L2R

The manner with which you approach these theories is very disrespectful to those who support them. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to be so presumptuous and absolutely dismissive.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> The manner with which you approach these theories is very disrespectful to those who support them. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to be so presumptuous and absolutely dismissive.



I have been just as disrespected as anyone else.  Still, I won't apologize for being brutally candid about subjects.  I will try to refrain from language that attacks the person instead of the ideas.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

Perhaps its the immense condescension with which you speak.  Frankly you seem to have brought a great deal of emotion into this "debate" as you began to fling insults.  I've reached the point where I no longer find the need to attack other's beliefs (though I find most to be utter nonsense) as I realize that these efforts to convert one another cause nothing but conflict/anger, thus I try to understand to the fullest where exactly everyone is coming from as that is FAR more interesting and worthwhile than attacking people as well as various beliefs and putting them on the defensive and shutting down full expression of experience/belief.


----------



## ThaiDie4

*Enlitx*, let me ask you a question if you don't mind, not to fuel any sort of argument or anything, but rather to get a sense of your beliefs.

It's obvious that you rely heavily on scientific explanations of things... I do too, to an extent, although I am certainly not that advanced in science. I am a psychology major and I found cognitive psychology to be intresting, because we learned all about logical fallcies and the misuse of ancedotal stories to act as proof of something.

However, I also realise that everyone percieves things differently, and in many cases, the "reality" that one expierences is the only reality that really matters to them. I don't mean that to sound like "People who believe in God\Allah\etc. are crazy and just have wild imaginations"... that's not what I think. But I am fully aware that two people can look at the same event and have very different perceptions of it... so where is the the truth?

In physical matters, there is only one truth. For example, gravity pulls you to the earth... that is true (as far as we know it) and no matter what a person believes, they will hit the ground hard if they jump from a 3 story building. But in matters of spirituality, is it possible for their to be multiple truths?? Do you think that spirtuality is simply a matter of perception, and those who percieve a "God" live their lives by that God and those who don't, simply don't?

Now the matter of life after death, heaven or hell, and all that is different than what I'm discussing ^ Just to be clear. I'm talking about the mental state of relgion\spirtuality, not about any sort of physical manifestations of it.

*EDIT* 

After re-reading this, I think I can explain my thoughts\question in a better way:

Ok, so the way I see it there are two realities... there is the "real" reality, what is actually out there, and then there is the subjective reality, the way in which we percieve it.

Again, which the example of gravity, this is something that is pretty much reality for everyone... you would be hard pressed to find a person who truely believed that the law of gravity does not exist. We can see it with our own eyes, and the general consensus across the population is that gravity exists.

Matters of spirtuality and religion I think are more subjective... people interpret events and expierences differently, and everyone has a unique idea of what religion is (if they believe it at all), and you cannot really prove or disprove it.

My question is, do you think its possible to follow life in a very scientific way, yet still be religious\spirtual?? Do you think that spirtuality is just a person's personal expierences and how they choose to interpret those, and therefore you can put stock in the laws of science yet believe in religion? Sometimes I think that God can exist to people, not necessarily in a physical state but rather in a mental state... because if I firmly believe in God, then that is real to me. It is not a universal view, but because its real to me, it is "real". < I say "I" in a hypothetical sense, as previously stated I am personally not religious.

gahhh i feel like no matter how much this makes sense in my head, I sound like im contridicting myself in certain areas when its written. I'd appriciate your opnion on this if you understand what I am getting at!


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Perhaps its the immense condescension with which you speak.  Frankly you seem to have brought a great deal of emotion into this "debate" as you began to fling insults.  I've reached the point where I no longer find the need to attack other's beliefs (though I find most to be utter nonsense) as I realize that these efforts to convert one another cause nothing but conflict/anger, thus I try to understand to the fullest where exactly everyone is coming from as that is FAR more interesting and worthwhile than attacking people as well as various beliefs and putting them on the defensive and shutting down full expression of experience/belief.



Agreed with all but the part in parentheses.

Enlitx, please understand that for many people, having a worldview based on solid and irrefutable logic isn't the goal; having a worldview that renders life purposeful and full of connectedness is. You can personally choose not to agree with or relate to this. But you can't make others value and prioritize as you do, and I'm hard pressed to see the point in trying.

That's the great thing about metaphysics -- it's truly a mystery to all of us, because it's by definition beyond the physical and observable. What's really 'out there' or 'behind all this' is really anyone's guess. Getting territorial about one's metaphysics is kind of like two little kids bickering about whose future car is better.

Yeah sure, I admit that it's quite possible that what we scientifically observe is literally all there is, and that our attempts to conclude otherwise amount to no more than wishful thinking and self-delusion. But since this isn't ultimately provable, I see nothing obligating me or anyone else to conclude this. (If it's true and I don't believe it, is No-God going do damn me to Nonexistent-Hell?) So I've chosen to keep my mind open to other possibilities, if only for the reason that they're more fun, exciting, and appealing. This doesn't mean I reject well-founded science for solving perfectly physical, practical problems in my day to day life. I just feel no obligation to extend this approach to metaphysics.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Yeah sure, I admit that it's quite possible that what we scientifically observe is literally all there is, and that our attempts to conclude otherwise amount to no more than wishful thinking and self-delusion. But since this isn't ultimately provable, I see nothing obligating me or anyone else to conclude this. (If it's true and I don't believe it, is No-God going do damn me to Nonexistent-Hell?) So I've chosen to keep my mind open to other possibilities, if only for the reason that they're more fun, exciting, and appealing. This doesn't mean I reject well-founded science for solving perfectly physical, practical problems in my day to day life. I just feel no obligation to extend this approach to metaphysics.



Funny how the lunatic fantasies of science fiction authors often turn out to be visionary works with deep insight into the progression/evolution of humankind.  Perhaps metaphysical visions are visions of the true evolutionary potential of man.  I often imagine/feel that to a certain degree the technological evolution of our species is heading towards (has already) acted as a fulfillment of the metaphysical dreams of thousands of years.

Science IS NOT THERE to inspire, to provide "meaning", to add depth, or purpose to individuals lives.  Rather science is yet another tool of human consciousness, it exists in our head not outside, just like any other cognitive tool.  I feel that there is this mistake made by many individuals to assume that objective reality has primacy over the individual lived subjective experience.  Many assume that those with inclinations towards the metaphysical are ignorant and disinterested in what science has to say, which is absolutely false, and frankly I experience little dissonance between my metaphysical beliefs and scientific rationalistic adherence towards practical matters.

My comment about utter nonsense is more in regards to the true lack of clarity or interaction most people have with their spirituality, how it is ascribed and their is any lack of depth to their beliefs, lots of buzz words but once you cut through those most individuals have no clue what they are talking about.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Godly image of myself?  I have promoted the scientific method, not my own merits.  Address my points if you want a discussion, don't be upset because I favor certain methodology.


It is A=how you have so much conceit in *how you address people *as well as their views! go back and read how condensending you have been in your first approach and there forward! Then you ask to be addressed in the same manner, since you lack groundness, and integrity. Have some descency and don't play "little old me" when you get the same arrows thrown back. You only display lack in your overall make up, of having substance other then academic verbalization which comes just from your head alone, and is learned.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Perhaps its the immense condescension with which you speak.  Frankly you seem to have brought a great deal of emotion into this "debate" as you began to fling insults.  I've reached the point where I no longer find *the need to attack other's beliefs=* *(though I find most to be utter nonsense)* as I realize that these efforts to convert one another cause nothing but conflict/anger, thus I try to understand to the fullest where exactly everyone is coming from as that is FAR more interesting and worthwhile than attacking people as well as various beliefs and *putting them on the defensive and shutting down full expression of experience/belief.*


Now *that* is a very conflicting passage!!

Insult them nicely!! The incongruency stands out!

(though I find most to be utter nonsense)


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Enlitx, please understand that for many people, having a worldview based on solid and irrefutable logic isn't the goal; having a worldview that renders life purposeful and full of connectedness is.



You put that beautifully.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

^Yes that is what I meant as an example of a balanced scientist! You can't miss it nor can not- not respect and admire, and it is throughout ones views or expressions and their substance is permeating throught their language.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Now *that* is a very conflicting passage!!
> 
> Insult them nicely!! The incongruency stands out!
> 
> (though I find most to be utter nonsense)



No my point is that even if you find someone's belief system to be nonsense you can still treat them with respect and as an equal.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Hmm, once an insult, always remains an insult, and as much as one tries to amend it, the more it stands out as an isult. 
Finding someone's views nonsense? Is the viewer's way of viewing perhaps coming from their own judgement of what they classify as nonsense? 
While a number of others view it as it is to be viewed, where one owes to step to the same position of viewing it!
The emotionally disconected, can not possibly understand the language of emotion, but can only view things from a cold and callous rationalism!

What a cold robotic world would it be, to view everything in a rational perspective!
Where does the person live? By that, I don't mean geographically!


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

I'm sorry but I fail to see how, "Even though I find your belief system to be fallacious, and in my opinion nonsensical, I look at you as an equal and will treat you, as a person, with respect" as a veiled insult.  Since when was the vocalization of disbelief AN INSULT, this to me is basic honesty combined with humility and decency.  Then you proceed to hint that I may be "emotionally disconnected" and entangled with "cold callous rationalism", and you say I attempt to "ammend" it, where on earth did I do that, I only have merely restated what I have said multiple times.

It is increasingly obvious to me that you haven't fully read my posts and for some reason think that I view everything with a rational perspective.  Re-read a bit and you may discover that I am in no way promoting this.  Personal criticism without having the decency to read what I have actually posted IS an insult.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> I'm sorry but I fail to see how, "Even though I find your belief system to be fallacious, and in my opinion nonsensical, I look at you as an equal and will treat you, as a person, with respect" as a veiled insult.  Since when was the vocalization of disbelief AN INSULT, this to me is basic honesty combined with humility and decency.  Then you proceed to hint that I may be "emotionally disconnected" and entangled with "cold callous rationalism", and you say I attempt to "ammend" it, where on earth did I do that, I only have merely restated what I have said multiple times.
> 
> If I insulted anyone I apologize THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT.


>*vocalization of disbelief *
>Finding someone's views *nonsense?*

If you mean what you say, then the word should be, NOT AGREEING with someone's views, and not finding their views NONESENSE. There is that subjective there, the judgment!
Basic honesty YES! Humility?NO! Decency? Definately NOT!

>*Then you proceed to hint that I may be "emotionally disconnected" and entangled with "cold callous rationalism", *
That was a pluralistic form, speaking not directly to you, but stating my view that the emotionally disconnected could not possibly get the drift of that form of view, one owes to speak from the same level to understand and to be understood.

The scientists are not better then the philosophers, the sports geniouses are not better then the carpenters, each to their own. Respect comes when you understand the other, you cannot insult and respect that person at the same time!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Everyone may deserve respect, but not every theory.  If you actually read what I wrote I said that every theory does not deserve equal respect.


Well, talking about theory, this is a philosophical perspective, and you come with chemistry/biochemistry to attempt to run down the ideas which come from that part of the mind or spiritual aspect, and try to kill them adding insult to injury with your derogatory comments and insults. Respect? Theories? You don't even agree our right brain has any saying in the matter. If I need spiritual atunement, I won't go asking a biochemist about it, especially one who finds no need for such "nonsense" as our views are on the philosophical and spiritual matters. Try solving the problems as in regards to chromozomes and what not, and leave it at that.


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

LivingInTheMoment said:


> >*vocalization of disbelief *
> >Finding someone's views *nonsense?*
> 
> If you mean what you say, then the word should be, NOT AGREEING with someone's views, and not finding their views NONESENSE. There is that subjective there, the judgment!
> Basic honesty YES! Humility?NO! Decency? Definately NOT!



BUT THAT WOULD BE DISHONEST.  Frankly my honest opinion that its nonsense, and the vocalization of that opinion, IS me treating this person with decency and humility by not being so condescending as to hide my perspective about their belief in semantic bullshit.  Most intellectual human beings who regularly engage in such debate can separate an attack on belief from an attack on a person.  Nonsense means contrary to reason, that is not an insult, it is merely an honest statement of how I feel.  Frankly if you are the only person who finds this statement of mine insulting then I feel no reason to further argue with you, as this ENTIRE argument you have brought up is based on a SINGLE word in parentheses that had little to do with the entire post among multiple paragraphs in which I am trying to be as decent as possible.

frankly I find this to be absurd because I was looking at other posts you have made in other threads here is a small sample from one thread where multiple people, including admin address your disrespect and troll-like behavior:

"you sound just as ugly as you look, and you are not in a position to tell me where to go....Geni-ass"

"Gosh you have such a limited vocabulary, once a year is fine-at least I have a life, which is not something you have subscribed to."

"Ohh my!!! That is such an eloquent speach!  I guess you can't do better then that!

How old are you? I imagine since you become as young as your next sentence, that makes you pretty young!

Even in a place such as this where you can get away with one word, you yourself can't make it there, all that gets to is....bla...bla...blaaaaa, mindless in meaning!

Some guys here have a way with even the smallest word, where as you, you can talk and talk and only noise comes out! "

....

I see no further reason to argue with you about decency. and would close with another comment you said in another thread:

"don't take everything so personal and learn to let go a bit!"


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> BUT THAT WOULD BE DISHONEST.  Frankly my honest opinion that its nonsense, and the vocalization of that opinion, IS me treating this person with decency and humility by not being so condescending as to hide my perspective about their belief in semantic bullshit.  Most intellectual human beings who regularly engage in such debate can separate an attack on belief from an attack on a person.  Nonsense means contrary to reason, that is not an insult, it is merely an honest statement of how I feel.  Frankly if you are the only person who finds this statement of mine insulting then I feel no reason to further argue with you, as this ENTIRE argument you have brought up is based on a SINGLE word in parentheses that had little to do with the entire post among multiple paragraphs in which I am trying to be as decent as possible.
> 
> frankly I find this to be absurd because I was looking at other posts you have made in other threads here is a small sample from one thread where multiple people, *including admin address your disrespect and troll-like behavior:*
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults!!!) *"you sound just as ugly as you look, and you are not in a position to tell me where to go....Geni-ass"
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults)"*Gosh you have such a limited vocabulary, once a year is fine-at least I have a life, which is not something you have subscribed to."
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults)* "Ohh my!!! That is such an eloquent speach!  I guess you can't do better then that!
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults)* How old are you? I imagine since you become as young as your next sentence, that makes you pretty young!
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults)* Even in a place such as this where you can get away with one word, you yourself can't make it there, all that gets to is....bla...bla...blaaaaa, mindless in meaning!
> 
> *QUOTE in response to their insults)* Some guys here have a way with even the smallest word, where as you, you can talk and talk and only noise comes out! "
> 
> ........................................
> 
> *I see no further reason to argue with you about decency*. and would close with another comment you said in another thread:
> 
> "don't take everything so personal and learn to let go a bit!"


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I see, that you didn't bring all the good comments I made to the ones who were very decent!!

>You cared enough to search and find my answers which I gave to the ones who insulted me, and took them out of their context and brought them here to back yourself up with?

If you are going to do that, then you should have brought also the insulting comments made to me, to which I responded to with the above comments which have a time and place, unlike how you try to make them look taken out of their context !!!

As in regards to trying to back up your own comment which I addressed in here, I am not the only one who found your comment in paranthesis as such, if you read another's comments prior you will see that others did find that comment as such as well! Please, in retrospect to trying to make amends, don't run around trying to find other responses and if you do, as I said, you should bring their comments together where they are not isolated as you are doing here, trying to run me down AGAIN!! Doing so, one needs to ask, why are you doing that? What is your motive?

The way you are trying to turn this around is very concerning! 

If the person was admin, and spoke so ugly addressing me, that is a source of concern!

It seems that what I say sticks, because others comment and respond to others comments throughout the forum, yet you don't seem to take notice,but find my comments which address what is there, as out of norm? Now that is of concern!

A troll? Trying to get involved in some way but insulted instead and called a failure with pictures or pancakes and what not, and pushing me out of there instead of welcoming someone new, and slowly introducing their jokes, is that what you call a troll? How does one get pulled in with the oldies? I didn't find anyone insulting that way anywhere else! I don't see you taking yourself lightly where you find yourself insulted! Like right here.....

I will not take this any further, for it will be pulled further out of context, as well as it goes too far!


----------



## Psychedelic Gleam

> I have been just as disrespected as anyone else. Still, I won't apologize for being brutally candid about subjects. I will try to refrain from language that attacks the person instead of the ideas.





> The manner with which you approach these theories is very disrespectful to those who support them. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to be so presumptuous and absolutely dismissive.



NONE of these quotes are directed at me as far as I can tell.  Who found ANY of my comments, other than you, insulting, please provide me a quote.


----------



## spindizzy

Im not sure what i believe in yet. I know for a fact I dont believe in christianity/catholism since I was brought up as a roman catholic and I realised when i was about 12 that it was bullshit.


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

mynameisnotdeja is right.  Its not like the majority of humans can open up a text book in public school and be taught about the ethereal/energy work/everyone's dormant psychic abilities let alone comprehend these experiences.   Many humans lives are effected daily, probably deja, myself along with a vast unnumbered amount who are a step ahead of human evolution & sensitive to things in that nature. These people document there experiences & there has been concrete evidence to somethings that would make your main stream in the box filtered information receiving head spin. Deja, if you dont mind id like you 2 send me a PM of a brief description of your experience.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Haha which experience? 

A couple of you guys have PM-ed me wanting to know about my experiences and I don't even know where to begin. I mean.. there's been a lot of crazy shit. 

Lately I've been experiencing kundalini awakening, which is something I wasn't anywhere near prepared for, but so far has been pretty amazing. I know a lot of the elder yogis and stuff say its like playing with fire, so I'm not consciously trying to awaken it too much (although I'm learning how) as I understand it can be dangerous. But when it happens on it's own, I just let it flow and enjoy the experience, which is amazing.

Id like to share some experiences, Im just not sure where to begin! Maybe I will just send a list of random topics and we can pick one for discussion hehe. We should start an "Ive had less than usual and more than average experiences in this life thus far" group.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> The manner with which you approach these theories is very disrespectful to those who support them. You don't have to agree, but you also don't have to be so presumptuous and absolutely dismissive.



So now I have to be nice to certain _theories_ because people ascribe to them?  If an idea is absurd, I will call it that.  If people can't handle having their ideas challenged in a blunt way, they shouldn't be on an internet forum.  Anyways, if I attack your idea in a way that offends your beliefs, you can either research the topic and defend it with vigor, or admit you have shitty ideas in the first place.


----------



## Enlitx

Psychedelic Gleam said:


> Perhaps its the immense condescension with which you speak.  Frankly you seem to have brought a great deal of emotion into this "debate" as you began to fling insults.  I've reached the point where I no longer find the need to attack other's beliefs (though I find most to be utter nonsense) as I realize that these efforts to convert one another cause nothing but conflict/anger, thus I try to understand to the fullest where exactly everyone is coming from as that is FAR more interesting and worthwhile than attacking people as well as various beliefs and putting them on the defensive and shutting down full expression of experience/belief.



I always attack beliefs, it is the best way to further out understanding.  You should see the way scientists critique their peers, it is completely candid and ruthless because that fosters much better ideas and conclusion when you are forced to defend your beliefs.  I wouldn't take it as an insult and become hurt if someone said my ideas were stupid because of X, I would instead do everything in my power to prove that X does not alter the validity of my ideas.

I have listened to people and do try and understand where they are coming from, that doesen't mean that at the end of the day I still have to agree with it.  And I am not emotional in the slightest about these threads, it is just how I argue my points.


----------



## Enlitx

ThaiDie4 said:


> *Enlitx*, let me ask you a question if you don't mind, not to fuel any sort of argument or anything, but rather to get a sense of your beliefs.


Sure thing.



ThaiDie4 said:


> It's obvious that you rely heavily on scientific explanations of things... I do too, to an extent, although I am certainly not that advanced in science. I am a psychology major and I found cognitive psychology to be intresting, because we learned all about logical fallcies and the misuse of ancedotal stories to act as proof of something.
> 
> However, I also realise that everyone percieves things differently, and in many cases, the "reality" that one expierences is the only reality that really matters to them. I don't mean that to sound like "People who believe in God\Allah\etc. are crazy and just have wild imaginations"... that's not what I think. But I am fully aware that two people can look at the same event and have very different perceptions of it... so where is the the truth?



There will never be 100% proof of anything, so the truth is the best estimation you can make of it.  If 99.9% of the evidence suggests there is no god, it is a pretty safe bet to say there isn't.  I mean, if you saw someone robbing your house, would you act accordingly or be nice to them and invite them to supper because there is that 0.00001% chance they are taking your things and giving you all new things as part of a reality show.  just because both ideas can't be proved doesen't mean that one is just as good as the other.  



ThaiDie4 said:


> In physical matters, there is only one truth. For example, gravity pulls you to the earth... that is true (as far as we know it) and no matter what a person believes, they will hit the ground hard if they jump from a 3 story building. But in matters of spirituality, is it possible for their to be multiple truths?? Do you think that spirtuality is simply a matter of perception, and those who percieve a "God" live their lives by that God and those who don't, simply don't?



Spirituality is just as much physical truth as gravity, except that it is an extremely complicated result of the physical interaction in your brain.  In short, it is simply a product of your emotional desires manifested in spiritual beliefs.  With reference to gods, it is all a perception.  



ThaiDie4 said:


> Now the matter of life after death, heaven or hell, and all that is different than what I'm discussing ^ Just to be clear. I'm talking about the mental state of relgion\spirtuality, not about any sort of physical manifestations of it.



I think the mental state of spirtuality is just that, a mental state.  It doesen't reflect what is actually going on in the world exterior the the observer.  



ThaiDie4 said:


> *EDIT*
> 
> After re-reading this, I think I can explain my thoughts\question in a better way:
> 
> Ok, so the way I see it there are two realities... there is the "real" reality, what is actually out there, and then there is the subjective reality, the way in which we percieve it.
> 
> Again, which the example of gravity, this is something that is pretty much reality for everyone... you would be hard pressed to find a person who truely believed that the law of gravity does not exist. We can see it with our own eyes, and the general consensus across the population is that gravity exists.
> 
> Matters of spirtuality and religion I think are more subjective... people interpret events and expierences differently, and everyone has a unique idea of what religion is (if they believe it at all), and you cannot really prove or disprove it.



You cannot prove or disprove anything, it all comes down to what is probable.  And if something is MUCH more probably than another thing, then it is just prudent to call one thing false and the other true _as far as humans can tell_.



ThaiDie4 said:


> My question is, do you think its possible to follow life in a very scientific way, yet still be religious\spirtual?? Do you think that spirtuality is just a person's personal expierences and how they choose to interpret those, and therefore you can put stock in the laws of science yet believe in religion? Sometimes I think that God can exist to people, not necessarily in a physical state but rather in a mental state... because if I firmly believe in God, then that is real to me. It is not a universal view, but because its real to me, it is "real". < I say "I" in a hypothetical sense, as previously stated I am personally not religious.



I think that many scientific people experience cognitive dissonance because they want a god for emotional reasons.  If you press them on the details and reasons for their belief, they will have to admit it is just a feeling, or faith.  It satisfies an emotional need.  If I firmly believe in aliens controlling the president through a microchip, that may be extremely real to me, but that isn't what is actually happening.  That is why psychology/neurobiology is very important in determining why we choose to believe the things we do.  I am taking a 400 level Neuropsyhbiology class next semester, I will get back to you on the specifics .



ThaiDie4 said:


> gahhh i feel like no matter how much this makes sense in my head, I sound like im contridicting myself in certain areas when its written. I'd appriciate your opnion on this if you understand what I am getting at!



I think you stated it pretty clearly, no problems on my end.  If you have any questions about my response, I would be happy to clarify.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Agreed with all but the part in parentheses.
> 
> Enlitx, please understand that for many people, having a worldview based on solid and irrefutable logic isn't the goal; having a worldview that renders life purposeful and full of connectedness is. You can personally choose not to agree with or relate to this. But you can't make others value and prioritize as you do, and I'm hard pressed to see the point in trying.



I never tried to make people think like me, I have simply talked about how probable and valid their theories are, and what the best method to determine realistic theories is.  I never said you must act like me if you want to be happy and feel connected, I guess I am wondering where you got that from.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> That's the great thing about metaphysics -- it's truly a mystery to all of us, because it's by definition beyond the physical and observable. What's really 'out there' or 'behind all this' is really anyone's guess. Getting territorial about one's metaphysics is kind of like two little kids bickering about whose future car is better.



Yes, but many people use this as a license to convey the idea that all metaphysical ideas are equal.  That isn't the case.  I have stated over and over again that I could never disprove any theory here, but I can suggest it as being solely the product of someone's desires/irrational thought because they have no good data to base their beliefs on.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Yeah sure, I admit that it's quite possible that what we scientifically observe is literally all there is, and that our attempts to conclude otherwise amount to no more than wishful thinking and self-delusion. But since this isn't ultimately provable, I see nothing obligating me or anyone else to conclude this. (If it's true and I don't believe it, is No-God going do damn me to Nonexistent-Hell?) So I've chosen to keep my mind open to other possibilities, if only for the reason that they're more fun, exciting, and appealing. This doesn't mean I reject well-founded science for solving perfectly physical, practical problems in my day to day life. I just feel no obligation to extend this approach to metaphysics.



Hey, I keep my mind open all the time.  What is pointless though is to give every theory equal credence.  Like I have stated, if you have good reasoning behind why you believe something, that is different than just believing in something because it makes you feel good.  I mean really, what would be the point in just saying anything that comes to your head and everyone agreeing with you.  It would be an endless cycle of "I believe this"  and then "Well good for you, sounds neat".  In reality, that is what everyone does anyway.  They come up with their own theories because of their experience and what they can deduce the best answers to be.  I am just taking that and extending it to every idea, which is how our species has evolved from primitive to sophisticated.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> It is A=how you have so much conceit in *how you address people *as well as their views! go back and read how condensending you have been in your first approach and there forward! Then you ask to be addressed in the same manner, since you lack groundness, and integrity. Have some descency and don't play "little old me" when you get the same arrows thrown back. You only display lack in your overall make up, of having substance other then academic verbalization which comes just from your head alone, and is learned.



I am not playing little old me.  I have been refraining from attacking individuals and am focusing on ideas.  That is the best I can do.  Also, except for a few instincts, pretty much everything you do is learned.  We just learned in very different ways.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Hmm, once an insult, always remains an insult, and as much as one tries to amend it, the more it stands out as an isult.
> Finding someone's views nonsense? Is the viewer's way of viewing perhaps coming from their own judgement of what they classify as nonsense?
> While a number of others view it as it is to be viewed, where one owes to step to the same position of viewing it!
> The emotionally disconected, can not possibly understand the language of emotion, but can only view things from a cold and callous rationalism!
> 
> What a cold robotic world would it be, to view everything in a rational perspective!
> Where does the person live? By that, I don't mean geographically!




Who says I am emotionally disconnected.  I laugh, cry, and have fun regularly.  Just because I can approach ideas about spirituality with reason doesen't meant that I am devoid of emotion.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Well, talking about theory, this is a philosophical perspective, and you come with chemistry/biochemistry to attempt to run down the ideas which come from that part of the mind or spiritual aspect, and try to kill them adding insult to injury with your derogatory comments and insults. Respect? Theories? You don't even agree our right brain has any saying in the matter. If I need spiritual atunement, I won't go asking a biochemist about it, especially one who finds no need for such "nonsense" as our views are on the philosophical and spiritual matters. Try solving the problems as in regards to chromozomes and what not, and leave it at that.




What I have done is try to apply what we know about ourselves as human beings to answer why some people come up with the theories they do.  I am just trying to account for the motivation behind some of these ideas.  If someone comes up with an idea that is sound and logical because it agrees with reality in an objective sense or is a good hypothesis based on what we know, I am cool with that.  I think it would be wise of everyone to try and determine exactly how an idea stacks up with reality and why that idea was invented in the first place.  If people would have done this with Christianity/ Greek Myths/ etc... there could have been a lot of lives saved and a lot of grief avoided.


----------



## Enlitx

FrostyMcFailure said:


> mynameisnotdeja is right.  Its not like the majority of humans can open up a text book in public school and be taught about the ethereal/energy work/everyone's dormant psychic abilities let alone comprehend these experiences.



Perhaps because people have tried to claim these things throughout time, and invariably they end up being a hoax or fantasy?  I mean, if you look at history 2000 years ago, there was so many more claims of psychic abilities and supernatural events.  Now that science has caught up and people can't just claim shit as being valid, it has all but disappeared, I wonder why?

It is because 2000 years ago if you claimed something, no one could disprove you because there was no way to know except through text.  Now, you would actually have to produce something like a video.  Case in point was mynameisnotdeja's claims about telekinetic energy.  She claims it is real, but when pressed, can't come up with the evidence.  2000 years ago, she could have just written it down, and people would have had to take it at face value.

And please, it is not a matter of comprehension when it comes to these things, it is a matter of gullibility (in reference to psychic abilities and "energy work").  



FrostyMcFailure said:


> Many humans lives are effected daily, probably deja, myself along with a vast unnumbered amount who are a step ahead of human evolution & sensitive to things in that nature. These people document there experiences & there has been concrete evidence to somethings that would make your main stream in the box filtered information receiving head spin. Deja, if you dont mind id like you 2 send me a PM of a brief description of your experience.


[/QUOTE]

Just like countless people documented rising from the dead, curing blindess, making snakes talk 2000 years ago.  The difference is now we have grown up as a culture, and we don't just accept fairytales as true.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx, how exactly can one "proove" a psychic vision with a youtube video? How can I go back in time and prove things that happened to me 5 years ago? I mean, wtf? I've had these experiences yes, but what do you think? I have my own personal army of psychic superheroes at my disposal that I can just direct to do whatever I want??

You know full well the experiences I'm talking about are not something that can be proved with a youtube video, which is the only reason you are still bringing it up.

I'm just curious, why does someone like you come into a Spirituality and Philosophy forum in the first place? You know we have a science forum here, right? ANd I don't hang out in there because it's not my interest. Since you seem so against the sort of beliefs people in this forum have, why do you come in here? Do you just enjoy attacking us?


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Enlitx, how exactly can one "proove" a psychic vision with a youtube video? How can I go back in time and prove things that happened to me 5 years ago? I mean, wtf? I've had these experiences yes, but what do you think? I have my own personal army of psychic superheroes at my disposal that I can just direct to do whatever I want??
> 
> You know full well the experiences I'm talking about are not something that can be proved with a youtube video, which is the only reason you are still bringing it up.



I was referencing the post you made that someone could throw me across the room with their mental energy.  That could easily be proven with a video.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> So now I have to be nice to certain _theories_ because people ascribe to them?  If an idea is absurd, I will call it that.  If people can't handle having their ideas challenged in a blunt way, they shouldn't be on an internet forum.  Anyways, if I attack your idea in a way that offends your beliefs, you can either research the topic and defend it with vigor, or admit you have shitty ideas in the first place.



incorrect.

you are approaching the matter using a language and attitude that impedes any progress in this discussion. rather than blindly calling "bullshit" you can far more productively note that you are skeptical since you haven't shared such experiences. either way, you're essentially saying the same thing. 

and i note again, you're not going to get any evidence here on the internet. if you expect any, then perhaps you shouldn't be on an internet forum. 

learn how to deal with people. look at the majority of those in this thread, both on "your side" and not, saying how you're being overtly and unecessarily rude.


----------



## gorgoroth

I'm a stubborn atheist.
But I do admire the inherant Egalitarianism in the teachings of christianity, which aren't practised by the vast majority of people that label themselves 'christian'.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> incorrect.
> 
> you are approaching the matter using a language and attitude that contradicts any progress in this discussion. rather than blindly calling "bullshit" you can far more productively note that you are skeptical since you haven't shared such experiences.
> 
> and i note again, you're not going to get any evidence here on the internet. if you expect any, then perhaps you shouldn't be on an internet forum.
> 
> learn how to deal with people. look at the majority of those in this thread, both on "your side" and not, saying how you're being overtly and unecessarily rude.



I disagree, calling bullshit should cause people to come up with valid reasons why it is not bullshit.

It is extremely ironic that you started your post off with "incorrect".  That is exactly what I am doing to other people in so many words.  So you just displayed the same thing you are claiming is wrong.  Maybe that is how I feel about the situation and who are you to tell me my subjective experience is wrong.   Funny eh?  

Most of the beliefs people have could be supported by either logic or some type of evidence that is reasonable.  Just saying that you have the ability to read a mind should garner skepticism from people.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I didn't say _I _could do it! Like I said, what do you think, I am a master of an army of warriors I can just instruct to do whatever I want? lol

I could introduce you to my ex fiance sometime. He can do some crazy shit. He would probably be a good person for you to talk to as well, he's very smart and more science-minded than me but also a very spiritual person. He has seen a lot of the same crazy experiences I have.



> I disagree, calling bullshit should cause people to come up with valid reasons why it is not bullshit.



The reason it's not bullshit is that it's happened to me, my entire life. ALL of these things have really happened to me. So that's my reason. My experience. I don't need to give a reason anymore than that. If you want to call me a liar or not believe me, its your call. But I don't need to give any other reason. I am an open and honest person, and I have become friends with a lot of people on bluelight who I think would trust me when I share an experience with them. If you can't let go enough to trust another person's experiences once in awhile, I think you might be missing out on a lot of wisdom that is out there.


----------



## L2R

again you are incorrect. 

show me how my post addresses you in a disrespectful manner. only by doing so would you substantiate this claim of irony.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I didn't say _I _could do it! Like I said, what do you think, I am a master of an army of warriors I can just instruct to do whatever I want? lol
> 
> I could introduce you to my ex fiance sometime. He can do some crazy shit. He would probably be a good person for you to talk to as well, he's very smart and more science-minded than me but also a very spiritual person. He has seen a lot of the same crazy experiences I have.



OK, but even if someone else could you should be able to videotape it.  There is not reason you couldn't unless it wasn't real.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> and i note again, you're not going to get any evidence here on the internet. if you expect any, then perhaps you shouldn't be on an *internet *forum.



Hahah, oh snap! So true. Thank you.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> The reason it's not bullshit is that it's happened to me, my entire life. ALL of these things have really happened to me. So that's my reason. My experience. I don't need to give a reason anymore than that. If you want to call me a liar or not believe me, its your call. But I don't need to give any other reason. I am an open and honest person, and I have become friends with a lot of people on bluelight who I think would trust me when I share an experience with them. If you can't let go enough to trust another person's experiences once in awhile, I think you might be missing out on a lot of wisdom that is out there.



I never questioned that to you it probably seemed real.  Schizophrenics think a lot of shit is real, and I would never question that to them all the stuff was really happening.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> OK, but even if someone else could you should be able to videotape it.  There is not reason you couldn't unless it wasn't real.



Because I am not currently in contact with the same people as I once was. 

Although my ex fiance did something like this once. I'm sure I should talk about it on the public net though,so I could PM you.

But I am hesitant to share with you, for the reason of the way you come at people. If I was to share this story with you, you would be right there waiting to try and debunk it. It's one thing to argue over ideas and theories and stuff, but you have to understand, most people don't want their real life experiences de-bunked. To me that is like being doubted when you had been raped or something. I've experienced some fucked up shit, and for people to imply that it isn't "real" just because they have not experienced it, is extremely insulting to me. This is why I have not shared more of my experiences with you.

You really should think about the way you come at people.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> again you are incorrect.
> 
> show me how my post addresses you in a disrespectful manner. only by doing so would you substantiate this claim of irony.



Calling bullshit and being skeptical are the same thing dressed up in different wrappings.  I believe it is bullshit, so unless there is no substantiating evidence or logic to support it, I would call bullshit.  I guess I could say, "Well, your ideas really conflict with reality and reason", but I am not one to beat around the bush.

It is coming down to semantics and how people are taking this.  I am refraining from personal attacks and being unruly.  I will still be candid though.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> I never questioned that to you it probably seemed real. Schizophrenics think a lot of shit is real, and I would never question that to them all the stuff was really happening.



^^*Sigh* Do you honestly NOT see what you just did there?

You just compared me to a schizophrenic. Thanks. Once again, you should really think about the way you come at people. It's called tact.

Also, you didn't answer my question. What is your motivation for coming into a spiritual and philosophical forum? Just to "call bullshit"?


----------



## gorgoroth

I thought I was speaking with god once, but it turned out to be amphetamine psychosis.
Go figure.
I see alot of anti-gay. and other discriminatives protests here.
I don't like that, I thought christianity was based on love for your fellow man?


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Because I am not currently in contact with the same people as I once was.
> 
> Although my ex fiance did something like this once. I'm sure I should talk about it on the public net though,so I could PM you.
> 
> But I am hesitant to share with you, for the reason of the way you come at people. If I was to share this story with you, you would be right there waiting to try and debunk it. It's one thing to argue over ideas and theories and stuff, but you have to understand, most people don't want their real life experiences de-bunked. To me that is like being doubted when you had been raped or something. I've experienced some fucked up shit, and for people to imply that it isn't "real" just because they have not experienced it, is extremely insulting to me. This is why I have not shared more of my experiences with you.
> 
> You really should think about the way you come at people.



What would you expect someone to think when you make an extraordinary claim but when pressed for evidence it just can't be found.  It is the same thing that has happened over and over again with ghost hunters, ESP, telekinetics, Sasquatch, etc... Everyone makes claims about things, and swears they are true, but when it comes down to it there is no reason at all to believe them.

I am just applying reason to the situation.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Because there isn't evidence for matters which involve faith. 

ONCE AGAIN, if you rely so much on evidence, and demand it, WHAT are you doing in a forum for spirituality and philosophy, two matters which usually involve a great deal of faith and open mindedness?


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> ^^*Sigh* Do you honestly NOT see what you just did there?
> 
> You just compared me to a schizophrenic. Thanks. Once again, you should really think about the way you come at people. It's called tact.
> 
> Also, you didn't answer my question. What is your motivation for coming into a spiritual and philosophical forum? Just to "call bullshit"?




To be clear, I am not calling you a schizophrenic.  What I was trying to do is point out that some people have experiences that are very real to them, and using a schizophrenic as an example seemed to illustrate the point pretty well.  

Maybe I lack tact, but that shouldn't impede upon the conversation unless people are overly sensitive.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> To be clear, I am not calling you a schizophrenic.  What I was trying to do is point out that some people have experiences that are very real to them, and using a schizophrenic as an example seemed to illustrate the point pretty well.
> 
> Maybe I lack tact, but that shouldn't impede upon the conversation unless people are overly sensitive.



I personally believe schizophrenics are not insane, just that they see more than they can handle.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Because there isn't evidence for matters which involve faith.
> 
> ONCE AGAIN, if you rely so much on evidence, and demand it, WHAT are you doing in a forum for spirituality and philosophy, two matters which usually involve a great deal of faith and open mindedness?



I come on here to discuss these ideas.  You do realize that there is a lot of philosophy and spirituality that don't rely on blind faith right?  It is not as if a prerequisite for philosophy is a complete lack of reason or logic.  In fact, I think people do philosophy a disservice by not applying critical thinking to ideas.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I personally believe schizophrenics are not insane, just that they see more than they can handle.




And what do you base this idea off of?


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

But you aren't discussing it. You are coming in and saying "my way or the highway" and refusing to see our point of view.. and then calling our beliefs "bullshit" because there is no "on paper" evidence. You already knew there was no on paper evidence for any of these experiences before you spoke to any of us, so what exactly is your motivation? To change our minds? 

PLEASE don't imply I have a "lack of reason or logic". I trust what I see and feel to be real, and I trust MYSELF in my ability to judge whats true in my life.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> And what do you base this idea off of?



It's my opinion. I've seen demons, I've seen angels, I've had scary experiences, psychic experiences, etc etc etc. I've seen and felt and thought a lot of crazy shit, stuff that sometimes becomes overwhelming. 

I've seen the sort of stuff a lot of schizophrenics babble on about, and often times I understand some of what they are saying. I believe they are sensitives who simply run with it and then get lost in the deep end. There probably is most certainly some difference in their brains from that of a normal person, I'm not denying that there's some sort of imbalance. I probably have some sort of "imbalance" as well if they tested my brain, but that doesn't mean what they (or I) have seen is somehow not real. I think they just got lost in it somehow.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> But you aren't discussing it. You are coming in and saying "my way or the highway" and refusing to see our point of view.. and then calling our beliefs "bullshit" because there is no "on paper" evidence. You already knew there was no on paper evidence for any of these experiences before you spoke to any of us, so what exactly is your motivation? To change our minds?
> 
> PLEASE don't imply I have a "lack of reason or logic". I trust what I see and feel to be real, and I trust MYSELF in my ability to judge whats true in my life.



I am discussing it.   I am just not accepting everything at face value.  I am completely open to people supporting their ideas, I am good with that.  What is the point for these forums if everyone just shares and everyone else nods their heads?  Shouldn't be about getting input?  Shouldn't it be about challenging other's notions?  Head over to the philosophy boards at www.iidb.org.  They talk a lot about philosophy, but they challenge each other in a candid way that fosters extremely intellectual discussion.  If it isn't about actually challenging ideas, why not just put it in your blog? 

Deducing that the world works a certain way because you experienced it without any external support or validation is a lack of reason and logic.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Deducing that the world works a certain way because you experienced it without any external support or validation is a lack of reason and logic.



External support? The hundreds and hundreds (literally) of people I've met and talked to who have seen, felt, and experienced things similar to myself.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> Calling bullshit and being skeptical are the same thing dressed up in different wrappings.  I believe it is bullshit, so unless there is no substantiating evidence or logic to support it, I would call bullshit.  I guess I could say, "Well, your ideas really conflict with reality and reason", but I am not one to beat around the bush.
> 
> It is coming down to semantics and how people are taking this.  I am refraining from personal attacks and being unruly.  I will still be candid though.



no this isn't semantics at all. this is all about respect and manners, the same topic i've been addressing in all of my posts. 

you are the main hinderence to you ever seeing any evidence with relation to the subject at hand. you are just blowing smoke with your arguments since you have yet to even consider the topic. you are only expressing antagonistic and troll like behaviour in this thread.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> *you are the main hinderence to you ever seeing any evidence with relation to the subject at hand.* you are just blowing smoke with your arguments since you have yet to even consider the topic. you are only expressing antagonistic and troll like behaviour in this thread.



Beautifully put.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> It's my opinion. I've seen demons, I've seen angels, I've had scary experiences, psychic experiences, etc etc etc. I've seen and felt and thought a lot of crazy shit, stuff that sometimes becomes overwhelming.
> 
> I've seen the sort of stuff a lot of schizophrenics babble on about, and often times I understand some of what they are saying. I believe they are sensitives who simply run with it and then get lost in the deep end. There probably is most certainly some difference in their brains from that of a normal person, I'm not denying that there's some sort of imbalance. I probably have some sort of "imbalance" as well if they tested my brain, but that doesn't mean what they (or I) have seen is somehow not real. I think they just got lost in it somehow.



There is a possibility you are schizophrenic, and i don't mean that as an attack.  You just fit some of the symptoms.  

This is exactly what I am talking about though.  If scientists have tied these thoughts to chemical imbalances and characterized the chemicals involved as being able to produce these feelings, why wouldn't you think it wasn't just a disease?   If certain drugs can even reproduce some of the psychosis involved in schizophrenia, it is almost certainly chemical.  

I guess this is a prime example.  You are claiming that decades of research into schizophrenia is not true, and you base this on a feeling.  No evidence, just the fact that you "think" that they are seeing real things, when all evidence points to the contrary.  I could bring up all the biochemical evidence that it is just a mental disorder, but that would take forever because it is so well established.  You can't just say that you think it is not a disease and expect people to think that because you feel that way, your idea is as good as anyone else's.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> no this isn't semantics at all. this is all about respect and manners, the same topic i've been addressing in all of my posts.
> 
> you are the main hinderence to you ever seeing any evidence with relation to the subject at hand. you are just blowing smoke with your arguments since you have yet to even consider the topic. you are only expressing antagonistic and troll like behaviour in this thread.



The main hinderence of seeing any real evidence thus far has been a lack of evidence.  I really disagree that it has been troll like behavior as well.  I stepped over the line once or twice in a threat that has well over 100 posts in it.  I apologized when I did, and from that point on I have been strictly focusing on ideas.  From now on, point out if I am attacking somebody and not an idea and I will gladly stop.  For right now I would like to focus on the actual topic and now keep arguing about how I hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> External support? The hundreds and hundreds (literally) of people I've met and talked to who have seen, felt, and experienced things similar to myself.



So is Zeus real because all the Greeks expereinced and felt that he was?  See what I am getting at?


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> There is a possibility you are schizophrenic, and i don't mean that as an attack.  You just fit some of the symptoms.
> 
> This is exactly what I am talking about though.  If scientists have tied these thoughts to chemical imbalances and characterized the chemicals involved as being able to produce these feelings, why wouldn't you think it wasn't just a disease?   If certain drugs can even reproduce some of the psychosis involved in schizophrenia, it is almost certainly chemical.
> 
> I guess this is a prime example.  You are claiming that decades of research into schizophrenia is not true, and you base this on a feeling.  No evidence, just the fact that you "think" that they are seeing real things, when all evidence points to the contrary.  I could bring up all the biochemical evidence that it is just a mental disorder, but that would take forever because it is so well established.  You can't just say that you think it is not a disease and expect people to think that because you feel that way, your idea is as good as anyone else's.



It's all semantics. 

What makes you think brain chemistry doesn't simply influence the way we experience the universe? How is that experience any less "real" because some people don't have brains that function in a way to allow them to see some things. *And I have not once claimed that decades of research on schizophrenia isn't true. * Where did I say that? 

There is NO scientific knowledge out there that I feel goes against anything I believe. *The fact that something chemical happens in the blody when someone is experiencing something doesn't mean that the experience is limited to chemical. *



> There is a possibility you are schizophrenic, and i don't mean that as an attack. You just fit some of the symptoms.



LOL, hun, if I'm schizophrenic then I will get down on my knees and thank God for schizophrenia, because quite honestly, I am one of the happiest, and most emotionally balanced people I know. I'm the one all my friends come to for advice. I'm organized, in control of my life, very motivated and working hard on my career and personal development, etc. I don't mean to sound like "look at me, I'm so awesome" or anything, just trying to show that I truly love myself, others, the world, enjoy the fuck out of my life, am living all my dreams, and if that's schizophrenic, then I wish that sort of blessing on everyone!


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> So is Zeus real because all the Greeks expereinced and felt that he was?  See what I am getting at?



There is no point in saying this, but yes I believe Zeus was real.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> It's all semantics.
> 
> What makes you think brain chemistry doesn't simply influence the way we experience the universe? How is that experience any less "real" because some people don't have brains that function in a way to allow them to see some things. *And I have not once claimed that decades of research on schizophrenia isn't true. * Where did I say that?
> 
> There is NO scientific knowledge out there that I feel goes against anything I believe. *The fact that something chemical happens in the blody when someone is experiencing something doesn't mean that the experience is limited to chemical. *



That is what I am saying, brain chemistry influences the way we experience the universe.  And I just got done saying it is pretty real to you if you are experiencing it.  It is a pretty safe bet that if you introduce chemical X, and reaction Y happens that it is because of chemical X.  Especially if it is reproduced over and over again.  And if you really think that they are being opened up to what is out there, you either have to provide some kind of logic for that or else apply occam's razor (which is a philosophical tool, don't blame me).  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> LOL, hun, if I'm schizophrenic then I will get down on my knees and thank God for schizophrenia, because quite honestly, I am one of the happiest, and most emotionally balanced people I know. I'm the one all my friends come to for advice. I'm organized, in control of my life, very motivated and working hard on my career and personal development, etc. I don't mean to sound like "look at me, I'm so awesome" or anything, just trying to show that I truly love myself, others, the world, enjoy the fuck out of my life, am living all my dreams, and if that's schizophrenic, then I wish that sort of blessing on everyone!



I guess I don't see what this has to do with what we were talking about.  Where did I say that schizophrenics have bad lives?


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> There is no point in saying this, but yes I believe Zeus was real.



I think it is more productive to seperate myths from fact.  They are called the Greek Myths for a reason.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> The main hinderence of seeing any real evidence thus far has been a lack of evidence.



With your attitude, this outcome is inevitable. Stop wasting everyone's time with your futile and redundant inquiries. 




> I really disagree that it has been troll like behavior as well.  I stepped over the line once or twice in a threat that has well over 100 posts in it.  I apologized when I did, and from that point on I have been strictly focusing on ideas.  From now on, point out if I am attacking somebody and not an idea and I will gladly stop.  For right now I would like to focus on the actual topic and now keep arguing about how I hurt someone's feelings.



The advice many of us are giving you are primarily for your benefit. If you aren't willing to take them on board, then it is your loss.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> With your attitude, this outcome is inevitable. Stop wasting everyone's time with your futile and redundant inquiries.



Please point me to any evidence whatsover that didn't come down to "I feel this way" or "I just have faith", because that is not evidence.  Hell, I am not strictly after evidence, just some sound logic.   It is not an attitude, it is an observation about what has been primarily offered in this thread.




Impacto Profundo said:


> The advice many of us are giving you are primarily for your benefit. If you aren't willing to take them on board, then it is your loss.



When I try to get people to use logic to support their arguments it is primarily for their benefit and the benefit of philosophy.


----------



## L2R

There is more to life than your understanding of "logic". This last post of your continues with the same pointless approach, so it is clear you are either incapable or unwilling to have an open mind and/or open discussion. 

This really is a waste of everyone's time. I have more productive things to do than spend it with someone such as yourself. 

Try to rationalise to yourself that MNISND and I are fleeing from your supreme form of incredulity all you want. Just know that you never held the tools to have this discussion in the first place.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> There is more to life than your understanding of "logic". This last post of your continues with the same pointless approach, so it is clear you are either incapable or unwilling to have an open mind and/or open discussion.
> 
> This really is a waste of everyone's time. I have more productive things to do than spend it with someone such as yourself.
> 
> Try to rationalise to yourself that MNISND and I are fleeing from your supreme form of incredulity all you want. Just know that you never held the tools to have this discussion in the first place.



I agree that this is getting rather pointless.  I really need to stress this point though, having an open mind does not mean you agree with someone.  Some people on this board just want to be told their ideas are valid.  They aren't looking for an honest discussion about how the universe might work.  Like I said, head over to www.iidb.org and check out their philosophy discussion, it is like night and day compared to this one.  

Way to end your posts with an ad hominem


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> I think it is more productive to seperate myths from fact.  They are called the Greek Myths for a reason.



I believe the myths (if you choose to call them that) or stories, or whatever, came from something which was true at some point. As most stories do. I feel the same way about the story of Christ.

Do I believe these stories came from the lives of real people/Gods/special entities/whatever? Yes.

Do I believe that over the years the legends about these people have been changed/made more dramatic/and altered in other ways as they were passed down through the generations? Sure.

How? I don't know, as I wasn't there. 



> Please point me to any evidence whatsover that didn't come down to "I feel this way" or "I just have faith", because that is not evidence. Hell, I am not strictly after evidence, just some sound logic. It is not an attitude, it is an observation about what has been primarily offered in this thread.



I have already explained my view on this a thousand times to you and it's like talking to the wall. You just can't seem to grasp my perspective, and I have communicated it to the best of my ability.



> There is more to life than your understanding of "logic".



For some. I'm glad to be one of them. But then again, like I said before, to me my understanding my experiences is NOT illogical. I just can't "prove" it in a way that is satisfactory to Enlitx.. not much I can do about that. 



> Like I said, head over to www.iidb.org and check out their philosophy discussion, it is like night and day compared to this one.



That's cool. That's the second time you've mentioned that forum in this thread. Bluelight is NOT that forum, you are right. And people here are different, you are right. So (at the risk of making you sound unwelcome, because I truly don't mean to), perhaps this other forum would be a better place for you..? 

I disagree that this discussion was pointless though. Between this and the other *happy and content* thread, I've connected and grown closer to a few of you guys who have experienced things similar to myself, which was cool. :D It's good to know I'm not alone.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> I never tried to make people think like me, I have simply talked about how probable and valid their theories are, and what the best method to determine realistic theories is.  I never said you must act like me if you want to be happy and feel connected, I guess I am wondering where you got that from.



I think you misunderstood what I said. Let me put it this way. I think many people don't find that your worldview jibes with their experience of reality. I think you need to respect that this is not a flaw in their logic, intelligence, upbinging, influences, character, or anything else. It's not a flaw period. It's how the world has taught them. And it's different from how the world has taught you (your worldview isn't an inherent flaw either). And that's OK.



> Yes, but many people use this as a license to convey the idea that all metaphysical ideas are equal.  That isn't the case.  I have stated over and over again that I could never disprove any theory here, but I can suggest it as being solely the product of someone's desires/irrational thought because they have no good data to base their beliefs on.



All metaphysical ideas are equal? Why sure they are.  They're all equally unproven and unprovable. You're no closer to proving or disproving yours. When you step beyond the measurable and quantifiable, all bets are off when it comes to estimations of likelihood.



> It would be an endless cycle of "I believe this"  and then "Well good for you, sounds neat".  In reality, that is what everyone does anyway.



Yep. Glad we agree on that.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

^I just wish Enlitx could see that. This is what I'm trying to say as well.


----------



## jackie jones

We may believe in Christ, but so does satan...


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I think you misunderstood what I said. Let me put it this way. I think many people don't find that your worldview jibes with their experience of reality. I think you need to respect that this is not a flaw in their logic, intelligence, upbinging, influences, character, or anything else. It's not a flaw period. It's how the world has taught them. And it's different from how the world has taught you (your worldview isn't an inherent flaw either). And that's OK.



Their experiences go hand in hand with my view of reality.  Psychology and neuroscience predict that people will believe in fantastical things that aren't real because of emotional reasons.  There are clinical tests that ask whether or not you see demons, hear voices, or believe you have psychic abilities.  Scientists have long predicted a percentage of the population will experience these events because of the way their brain works.  They have attached specific conditions to these specific behaviors.  Recent scientific advancements have been able to induce mystical experiences with electromagnetic waves.  What I have been trying to point out is that these kinds of experiences are most likely indicative of altered brain function, not an insight into a metaphysical world that most aren't privy to.  

And just because you have been raised a certain way doesen't mean it is real or correct.  I could be raised all my life to believe 1 + 1 is 3, and I could believe 100% this is true.  I mean after all, it is my experience.  The problem comes when you try to apply it objectively to your surroundings.  This is analogous to some of the posts here.  People may believe some of these things, but when faced with the external conditions that all humans share, they don't hold up.  

For example, any rational person would not believe you could throw a person accross the room with your mind.  To suggest that I am being intolerant or just not accepting someone for making such a claim is ridiculous.  I am being rational and thoughtful for applying my critical thinking skills.  If you are going to be a doctor, and someone came in claiming they could predict the future, communicate wtih demons, and move objects with their mind, I would really hope you would screen them for mental illness.  If you don't, you are not living up to your training, but according to your post, that is exactly what you would do.





MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> All metaphysical ideas are equal? Why sure they are.  They're all equally unproven and unprovable. You're no closer to proving or disproving yours. When you step beyond the measurable and quantifiable, all bets are off when it comes to estimations of likelihood.



In terms of experimental verification, yes they are all equal.  In terms of sound logic from which it is based, no they are not.  String theory will never be equated with some of the ideas in this thread, but it too is metaphysical.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I have already explained my view on this a thousand times to you and it's like talking to the wall. You just can't seem to grasp my perspective, and I have communicated it to the best of my ability.



And I have explained mine a thousand times, I get what you are saying, I am questioning the validity of it.  Just because you believe it doesen't mean it is probably real.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> For some. I'm glad to be one of them. But then again, like I said before, to me my understanding my experiences is NOT illogical. I just can't "prove" it in a way that is satisfactory to Enlitx.. not much I can do about that.



Logic stands outside of the person experiencing it.  I could say that I think little green people push my body parts around to keep me moving, but you just can't see them.  That is an entirely illogical statement, but if just because I believed it was logical does not mean it actually is.  



MynameisnotDeja said:


> That's cool. That's the second time you've mentioned that forum in this thread. Bluelight is NOT that forum, you are right. And people here are different, you are right. So (at the risk of making you sound unwelcome, because I truly don't mean to), perhaps this other forum would be a better place for you..?



Well, I have migrated over there more lately.  I find that after I quit using drugs the level of discussion on these forums has lost some of its appeal.  I won't leave completely anytime soon though, so I can bother you a little more .


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Their experiences go hand in hand with my view of reality.  Psychology and neuroscience predict that people will believe in fantastical things that aren't real because of emotional reasons.  There are clinical tests that ask whether or not you see demons, hear voices, or believe you have psychic abilities.  Scientists have long predicted a percentage of the population will experience these events because of the way their brain works.  They have attached specific conditions to these specific behaviors.  Recent scientific advancements have been able to induce mystical experiences with electromagnetic waves.  What I have been trying to point out is that these kinds of experiences are most likely indicative of altered brain function, not an insight into a metaphysical world that most aren't privy to.



I don't doubt this is the case for some otherworldly experiences/-ers. But all? Nobody really knows.



> And just because you have been raised a certain way doesen't mean it is real or correct.  I could be raised all my life to believe 1 + 1 is 3, and I could believe 100% this is true.  I mean after all, it is my experience.  The problem comes when you try to apply it objectively to your surroundings.  This is analogous to some of the posts here.  People may believe some of these things, but when faced with the external conditions that all humans share, they don't hold up.
> 
> For example, any rational person would not believe you could throw a person accross the room with your mind.  To suggest that I am being intolerant or just not accepting someone for making such a claim is ridiculous.  I am being rational and thoughtful for applying my critical thinking skills.



Sure, when you use examples of things that are demonstrably false. Key word, demonstrably. But what if...
... we were living in a very elaborate simulation?
... there was only one Consciousness in all of existence, that lived its life sequentially through all sentient beings' lives, and was currently on you?
... some sort of otherworldly entity beyond our ability to imagine was right now wearing you like a sock puppet, and that's why you're consciously experiencing, right here right now?
... some incarnate spirit was living as you, in order to accomplish some mission?

The possibilities are endless. One can be fully grounded in science for everything to do with the physical world, including the brain, and can be perfectly justified in speculating that me-being-here-right-now is not an accident, and/or not a one-shot deal.



> If you are going to be a doctor, and someone came in claiming they could predict the future, communicate wtih demons, and move objects with their mind, I would really hope you would screen them for mental illness.  If you don't, you are not living up to your training, but according to your post, that is exactly what you would do.



Such claims would certainly strike me as red flags to be on the lookout for other signs of mental or physical illness. But I'd make an effort not to be obvious about this, because I'm sure such people are jaded with being labeled 'crazy', and establishing a trusting doctor-patient relationship is all about validating people. If I didn't see anything else in the person's medical history or physical exam that hinted at anything pathological, I wouldn't probe it any further, because it wouldn't be any of my business.

Some diagnoses include brushes with the paranormal as a symptom. But no diagnoses are comprised of this alone. Clinical diagnoses almost all involve some sort of impaired or diminished functioning in life, so I'd have to see evidence of that before I even considered any sort of diagnosis, let alone treatment.

Living up to my training means helping a patient find health. If patients are in good health and getting out of life what they want to get out of it without significant endogenous impediment, then their private lives and experiences, including any with the otherworldly, are of no professional consequence to me.



> In terms of experimental verification, yes they are all equal.  In terms of sound logic from which it is based, no they are not.  String theory will never be equated with some of the ideas in this thread, but it too is metaphysical.



How can we know that our logic even holds up, when we dig that deep? Quantum physics is not my area, granted. But I have read science writers, whom I presume have studied in the actual field, imply just this.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Recent scientific advancements have been able to induce mystical experiences with electromagnetic waves. What I have been trying to point out is that these kinds of experiences are most likely *indicative of altered brain function*, not an *insight into a metaphysical world* that most aren't privy to.



That is where we differ in our opinion and the main reason you aren't getting me. You see the two parts I bolded as two separate things. I see them as the same.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Impacto Profundo said:


> no this isn't semantics at all. this is all about respect and manners, the same topic i've been addressing in all of my posts.
> 
> you are the main hinderence to you ever seeing any evidence with relation to the subject at hand. you are just blowing smoke with your arguments since you have yet to even consider the topic. you are only expressing antagonistic and troll like behaviour in this thread.


Oh, such wise and beautiful words! Thank you!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

mynameisnotdeja said:


> because there isn't evidence for matters which involve faith.
> 
> Once again, if you rely so much on evidence, and demand it, what are you doing in a forum for spirituality and philosophy, two matters which usually involve a great deal of faith and open mindedness?


amen!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I think you misunderstood what I said. Let me put it this way. I think many people don't find that your worldview jibes with their experience of reality. I think you need to respect that this is not a flaw in their logic, intelligence, upbinging, influences, character, or anything else. It's not a flaw period. It's how the world has taught them. And it's different from how the world has taught you (your worldview isn't an inherent flaw either). And that's OK.
> 
> 
> 
> All metaphysical ideas are equal? Why sure they are.  They're all equally unproven and unprovable. You're no closer to proving or disproving yours. When you step beyond the measurable and quantifiable, all bets are off when it comes to estimations of likelihood.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Glad we agree on that.


All metaphysical ideas are equal? Why sure they are.  They're all equally unproven and unprovable. You're no closer to proving or disproving yours. When you step beyond the measurable and quantifiable, all bets are off when it comes to estimations of likelihood.


So beautifully said, my good man, and I think he misunderstands and always will. since he is on the proof trip, regardless whether some things can be proven with science or simply experienced and unable to be proven with those tools at this stage!


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I don't doubt this is the case for some otherworldly experiences/-ers. But all? Nobody really knows.



So how would you discern between someone who has a disorder and someone who actually has contact with a different world than us?



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Sure, when you use examples of things that are demonstrably false. Key word, demonstrably. But what if...
> ... we were living in a very elaborate simulation?
> ... there was only one Consciousness in all of existence, that lived its life sequentially through all sentient beings' lives, and was currently on you?
> ... some sort of otherworldly entity beyond our ability to imagine was right now wearing you like a sock puppet, and that's why you're consciously experiencing, right here right now?
> ... some incarnate spirit was living as you, in order to accomplish some mission?



Well, the example you take issue with was brought up in *this* thread, so I think it is relevant.  Are you willing to tell MynameisnotDeja that her idea is completely false or are you so inclined not to step on any toes that you will stay away from this issue?  You just said it was demonstrably false, so why not state that such a notion is absurd?  All of your other possibilities simply need Occam's razor applied to them.  I could come up with 1X10^99 possible metaphysical explanations for certain conditions, but that doesen't make them likely.  If there are good physical and documented (e.g. neurological) explanations as to why someone would see paranormal stuff and what not, it is considerably wiser to go with the empirically supported theories.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> everything to do with the physical world, including the brain, and can be perfectly justified in speculating that me-being-here-right-now is not an accident, and/or not a one-shot deal.



Justified?  I could justify anything at all.  Now if you want to talk about probability or evidence for something happening, then you have a different story.  Again, I would say to apply Occam's razor.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Such claims would certainly strike me as red flags to be on the lookout for other signs of mental or physical illness. But I'd make an effort not to be obvious about this, because I'm sure such people are jaded with being labeled 'crazy', and establishing a trusting doctor-patient relationship is all about validating people. If I didn't see anything else in the person's medical history or physical exam that hinted at anything pathological, I wouldn't probe it any further, because it wouldn't be any of my business.



Um, those symptoms are enought to warrant further tests, you wouldn't need any other criteria to be met.  So you are admitting that seeing demons, believing you have psychic abilities, etc.. *are* signs of mental illness right?




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Some diagnoses include brushes with the paranormal as a symptom. But no diagnoses are comprised of this alone. Clinical diagnoses almost all involve some sort of impaired or diminished functioning in life, so I'd have to see evidence of that before I even considered any sort of diagnosis, let alone treatment.



Chronic claims of paranormal contact is enough to warrant further investigation.  It certainly does not represent normal behavior.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Living up to my training means helping a patient find health. If patients are in good health and getting out of life what they want to get out of it without significant endogenous impediment, then their private lives and experiences, including any with the otherworldly, are of no professional consequence to me.



So what happens if you don't treat a schizophrenic who is functioning and happy, but then suddenly loses it after you had decided not to treat him?  That line of thinking makes no sense at all, you treat any illness you can, especially the ones that suggest serious alterations to regular biochemistry.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> How can we know that our logic even holds up, when we dig that deep? Quantum physics is not my area, granted. But I have read science writers, whom I presume have studied in the actual field, imply just this.



We can make assumptions based on the best evidence so far.  It is a hell of a lot better than just throwing up our hands and giving every nut job with a crackpot theory equal limelight.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> That is where we differ in our opinion and the main reason you aren't getting me. You see the two parts I bolded as two separate things. I see them as the same.



That would be like me saying that a tumor on my leg is just Jesus touching me.  You see connections that just aren't supported by anything in this world, and I see what is.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> So beautifully said, my good man, and I think he misunderstands and always will. since he is on the proof trip, regardless whether some things can be proven with science or simply experienced and unable to be proven with those tools at this stage!



Does it make you feel better to think that the reason I disagree with you is because I misunderstand?  Trust me, I fully understand the point you guys are trying to make, it is not like comprehension is the issue here.


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

science vs meta physics is apples to oranges. The heart chakra has been talked about for years & laughed at by "scientists" but then harvard did some study & found out every human has an electromagnetic pulse 60X stronger then the brains in that region that can be detected 3+ feet out of the body.  Now maybe it'll take them another 100years for each other chakra haha.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> That would be like me saying that a tumor on my leg is just Jesus touching me.  You see connections that just aren't supported by anything in this world, and I see what is.



To this i agree. It is simply the half empty/half full debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, and even though something cannot be "supported by anything in this world", it doesn't mean that we cannot somehow (no one knows how)sense/experience/connect with it. 

For several years i saw things as being determined by the laws we understand, but over time it seemed very lacking, it was as though i was consciously lying to myself. i felt that it was an urge of pride to have a deluded sense that we can understand all things. 

It doesn't make much sense to think this considering, logically speaking, how small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things. 



Enlitx said:


> Does it make you feel better to think that the reason I disagree with you is because I misunderstand?  Trust me, I fully understand the point you guys are trying to make, it is not like comprehension is the issue here.



Here is the problem in this thread. To some of us, you have demonstrably shown that you really have little comprehension of what we are talking about, yet you give this certain assurance that you understand completely. As long as you are so sure of this, you will not be listening to what we are saying. 

But you want us to trust you, to _have faith_ in your assurance?

now _that_ is irony.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> So how would you discern between someone who has a disorder and someone who actually has contact with a different world than us?



Never claimed to.



> Well, the example you take issue with was brought up in *this* thread, so I think it is relevant.  Are you willing to tell MynameisnotDeja that her idea is completely false or are you so inclined not to step on any toes that you will stay away from this issue?  You just said it was demonstrably false, so why not state that such a notion is absurd?  All of your other possibilities simply need Occam's razor applied to them.  I could come up with 1X10^99 possible metaphysical explanations for certain conditions, but that doesen't make them likely.  If there are good physical and documented (e.g. neurological) explanations as to why someone would see paranormal stuff and what not, it is considerably wiser to go with the empirically supported theories.



I wasn't talking about what MynameisnotDeja reported. I was actually thinking of your example of moving things with your mind. (edit: well actually, I take that back, I have seen a poltergeist at work, and it chilled me to the fucking bone) I'm not talking about people claiming to break physical laws. I'm talking about people getting a taste of what just may lay beyond physical laws.

All the examples I gave you are things that could leave no trace in the physical world, or none we're currently able to detect.



> Justified?  I could justify anything at all.  Now if you want to talk about probability or evidence for something happening, then you have a different story.  Again, I would say to apply Occam's razor.



To problems in the physical world, of practical importance to people, most definitely apply Occam's razor. But if there's no way to calculate the probability of anything metaphysical, it becomes pretty much impossible to assess and compare any likelihoods, and anything is really possible.

I see no reason why not to hope for more, and why not let my mind run wild with possibilities.



> Um, those symptoms are enought to warrant further tests, you wouldn't need any other criteria to be met.  So you are admitting that seeing demons, believing you have psychic abilities, etc.. *are* signs of mental illness right?



They can be. They often are. But they aren't necessarily. I told you.



> Chronic claims of paranormal contact is enough to warrant further investigation.  It certainly does not represent normal behavior.



I never said otherwise. It's not called 'PARAnormal' for nothing.



> So what happens if you don't treat a schizophrenic who is functioning and happy, but then suddenly loses it after you had decided not to treat him?  That line of thinking makes no sense at all, you treat any illness you can, especially the ones that suggest serious alterations to regular biochemistry.



No schizophrenic presents with this as their only symptom. It's not that simple.



> We can make assumptions based on the best evidence so far.  It is a hell of a lot better than just throwing up our hands and giving every nut job with a crackpot theory equal limelight.



Limelight? I only talked about giving them a pathway to health, and a compassionate ear. And just so we're crystal, yes, I think it is perfectly possible to have paranormal experiences and to have no clinical diagnosis of any kind, that is, to be in perfect health.


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

yeah man after all since our ships havent made it to America yet the world must be flat..


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> You see connections that just aren't supported by anything in this world, and I see what is.



You have a very limited definition of "this world" where as I do not.


----------



## Enlitx

FrostyMcFailure said:


> science vs meta physics is apples to oranges. The heart chakra has been talked about for years & laughed at by "scientists" but then harvard did some study & found out every human has an electromagnetic pulse 60X stronger then the brains in that region that can be detected 3+ feet out of the body.  Now maybe it'll take them another 100years for each other chakra haha.




Got a link for that?  This study wouldn't happen to be like Emoto's "studies" would it?


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> To this i agree. It is simply the half empty/half full debate. They aren't mutually exclusive, and even though something cannot be "supported by anything in this world", it doesn't mean that we cannot somehow (no one knows how)sense/experience/connect with it.



The question becomes what is likely happening?  The fact that scientists have documented these feelings of paranormal events, tied them to certain neurlogoical functions, and have even been able to induce such experiences strongly suggests it is a product of brain function, not an actual connection to paranormal phenomena.  I understand that people would _like_ to believe that they are actually experiencing paranormal events.  Without a good understanding of scientific literature, I am sure that is the most likely explanation to them.



Impacto Profundo said:


> For several years i saw things as being determined by the laws we understand, but over time it seemed very lacking, it was as though i was consciously lying to myself. i felt that it was an urge of pride to have a deluded sense that we can understand all things.
> 
> It doesn't make much sense to think this considering, logically speaking, how small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things.



Oh we most definetely don't know everything.  There are so many things yet to be determined.  That still doesen't mean that people experiencing very common mystical events somehow are connecting with unknown things.  Like I said, it all comes down to what is likely happening.  Without science, I am sure schizophrenics would have been thought of as somehow connected to a different world, but it just doesen't work that way anymore.  




Impacto Profundo said:


> Here is the problem in this thread. To some of us, you have demonstrably shown that you really have little comprehension of what we are talking about, yet you give this certain assurance that you understand completely. As long as you are so sure of this, you will not be listening to what we are saying.
> 
> But you want us to trust you, to _have faith_ in your assurance?
> 
> now _that_ is irony.



Nope, I get it.  I fully understand how people would think they have psychic abilities, precognition, etc...  I also understand what is likely happening.  For example, with precognition, people think that their dreams are predicting what happens in the future.  In reality, people find patterns because that is what our brain does.  So, anytime X years after a dream, anything at all that happens might be related to your dream.  Those are pretty good odds.  Not only that, dreams aren't stored in memory very well, so you may actually alter the memory of your dream to fit the circumstances at hand.  See, I get it, I just don't believe it.

I didn't mean you should literally trust me, it was just common phrase.  My posts should indicate what I am trying to say.


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Never claimed to.



Never calimed that you claimed to.  Just a question.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I wasn't talking about what MynameisnotDeja reported. I was actually thinking of your example of moving things with your mind. (edit: well actually, I take that back, I have seen a poltergeist at work, and it chilled me to the fucking bone) I'm not talking about people claiming to break physical laws. I'm talking about people getting a taste of what just may lay beyond physical laws.



She said that someone she knew could move things their mind, that is what I was referring to.  So are you going to flatly deny her claim, or are you really too sensitive to try and step on anyone's toes?  That doesn't foster healthy debate.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> All the examples I gave you are things that could leave no trace in the physical world, or none we're currently able to detect.



Yep, neither can string theory.  Not all theories are equal.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> To problems in the physical world, of practical importance to people, most definitely apply Occam's razor. But if there's no way to calculate the probability of anything metaphysical, it becomes pretty much impossible to assess and compare any likelihoods, and anything is really possible.



You can still use Occam's razor.  I fail to see the distinction.  It is employed all the time with the question of god, which is a very metaphysical inquiry.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I see no reason why not to hope for more, and why not let my mind run wild with possibilities.



You can hope all you want, but don't expect anyone to think that it is anything more than the product of delusional thinking and emotional need.  Because that is exactly what it is, by the very definition of hope.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> They can be. They often are. But they aren't necessarily. I told you.



I would hope they would be if you are really to become a doctor.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> No schizophrenic presents with this as their only symptom. It's not that simple.



Never said it was.  But if those symptoms were all you could deduce from one visit, it would warrant further tests.  My point still stands, just because someone isn't having a problem at that particular moment in time doesen't mean it is OK to just let them go, whatever the disease may be.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Limelight? I only talked about giving them a pathway to health, and a compassionate ear. And just so we're crystal, yes, I think it is perfectly possible to have paranormal experiences and to have no clinical diagnosis of any kind, that is, to be in perfect health.




You have suggested that every idea, no matter how improbable, should be considered in an equal fashion.  Number one, as a future doctor, you cannot afford that luxury.  Certain grandiose or deluded thinking will warrant your care.  Number two, not every idea is the product of healthy thinking or normal deductions.  

Paranormal experiences thus far have been the product of either liars or people who are sick.  As a people, we have pulled ourselves out of the hell hole life was in the dark ages, with all the mysticism and claims of paranormal contact.  Good people died in the inquisitions and Salem witch trials because people were _actually believing in this shit en masse.  I am just glad most people aren't like that anymore in industrialized nations._


----------



## Enlitx

FrostyMcFailure said:


> yeah man after all since our ships havent made it to America yet the world must be flat..



Actually, the Greeks predicted the world was round long before Colombus.  The Europeans made a fricking globe before America was ever discovered for fuck's sake.  

Wanna know how they did it?  Logical deduction.  They didn't make a globe because they considered every far out theory.  They looked at what theories were logical and had good support.  I mean, technically, any theory at that point could have been true, but just like I have been saying along, it is the probability that matters.  Thanks for helping me prove my point though.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> Nope, I get it. I fully understand how people would think they have psychic abilities, precognition, etc... I also understand what is likely happening. For example, with precognition, people think that their dreams are predicting what happens in the future. In reality, people find patterns because that is what our brain does. So, anytime X years after a dream, anything at all that happens might be related to your dream. Those are pretty good odds. Not only that, dreams aren't stored in memory very well, so you may actually alter the memory of your dream to fit the circumstances at hand. See, I get it, I just don't believe it.



I get what you mean, but my pre-cog experiences have been WAY too drastic to be "coincidences" (I put that word in quotes because it's a word you would use, but I personally don't believe in coincidences at all). I only wrote a few of them out in the other thread.

Yeah I could see something randomly happening that is weird once in awhile, but I mean, what are the chances of dreaming vividly about someone you haven't seen or thought about in years, and then running into them the next day? Now what are the chances of this happening as often as this has happened to me? (a lot, more times than I can count)

I agree we look for patterns but I also feel some patterns are just boldly THERE, there's no denying it. And I'm not saying I'm so magical and special or anything, I think everyone taps into what I call this "grid of synchronicity" somewhat, some just more than others.

Also, for the record, I don't forget most of my dreams. When I have a dream that means something to me (In whatever way, even if it just feels like my subconscious is trying to tell me something) I write it down so I can ponder it. I also have an amazing memory, I can still remember in detail dreams I had as a small child..


----------



## L2R

Enlitx said:


> The question becomes what is likely happening?  The fact that scientists have documented these feelings of paranormal events, tied them to certain neurlogoical functions, and have even been able to induce such experiences strongly suggests it is a product of brain function, not an actual connection to paranormal phenomena.  I understand that people would _like_ to believe that they are actually experiencing paranormal events.  Without a good understanding of scientific literature, I am sure that is the most likely explanation to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh we most definetely don't know everything.  There are so many things yet to be determined.  That still doesen't mean that people experiencing very common mystical events somehow are connecting with unknown things.  Like I said, it all comes down to what is likely happening.  Without science, I am sure schizophrenics would have been thought of as somehow connected to a different world, but it just doesen't work that way anymore.



As MDAO states, despite your contrary declaration, occam's razor doesn't work when you are trying to equate parts which may be unquantifiable.





> Nope, I get it.  I fully understand how people would think they have psychic abilities, precognition, etc...  I also understand what is likely happening.  For example, with precognition, people think that their dreams are predicting what happens in the future.  In reality, people find patterns because that is what our brain does.  So, anytime X years after a dream, anything at all that happens might be related to your dream.  Those are pretty good odds.  Not only that, dreams aren't stored in memory very well, so you may actually alter the memory of your dream to fit the circumstances at hand.  See, I get it, I just don't believe it.
> 
> I didn't mean you should literally trust me, it was just common phrase.  My posts should indicate what I am trying to say.



No, you *do not* fully understand. You *will not* fully understand what we are talking about without having experienced these things yourself.



			
				MninDj said:
			
		

> I get what you mean, but my pre-cog experiences have been WAY too drastic to be "coincidences" (I put that word in quotes because it's a word you would use, but I personally don't believe in coincidences at all). I only wrote a few of them out in the other thread.



Same here.


----------



## yougene

oo, this looks fun.



Enlitx said:


> Their experiences go hand in hand with my view of reality.  Psychology and neuroscience predict that people will believe in fantastical things that aren't real because of emotional reasons.  There are clinical tests that ask whether or not you see demons, hear voices, or believe you have psychic abilities.  Scientists have long predicted a percentage of the population will experience these events because of the way their brain works.  They have attached specific conditions to these specific behaviors.  Recent scientific advancements have been able to induce mystical experiences with electromagnetic waves.  What I have been trying to point out is that these kinds of experiences are most likely indicative of altered brain function, not an insight into a metaphysical world that most aren't privy to.


The reasoning you have provided here is also a product of your brain activity.  Does that somehow disqualify your reasoning and experience?  The fact that peak states of consciousness have qualitatively different brain activity is a big "no shit".

All this shows is that these experiences do exist and they are a unique mode of experiencing.

It sounds like you are implying that the absence of such brain activity would be needed to qualify these peak state experiences.  What is your logic there?





> The question becomes what is likely happening? The fact that scientists have documented these feelings of paranormal events, tied them to certain neurlogoical functions, and have even been able to induce such experiences strongly suggests it is a product of brain function, not an actual connection to paranormal phenomena. I understand that people would like to believe that they are actually experiencing paranormal events. Without a good understanding of scientific literature, I am sure that is the most likely explanation to them.


1)  Again, everyday life experience have correlate neurological activity.  This doesn't say that much either way.

2)  On what grounds are you making the claim these experiences are feelings?


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

> No, you do not fully understand. You will not fully understand what we are talking about without having experienced these things yourself.



I agree. I think Enlitx can understand what HE/she(?) (you are a he right? Sorry I don't know why I assumed that) THINKS our experiences must have been like from his perspective. But what isn't being understood here, is you simply CANT understand without having the experience. There is an x factor of instinct and intuition involved which I do truly think you have to feel to understand. 



> The reasoning you have provided here is also a product of your brain activity. Does that somehow disqualify your reasoning and experience? The fact that peak states of consciousness have qualitatively different brain activity is a big "no shit".
> 
> All this shows is that these experiences do exist and they are a unique mode of experiencing.
> 
> It sounds like you are implying that the absence of such brain activity would be needed to qualify these peak state experiences. What is your logic there?



EXACTLY. Thankkk youuu! Yes, this is just what I have been trying to say. To me the fact that "something is happening" in the brain only confirms that the person is experiencing something legitimate. 

I have had experiences that go beyond anything I've ever heard talked about by most people. Real, physical experiences. I don't talk about these experiences often because they were traumatizing and being ridiculed or people implying I am a liar or psycho because I don't have "proof" is just too much. I've been hurt, *physically hurt*, by something that was not human(or at least not a human in its normal form). I don't claim to fully understand all that is out there, all I know is that there is a hell of a lot out there than most people know. All I can say Enlitx, is be glad you have lived a life where you have the opportunity to be oblivious to such things.


----------



## L2R

^indeed. 

often i find my sensitivity to synchronicity to be akin to a torturous living hell and wouldn't wish it on anyone. it does my head in terribly.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I love synchronicity personally.  I think it's so cool.


----------



## L2R

i'm not as comfortable with undermined reality


----------



## mr_p

MynameisnotDeja said:


> what are the chances of dreaming vividly about someone you haven't seen or thought about in years, and then running into them the next day?
> 
> I think everyone taps into what I call this "grid of synchronicity" somewhat, some just more than others.



or dreaming of chilling with your best mate in high school you hadn't heard from, seen or thought about in many years then to find that he tried to get in touch during the night ... 

or feeling to act on the desire to learn to climb trees whilst living in a small coastal village and having the next person you hitch a ride with happen to have 17 years experiences and more then willing to teach the art of arboreal climbing ...

the list is endless ....


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> She said that someone she knew could move things their mind, that is what I was referring to.  So are you going to flatly deny her claim, or are you really too sensitive to try and step on anyone's toes?  That doesn't foster healthy debate.



I entertain the possibility there's something to what she claims about her friend. Perhaps not what appears at face value, but I don't know. I'd have to see it happen, or fail to happen, to make up my mind.

This is my kitchen, and I serve up plenty of good healthy debate, don't you worry %)



> Yep, neither can string theory.  Not all theories are equal.
> 
> You can still use Occam's razor.  I fail to see the distinction.  It is employed all the time with the question of god, which is a very metaphysical inquiry.



When you get right down to it, Occam's razor, when wielded by the most hardnosed and practical of people, actually cuts away all metaphysical inquiry entirely. After all, it's not necessary to assume ANY metaphysical position, including yours, for getting things done and making decisions in the real world. The most practical of people would consider this whole discussion, and much of this whole forum, a waste of time and a distraction from action.

So as soon as we even bring up the subject of things that exist beyond the physical, we've thrown Occam's razor out the window.



> You can hope all you want, but don't expect anyone to think that it is anything more than the product of delusional thinking and emotional need.  Because that is exactly what it is, by the very definition of hope.



Do you really expect people to stand there and listen to you tell them they are delusional and needy? Those are fighting words, that show disrespect. I also happen to think that we sentient beings have it in our bones to reach for something higher and beyond our mundane existence. But note the way I phrased this.



> I would hope they would be if you are really to become a doctor.



Good thing hope to you is just delusional thinking.



> Never said it was.  But if those symptoms were all you could deduce from one visit, it would warrant further tests.  My point still stands, just because someone isn't having a problem at that particular moment in time doesen't mean it is OK to just let them go, whatever the disease may be.



You misunderstand how medicine works. The burden of proof for deeming something pathological hinges on showing impaired functioning and decreased quality of life. This is especially true of psychiatric diagnoses.



> You have suggested that every idea, no matter how improbable, should be considered in an equal fashion.



No. I have suggested that once we leave the realm of the physical and quantifiable, we have no basis for quantitatively assessing probability.



> Number one, as a future doctor, you cannot afford that luxury.  Certain grandiose or deluded thinking will warrant your care.  Number two, not every idea is the product of healthy thinking or normal deductions.
> 
> Paranormal experiences thus far have been the product of either liars or people who are sick.  As a people, we have pulled ourselves out of the hell hole life was in the dark ages, with all the mysticism and claims of paranormal contact.  Good people died in the inquisitions and Salem witch trials because people were _actually believing in this shit en masse.  I am just glad most people aren't like that anymore in industrialized nations._


_

Let's assume for a second that nothing ultimately matters. No cosmic plans, no ultimate purpose to anything. What basis, then, have we for saying that post-Enlightenment people have inherently 'better' existences than pre-Enlightenment people. Or that anyone's life is better-lived than anyone else's? Seems to me in this scenario, I'm free to do / speak / think / believe as I please, as do you, and neither of us has any grounds for criticizing the way the other lives his life or makes up his mind.

Which brings me to my final point. Feel free to not be my patient. Feel free to encourage others not to be my patients. That's no skin off my back. My work will speak for itself.

I understand why you think as you do, and I don't have any disrespect for your point of view, even though I don't hold it. I don't feel you reciprocating, though. You've painted hope, faith, and subjective experience in a wholly negative light. You've attacked my professional competence, even though what I told you is straight from my training. And most infuriating of all, you've made me repeat myself multiple times. I'm a big boy -- I can take it. (You're not the first to take me to task as you have, and you won't be the last. It keeps me on my toes.) But don't wonder why a lot of posters here don't dig you._


----------



## FrostyMcFailure

> What basis, then, have we for saying that post-Enlightenment people have inherently 'better' existences than pre-Enlightenment people.


  God damn it this type of thinking is  why a certain Gov is controlled by wealthy sadistic luciferians who behave the way they do.. The mere fact we're here and not a mass of nothingness, the gift of life is not enough "evidence" for some.  Why would "something"(the universe) appear from nothing, for fun(?). there's a variable outside our realm of logic at play & you dont exactly walk down the street see an ant hill & attempt to "prove your existence by there standards just to make sure everyone gets it".


----------



## SececaRD

People only know what they beleive. People can only teach what they know. This is the kind of subject that really cant be discussed cause it will end up in an argument. when it comes to God and Deity beleifs people arnt willing to waver cause these are eternal beleifs. The things of God are eternal. Even the Holy bible says not to argue over Scriptures, or argue over Jesus or God. This type of discussion will never end up being solved, its pointless.


----------



## treezy z

i believe in and love with all my heart God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. i am quite different from most Christians though because i only pay attention to the gospels, the rest of the new testament i don't really consider valid and distorts the message with puritanical stuff that there is no need for and in some ways violates Christ's teachings imo.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

mr_p said:


> or dreaming of chilling with your best mate in high school you hadn't heard from, seen or thought about in many years then to find that he tried to get in touch during the night ...
> 
> or feeling to act on the desire to learn to climb trees whilst living in a small coastal village and having the next person you hitch a ride with happen to have 17 years experiences and more then willing to teach the art of arboreal climbing ...
> 
> the list is endless ....



Yes! Synchronicity. It's beautiful. ANd I don't think it's magical or supernatural either, I think it's the way life works. That's why I said I don't believe in coincidences. The more we allow ourselves to feel synchronicity the more it aligns with us. 

Over the years it's grown more and more and now these sorts of things truly happen to me all the time.



> I entertain the possibility there's something to what she claims about her friend. Perhaps not what appears at face value, but I don't know.



Thank you. 



> You misunderstand how medicine works. The burden of proof for deeming something pathological hinges on showing impaired functioning and decreased quality of life. This is especially true of psychiatric diagnoses.



Exactly. This was the point I was trying to make in that maybe some people with mental "illness" simply have brains that show them too much and they freak out. Then Enlitx said that perhaps I was schizophrenic as I have some of the symptoms. And I said okay, well if thats the case thats cool because I'm a happy, well balanced person with a beautiful life. And he said something about schizophrenics not having miserable lives.

Well this is just the way I see it, but if nothing is wrong, and the person is well balanced and happy, that isn't a mental disease. I mean, you could have an imbalance that makes you insanely happy all the time but is that a disease? To me, disease implies something being wrong. Think about the roots of the word. Dis-ease. 

My point is, plenty if not most of the people I know who have had supernatural, psychic or other paranormal experiences are not people with dis-ease. 



> I understand why you think as you do, and I don't have any disrespect for your point of view, even though I don't hold it. I don't feel you reciprocating, though. You've painted hope, faith, and subjective experience in a wholly negative light. You've attacked my professional competence, even though what I told you is straight from my training. And most infuriating of all, you've made me repeat myself multiple times. I'm a big boy -- I can take it. (You're not the first to take me to task as you have, and you won't be the last. It keeps me on my toes.) But don't wonder why a lot of posters here don't dig you.



++++ 

WIN.



> God damn it this type of thinking is why a certain Gov is controlled by wealthy sadistic luciferians who behave the way they do.. The mere fact we're here and not a mass of nothingness, the gift of life is not enough "evidence" for some. Why would "something"(the universe) appear from nothing, for fun(?). there's a variable outside our realm of logic at play & you dont exactly walk down the street see an ant hill & attempt to "prove your existence by there standards just to make sure everyone gets it".



 



> People only know what they beleive. People can only teach what they know. This is the kind of subject that really cant be discussed cause it will end up in an argument. when it comes to God and Deity beleifs people arnt willing to waver cause these are eternal beleifs. The things of God are eternal. Even the Holy bible says not to argue over Scriptures, or argue over Jesus or God. This type of discussion will never end up being solved, its pointless.



I disagree with this. When people are open minded and respectful of each other, these sorts of discussions can be very interesting and thought provoking. My only problem was the lack of respect for my views, not the opposing viewpoints. I find opposing viewpoints interesting as they give me a perspective impossible to see otherwise. I actually really have been enjoying these discussions in here, as frustrating as they can be sometimes.



> i believe in and love with all my heart God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. i am quite different from most Christians though because i only pay attention to the gospels, the rest of the new testament i don't really consider valid and distorts the message with puritanical stuff that there is no need for and in some ways violates Christ's teachings imo.



Awesome. Refreshing and lovely, thank you.  I feel similar. If only all Christians were brave enough to free their minds and hearts and just know LOVE, the way you do. Many of them are fearful and cling so desperately word for word to the Bible. If they just let go they could see the real message.


----------



## SececaRD

Cling word for word. Jesus is the Word. The word was made flesh. Read this scripture and study. This is the basis of Christianity. If your a Christian you follow "Cling to Jesus" which is the word. You can study this scripture for 10 years and still not get eveything out of it.

_*John 1*_

 1 In the beginning the *Word* already existed.
      The *Word* was with God,
      and the *Word* was God.
 2 He existed in the beginning with God.
 3 God created everything through him,
      and nothing was created except through him.
 4 The *Word* gave life to everything that was created,[a]
      and his life brought light to everyone.
 5 The light shines in the darkness,
      and the darkness can never extinguish it


----------



## mr_p

^ the essence of Christianity is   

you could study the scriptures for your entire life and STILL miss the point.



> _You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... So let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something._
> 
> Richard Feynman (1918 - 1988)


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Cool quote!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Premonition, intuition, synchronicity are the great elements of the unconscious in conjunction with nature which aligns fields and brings them into consciousness and makes them connect. Great power as well as spooky!


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I get what you mean, but my pre-cog experiences have been WAY too drastic to be "coincidences" (I put that word in quotes because it's a word you would use, but I personally don't believe in coincidences at all). I only wrote a few of them out in the other thread.
> 
> Yeah I could see something randomly happening that is weird once in awhile, but I mean, what are the chances of dreaming vividly about someone you haven't seen or thought about in years, and then running into them the next day? Now what are the chances of this happening as often as this has happened to me? (a lot, more times than I can count)
> 
> I agree we look for patterns but I also feel some patterns are just boldly THERE, there's no denying it. And I'm not saying I'm so magical and special or anything, I think everyone taps into what I call this "grid of synchronicity" somewhat, some just more than others.
> 
> Also, for the record, I don't forget most of my dreams. When I have a dream that means something to me (In whatever way, even if it just feels like my subconscious is trying to tell me something) I write it down so I can ponder it. I also have an amazing memory, I can still remember in detail dreams I had as a small child..



Like I said before, humans are going to find patterns no matter what the case.  Mix in the befuddled memory from dreams and the desire to see precog connections and you will have people claiming they dream about the future.  You have so many dreams every night, the probability is in your favor to have these experiences.

Now, if you could actually predict something concrete happening, lets say 9/11, that would be something.  No one ever seems to have dreams that tell them the exact time and nature of an event.  They are always fuzzy and left wide open for interpreation.  I just think this is another instance where you  want to see connections that aren't there.  It is like that episode of House where he dreams he is in Iraq and is with this soldier.  When he wakes up, he has to treat the same guy he saw in his dream, who he thought he had never seen before in his life.  At first, even to House, it appears that there is some metaphysical precog going on.  It is at this point that someone like you would just stop and say "Hey, precog is real, I experienced it!".  Long story short, he had known the guy from before, knew he was in the army, and therefore he dreamed about him in that scenario.  It was just chance that he ended up treating the guy the next day.  

It is all a matter of you _wanting_ these ideas to be true.


----------



## Enlitx

Impacto Profundo said:


> As MDAO states, despite your contrary declaration, occam's razor doesn't work when you are trying to equate parts which may be unquantifiable.



Sure does, that is exacty why it is so useful.  It negates the need for all of these added layers of complexity to explain the universe.  That is why people have been using Occam's razor with reference to God for a long time now. 




Impacto Profundo said:


> No, you *do not* fully understand. You *will not* fully understand what we are talking about without having experienced these things yourself.



Well, I do not fully understand a schizophrenic in the sense that I am not schizophrenic myself.  That doesen't mean that I don't have a good idea what is happening with the schizoprhenic though, and that I don't understand the types of things he is going through.  Again, not in the sense that I have experienced them, but I can generally grasp delusional/paranoid thinking and why it might be occuring.


----------



## Enlitx

yougene said:


> oo, this looks fun.



Indeed, jump in .



yougene said:


> The reasoning you have provided here is also a product of your brain activity.  Does that somehow disqualify your reasoning and experience?  The fact that peak states of consciousness have qualitatively different brain activity is a big "no shit".



This is not what I was saying at all.  I said that you can predict the altered brain activity based on abnormalities in the anatomy of the brain.  There is a casual relationship there.  It goes from altered anatomy->altered perceptions-> paranormal experiences.  There is a distinct line of casual relationships, I thought this was a big "no shit".

It is analagous to me smashing your prefrontal cortex with a hammer, which results in you not being able to make decisions very well.  You could say that the reason you can't make decisions is because you are being influenced by a metaphysical entity that is soothing your brain so that you don't have the problem of decisions, or you could choose the obvious answer that someone smashed the shit out of the front of your brain.  While the changes involved in paranormal experiences/delusional thinking are much more subtle, it is the same principle.



yougene said:


> All this shows is that these experiences do exist and they are a unique mode of experiencing.



When you can tie many of the paranormal experiences to an actual cause, it shows quite a bit more than you are willing to admit.  The fact that scientists can induce mystic and out of body experiences suggests that the entire experience itself is a manifestation of the brain, and not an external metaphysical entity causing the brain to react differently.  Unless you consider electromagnetic waves as metaphysical.




yougene said:


> It sounds like you are implying that the absence of such brain activity would be needed to qualify these peak state experiences.  What is your logic there?
> 
> 
> 1)  Again, everyday life experience have correlate neurological activity.  This doesn't say that much either way.
> 
> 2)  On what grounds are you making the claim these experiences are feelings?



I have already explained the casual relationship.  400 years ago, almost every claim of paranormal experience was taken at face value.  Over the years, we have slowly defined diseases and abnormalities in brain function.  We have been mapping these to specific regions.  While we can't explain every single experience yet, it would be wise to think that we will keep narrowing down exactly why people are experiencing the things they do.  I am sure you guys would have loved it 1000 years ago, when many many scientifically explained phenomenom were accredited to metaphysical events.


----------



## yougene

Enlitx said:


> Sure does, that is exacty why it is so useful.  It negates the need for all of these added layers of complexity to explain the universe.  That is why people have been using Occam's razor with reference to God for a long time now.


Occam's razor doesn't negate anything.  It's a generalization for inductive speculation not a logical rule.

Last time I checked layers of complexity was the corner-stone of science.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> I agree. I think Enlitx can understand what HE/she(?) (you are a he right? Sorry I don't know why I assumed that) THINKS our experiences must have been like from his perspective. But what isn't being understood here, is you simply CANT understand without having the experience. There is an x factor of instinct and intuition involved which I do truly think you have to feel to understand.



Even though all I can do is assume what you guys went through, it changes nothing about what I have said.  Can a doctor not treat a schizophrenic because he doesen't know what it is like?  Just because you experienced it does not make it real (in the sense that it is more than a manifestation of your mind), and if there is a likely explanation that I know of, I don't need to have actually gone through it to determine what is probably happening.


----------



## Enlitx

SececaRD said:


> People only know what they beleive. People can only teach what they know. This is the kind of subject that really cant be discussed cause it will end up in an argument. when it comes to God and Deity beleifs people arnt willing to waver cause these are eternal beleifs. The things of God are eternal. Even the Holy bible says not to argue over Scriptures, or argue over Jesus or God. This type of discussion will never end up being solved, its pointless.



It is high time people argued over this stuff.  Maybe 2000 years ago when we didn't have good scientific explanations for our origins it was OK to make up a sky daddy just popping people into existence.  We need to do better now that our society has evolved.  We need to realize that these beliefs are a product of our emotional needs and not reflective of the actual situation.  Considering all the problems religions have brought and are still bringing in this world, it is not ok just to let delusional thinking go unchecked.


----------



## Enlitx

%)





MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> I entertain the possibility there's something to what she claims about her friend. Perhaps not what appears at face value, but I don't know. I'd have to see it happen, or fail to happen, to make up my mind.
> 
> This is my kitchen, and I serve up plenty of good healthy debate, don't you worry %)



I guess that is where we differ.  Until there is a good reason to believe something, I will not entertain the idea that all posibilites are just as likely.  Especially since history has taught us that humans tend to make extremely exaggerated claims.  

No worries here, I just hope you can get a little dirty in the kitchen if you need to %).




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> When you get right down to it, Occam's razor, when wielded by the most hardnosed and practical of people, actually cuts away all metaphysical inquiry entirely. After all, it's not necessary to assume ANY metaphysical position, including yours, for getting things done and making decisions in the real world. The most practical of people would consider this whole discussion, and much of this whole forum, a waste of time and a distraction from action.
> 
> So as soon as we even bring up the subject of things that exist beyond the physical, we've thrown Occam's razor out the window.



Well that is not entirely true.  For example, when discussing parallel universes/multiple dimensions/time travel, there are plenty of probable outcomes that you can't cut away with occam's razor, because they are all likely interpretations of what we know.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Do you really expect people to stand there and listen to you tell them they are delusional and needy? Those are fighting words, that show disrespect. I also happen to think that we sentient beings have it in our bones to reach for something higher and beyond our mundane existence. But note the way I phrased this.



Fighting words?  I just defined what hope is.  I hope for things because it makes me feel better, but that doesen't change what it fundamentally is. 



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You misunderstand how medicine works. The burden of proof for deeming something pathological hinges on showing impaired functioning and decreased quality of life. This is especially true of psychiatric diagnoses.



No, I have a pretty good understanding how medicine works.  I am going to graduate school for pharmacology, I am not lacking in understanding.  Just because something isn't a problem at that moment doesen't mean it won't be.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> No. I have suggested that once we leave the realm of the physical and quantifiable, we have no basis for quantitatively assessing probability.



Not quantitatively, but we can apply qualifying logic.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Let's assume for a second that nothing ultimately matters. No cosmic plans, no ultimate purpose to anything. What basis, then, have we for saying that post-Enlightenment people have inherently 'better' existences than pre-Enlightenment people. Or that anyone's life is better-lived than anyone else's? Seems to me in this scenario, I'm free to do / speak / think / believe as I please, as do you, and neither of us has any grounds for criticizing the way the other lives his life or makes up his mind.



That really doesen't make any sense.  Just because there is no absolute scheme of things that makes your life matter doesen't mean that logic doesen't apply.  Everyone is free to do what they want, that isn't the issue here.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Which brings me to my final point. Feel free to not be my patient. Feel free to encourage others not to be my patients. That's no skin off my back. My work will speak for itself.
> 
> I understand why you think as you do, and I don't have any disrespect for your point of view, even though I don't hold it. I don't feel you reciprocating, though. You've painted hope, faith, and subjective experience in a wholly negative light. You've attacked my professional competence, even though what I told you is straight from my training. And most infuriating of all, you've made me repeat myself multiple times. I'm a big boy -- I can take it. (You're not the first to take me to task as you have, and you won't be the last. It keeps me on my toes.) But don't wonder why a lot of posters here don't dig you.



I have attacked certain ideas, and like I have said, if I feel that an idea is lacking in logic or support I will make that known.  Like I said, if people just want others to say what a nifty idea they have it should be written down in a journal, not open for discussion on a public forum.  And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Premonition, intuition, synchronicity are the great elements of the unconscious in conjunction with nature which aligns fields and brings them into consciousness and makes them connect. Great power as well as spooky!



What does that mean?  Align what fields?   What element of unconscious?  You are being entirely too broad for that statement to carry any meaning.


----------



## Enlitx

yougene said:


> Occam's razor doesn't negate anything.  It's a generalization for inductive speculation not a logical rule.
> 
> Last time I checked layers of complexity was the corner-stone of science.



It negates the need for added layers of complexity.

Last time I checked, science must fundamentally verify one layers before trying to determine a more complex interaction.

Occam's razor is useful in doing away with more ideas than are necessary (i.e. god creating man).  As such, it negates layers of complexity in an explanation that aren't needed.  Instead of heaping on more "what ifs" and "this might explain it", you can just stop at what is the simplest and least muddled view.


----------



## yougene

Enlitx said:


> This is not what I was saying at all.  I said that you can predict the altered brain activity based on abnormalities in the anatomy of the brain.


No you can't.  Most all peak states can be experienced by everyone.  There is nothing abnormal about something that is universal.  You are interjecting your own opinions here and trying to pass them off as scientific conclusion.

These states are reachable by everyone through the countless methods out there.  Meditation, drugs, devices, sports, the Grand Canyon, etc...




> There is a casual relationship there.  It goes from altered anatomy->altered perceptions-> paranormal experiences.  There is a distinct line of casual relationships, I thought this was a big "no shit".


I think you meant to say causal. 

This sort of data doesn't show a causal relationship.  This shows a correlation.

On the flip-side, oh wow this guy can stop his brainwaves using his mind.  Causal relationship from mind to brain.





> It is analagous to me smashing your prefrontal cortex with a hammer, which results in you not being able to make decisions very well.  You could say that the reason you can't make decisions is because you are being influenced by a metaphysical entity that is soothing your brain so that you don't have the problem of decisions, or you could choose the obvious answer that someone smashed the shit out of the front of your brain.  While the changes involved in paranormal experiences/delusional thinking are much more subtle, it is the same principle.


Not a good contrast.  People who meditate and do other sorts of state training have more developed brains as a result and reap all sorts of positive benefits.  Increased attention spans, calmer emotional states, increased mobility through psychological stages, and so on.

Your characterization of these states is elementary and goes against what we know about them.  Your arguments depend on categorizing these experiences in ways that fit your argument rather than doing the logically/scientifically respectable action.  Experiencing these states for yourself several times, and making your own conclusion from 1st hand experience.




> When you can tie many of the paranormal experiences to an actual cause, it shows quite a bit more than you are willing to admit.  The fact that scientists can induce mystic and out of body experiences suggests that the entire experience itself is a manifestation of the brain, and not an external metaphysical entity causing the brain to react differently.  Unless you consider electromagnetic waves as metaphysical.


Not really.  For one "entity's" are enacted in a small subset of these types of states.  If your reasoning is built on the assumption of acting entities you have missed the mark.  Second, most of these states are not interpreted as an external force acting on an individual even from the traditional views.  They are perspectives that one can enter, not entities of contact.  Being able to enter a perspective by the use of magnetism, electricity, brainwave entrainment, drugs, meditation, or whatever doesn't say much about the perspectives validity and is consistent with certain traditional assertions.



> I have already explained the casual relationship.  400 years ago, almost every claim of paranormal experience was taken at face value.  Over the years, we have slowly defined diseases and abnormalities in brain function.  We have been mapping these to specific regions.  While we can't explain every single experience yet, it would be wise to think that we will keep narrowing down exactly why people are experiencing the things they do.


Like I said before, you're logically putting the cart before the horse here.  



> I am sure you guys would have loved it 1000 years ago, when many many scientifically explained phenomenom were accredited to metaphysical events.


Well look at the flipside of the type of logical fallacy performed by some these days.  Dismissing phenomenon on the fact that someone had attributed metaphysical structures to it in the past.
"Yeah, those ancient people thought there was an angel behind every blade of grass.  This whole idea of grass must be complete bullshit!"


----------



## Enlitx

yougene said:


> No you can't.  Most all peak states can be experienced by everyone.  There is nothing abnormal about something that is universal.  You are interjecting your own opinions here and trying to pass them off as scientific conclusion.



Wait, peak states?  Are we referring to the same thing?  I was referring to paranormal contact.  



yougene said:


> These states are reachable by everyone through the countless methods out there.  Meditation, drugs, devices, sports, the Grand Canyon, etc...



If paranormal contact is inducible by an abornal alteration in neuropharmacology (i.e. drugs) shouldn't that tell you something about what is actually causing the paranormal feelings, as in people having natually altered chemical profiles in their brain?  Then again, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. 



yougene said:


> I think you meant to say causal.



Yep, I just got done with finals, give me a break .



yougene said:


> This sort of data doesn't show a causal relationship.  This shows a correlation.
> 
> On the flip-side, oh wow this guy can stop his brainwaves using his mind.  Causal relationship from mind to brain.



I believe the brain produces a quantam holographic field, so you can change certain brain functions with your mind.  It is still all dependent on your brain producing the field in the first place though.  I think it does indicate a causual relationship when you can induce mystic states with electromagnetic waves.  At least this would be supporting evidence to suggest a causual relationship.



yougene said:


> Not a good contrast.  People who meditate and do other sorts of state training have more developed brains as a result and reap all sorts of positive benefits.  Increased attention spans, calmer emotional states, increased mobility through psychological stages, and so on.



I believe in meditation, and I agree about its benefits.  That is why I think we might be referring to seperate things.



yougene said:


> Your characterization of these states is elementary and goes against what we know about them.  Your arguments depend on categorizing these experiences in ways that fit your argument rather than doing the logically/scientifically respectable action.  Experiencing these states for yourself several times, and making your own conclusion from 1st hand experience.



Could you clarify what you are trying to say here?  I am a little confused because I totally agree that meditation can do the things you claimed,  I just want to make sure we are on the same page.



yougene said:


> Not really.  For one "entity's" are enacted in a small subset of these types of states.  If your reasoning is built on the assumption of acting entities you have missed the mark.  Second, most of these states are not interpreted as an external force acting on an individual even from the traditional views.  They are perspectives that one can enter, not entities of contact.  Being able to enter a perspective by the use of magnetism, electricity, brainwave entrainment, drugs, meditation, or whatever is completely consistent.



I agree with this.  I think that most of the experiences we have been talking about are nothing more than entering a certain perspective.  I think we may agree more than we know .



yougene said:


> Like I said before, you're logically putting the cart before the horse here.



I think we need to clarify some things before we can determine that.  



yougene said:


> Well look at the flipside of the type of logical fallacy performed by some these days.  Dismissing phenomenon on the fact that someone had attributed metaphysical structures to it in the past.
> "Yeah, those ancient people thought there was an angel behind every blade of grass.  This whole idea of grass must be complete bullshit!"



I find that most metaphysical claims are generated by the same desires/needs/neurological conditions that produced the same claims thousands of years ago.  It is just that now people have to be a lot more vague and abstract about it since science can explain so much.    Before, people could say that a god lived on a mountain and did all kinds of stuff since no one could check.  Now, people have to use words like "energy fields" and "universal love" so that it is harder and harder to pin it down and show how silly it is.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> %)
> 
> I guess that is where we differ.  Until there is a good reason to believe something, I will not entertain the idea that all posibilites are just as likely.  Especially since history has taught us that humans tend to make extremely exaggerated claims.
> 
> No worries here, I just hope you can get a little dirty in the kitchen if you need to %).



Yeah, that must just be a difference of thinking style between us. I'm not a 'just the facts ma'am', 'stick to what we know' kind of guy, I'm pretty whimsical. No worries.



> Well that is not entirely true.  For example, when discussing parallel universes/multiple dimensions/time travel, there are plenty of probable outcomes that you can't cut away with occam's razor, because they are all likely interpretations of what we know.



But that's just it -- whatever the universe has just beneath the deepest levels of what we've currently detected could very well be inconsistent with everything we've ever seen thus far.

You say that logic is what's gotten our species as far as it has. I agree, but so have imagination, creativity, and the willingness to depart from the known and familiar.



> Fighting words?  I just defined what hope is.  I hope for things because it makes me feel better, but that doesen't change what it fundamentally is.



hope
   /hoʊp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb, hoped, hop⋅ing.
–noun
1. 	the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.
2. 	a particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.
3. 	grounds for this feeling in a particular instance: There is little or no hope of his recovery.
4. 	a person or thing in which expectations are centered: The medicine was her last hope.
5. 	something that is hoped for: Her forgiveness is my constant hope.

I don't see anything here that carries the implication of delusion. It's certainly a matter of feeling, intuition, and/or desire, rather than cold reason. But unlike delusions, a person's metaphysical and spiritual beliefs are often quite consistent with that person's experience of the world, and what they aim for in life.



> No, I have a pretty good understanding how medicine works.  I am going to graduate school for pharmacology, I am not lacking in understanding.  Just because something isn't a problem at that moment doesen't mean it won't be.



I never said I wouldn't look for other symptoms of illness if someone told me about paranormal experiences they had. What I said is, I would not jump to the conclusion that someone was ill just because they had such experiences. For example, I would need to see at least several other DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia or psychosis, plus clear evidence that the person and/or his family was burdened by the behavior, before I would make a diagnosis or referral, or prescribe an antipsychotic.



> Not quantitatively, but we can apply qualifying logic.



Sure. In which case it becomes a good thought experiment. But since it won't ever be conclusive, it's not binding in the way inductions about the physical world are.



> That really doesen't make any sense.  Just because there is no absolute scheme of things that makes your life matter doesen't mean that logic doesen't apply.  Everyone is free to do what they want, that isn't the issue here.



Different people reach different logical conclusions based on what they've lived and experienced, and what they've learned to trust. Ever seen the movie Rashomon?



> I have attacked certain ideas, and like I have said, if I feel that an idea is lacking in logic or support I will make that known.  Like I said, if people just want others to say what a nifty idea they have it should be written down in a journal, not open for discussion on a public forum.  And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.



You're welcome to debate with any posts here that challenge people to critique their ideas. But please respect the fact that not everyone comes here looking for a debate. P&S exists because drugs have a long history of association with philosophy and spirituality, and users who've been blessed with revelations, or brought back pieces of wisdom from their drug experiences, need a safe place to share what they've seen and learned with others who've been there and understand, in the midst of a larger world that's less understanding. Someone doing reductionist takedowns of their experiences, or telling them their interpretations are delusional, is not helpful to this end.

This place is a sanctuary as much as it is a discussion forum. Since no one really knows what's going on beneath surface reality, we have a rule here that everyone is to treat everyone else's worldview with equal respect, unless someone advocates harm toward themselves or others. The results speak for themselves -- the forum has attracted a wider range of both posters and readers, and borne more interesting discussion fruit, since it abandoned a logical Law-of-the-Jungle approach and adopted a spirit of ecumenism, of mutual respect for many paths to truth.

Welcome, and enjoy your stay.

P.S. The folks over in the Lounge love themselves a good cathartic God- and religion-bashing thread, it's truly no holds barred, if that's more your cup of joe.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> Like I said before, humans are going to find patterns no matter what the case.  Mix in the befuddled memory from dreams and the desire to see precog connections and you will have people claiming they dream about the future.  You have so many dreams every night, the probability is in your favor to have these experiences.
> 
> Now, if you could actually predict something concrete happening, lets say 9/11, that would be something.  No one ever seems to have dreams that tell them the exact time and nature of an event.  They are always fuzzy and left wide open for interpreation.  I just think this is another instance where you  want to see connections that aren't there.  It is like that episode of House where he dreams he is in Iraq and is with this soldier.  When he wakes up, he has to treat the same guy he saw in his dream, who he thought he had never seen before in his life.  At first, even to House, it appears that there is some metaphysical precog going on.  It is at this point that someone like you would just stop and say "Hey, precog is real, I experienced it!".  Long story short, he had known the guy from before, knew he was in the army, and therefore he dreamed about him in that scenario.  It was just chance that he ended up treating the guy the next day.
> 
> It is all a matter of you _wanting_ these ideas to be true.



No, you still aren't getting it. But there's nothing I can do to show you..

It's just going in circles at this point.


----------



## L2R

Enlitx, since you're bringing up tv shows, have you seen the Futurama episode where Bender is flying through space and a civilisation sprouts on him and he tries to be a good god for them but they just wipe themselves out? In it, he meets God who teaches him about using an elegant touch.



> God: Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you. And if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch, like a safecracker or a pickpocket.
> Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money.
> God: Yes, if he makes it look like an electrical thing. If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> What does that mean?  Align what fields?   What element of unconscious?  You are being entirely too broad for that statement to carry any meaning.


Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!


>And I totally get why people don't dig me, I have enough friends, I didn't get on a message board to make more.

Yes it is obvious, since your attitude is not friendly at all. By the way, we all have enough friends that does not make us use the attitude you demonstrate.
Cold rationalist and over analysing to the point that you want to kill the whole idea, whatever the idea may be, does not create a good environment where a nice exchange can take place! I wonder whether you let yourself open at all and to wonder!

I just experience a vexation coming from you! It tires the spirit down, and please don't ask me to clarify what spirit is, or negate it for me! I just know that after constantly being addressed in the manner that you do, I feel drained! The reason you don't understand anyone's expressions here IS because you have absolutely no faith other then in chemistry, which alludes me as to what you are doing in a theosophical debate.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!



Haha well put. I understand!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

MynameisnotDeja said:


> Haha well put. I understand!


I know!! I had absolutely no doubt of that!!!!!!!!!!1 
I don't think it is his language though!


----------



## Enlitx

MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> But that's just it -- whatever the universe has just beneath the deepest levels of what we've currently detected could very well be inconsistent with everything we've ever seen thus far.



Anything at all "could" be, so really there would be no point in talking about that stuff unless you use some qualifying logic.



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You say that logic is what's gotten our species as far as it has. I agree, but so have imagination, creativity, and the willingness to depart from the known and familiar.



I agree with you there.  



MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> hope
> /hoʊp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb, hoped, hop⋅ing.
> –noun
> 1. 	the feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.
> 2. 	a particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.
> 3. 	grounds for this feeling in a particular instance: There is little or no hope of his recovery.
> 4. 	a person or thing in which expectations are centered: The medicine was her last hope.
> 5. 	something that is hoped for: Her forgiveness is my constant hope.
> 
> 
> I don't see anything here that carries the implication of delusion. It's certainly a matter of feeling, intuition, and/or desire, rather than cold reason. But unlike delusions, a person's metaphysical and spiritual beliefs are often quite consistent with that person's experience of the world, and what they aim for in life.



Maybe delusion was too strong of a word.  It is just the feeling of wanting.  At any rate, I think that some people's metaphysical explanations or views on god are consistent with their experiences because they take everything at face value.  I think better explanations are available, but they require emotional honesty and a bit of hard reading.




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> Different people reach different logical conclusions based on what they've lived and experienced, and what they've learned to trust. Ever seen the movie Rashomon?



Different people reach different conclusions, but I wouldn't call all of them logical.  Nope, never seen that movie.  




MyDoorsAreOpen said:


> You're welcome to debate with any posts here that challenge people to critique their ideas. But please respect the fact that not everyone comes here looking for a debate. P&S exists because drugs have a long history of association with philosophy and spirituality, and users who've been blessed with revelations, or brought back pieces of wisdom from their drug experiences, need a safe place to share what they've seen and learned with others who've been there and understand, in the midst of a larger world that's less understanding. Someone doing reductionist takedowns of their experiences, or telling them their interpretations are delusional, is not helpful to this end.
> 
> This place is a sanctuary as much as it is a discussion forum. Since no one really knows what's going on beneath surface reality, we have a rule here that everyone is to treat everyone else's worldview with equal respect, unless someone advocates harm toward themselves or others. The results speak for themselves -- the forum has attracted a wider range of both posters and readers, and borne more interesting discussion fruit, since it abandoned a logical Law-of-the-Jungle approach and adopted a spirit of ecumenism, of mutual respect for many paths to truth.
> 
> Welcome, and enjoy your stay.
> 
> P.S. The folks over in the Lounge love themselves a good cathartic God- and religion-bashing thread, it's truly no holds barred, if that's more your cup of joe.



I just don't agree that on a public discussion forum you have to respect every view.  That does not lead to healthy debate.  I will try to rerfrain from making judgements though.


----------



## Enlitx

MynameisnotDeja said:


> No, you still aren't getting it. But there's nothing I can do to show you..
> 
> It's just going in circles at this point.




I just think you like to believe I am not getting it.  Either way, we are getting redundant.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> Don't worry about it, I am rumbling on in a language that is only understood by the ones who understand!



Well then explain it.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Well then explain it.


You Just Don't Understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> Well then explain it.



We've all been trying to do that for a long time now.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

MynameisnotDeja said:


> We've all been trying to do that for a long time now.


Ahhh, you got a way with words!!!


----------



## Peanut.Butter

does believing in... hmm.. how do i put this... I dont think you can change the future. I believe that since the past cant be changed why is the future so special? they opposite so i think they should be equal.  i think time is all one straight line that we must follow. its kinda grim to think about it like that but i cant see it any other way. 

so is this sort of like believing in fate?


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Yeah, you could say that was sort of like believing in fate. I feel sort of similar, except that I don't believe there is such thing as "past" or "future". I believe it's an illusion of the realm we are living in. So instead of seeing time as one straight line we all follow, I see it more as if.. there is only one moment, one essential "now" which resonates in all directions, and instead of linear time all of time existing in the same moment, if that makes sense.

So yeah, I don't really believe we can change "the future" as it's already happened. Like a circle.


----------



## dragonslayer428

I have a very strong belief in G-d.


----------



## MyDoorsAreOpen

Enlitx said:


> Different people reach different conclusions, but I wouldn't call all of them logical.  Nope, never seen that movie.



I highly recommend it. Probably Akira Kurosawa at his finest, it has some pretty deep philosophical implications to how big a subjective component truth and chains of causality have.



> I just don't agree that on a public discussion forum you have to respect every view.  That does not lead to healthy debate.  I will try to rerfrain from making judgements though.



Awesome. Much appreciated. That's really all I ask. You don't have to agree, but please do abide. Don't worry, I'm not an undercover for the Thought Police.


----------



## Enlitx

LivingInTheMoment said:


> You Just Don't Understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Explain it and lets see if I just don't understand.

So far no one has explained what energy fields being aligned with parts of unconscious means.  So no Deja, you guys have not been trying to explain this to me the whole time.


----------



## L2R

^not in any way you can understand, but we _have_ explained it ad nauseum. there is plenty of explanation in this thread. you. just. don't/won't. underestand. it. 

and there is nothing wrong with that. it doesn't make you inferior (or superior) in any way. we're just different.

and there is no reason for you to instigate more debate as there is no indication on your part that it will be any less futile than before.


btw: rashomon is my favourite movie of all time. it's brilliant.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

I agree, this thread is 10 pages now and most of it has been trying to explain this stuff to you.



> you. just. don't/won't. underestand. it.


----------



## L2R

well, if he continues, then we'll know if he's just a troll or not.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Impacto Profundo said:


> ^not in any way you can understand, but we _have_ explained it ad nauseum. there is plenty of explanation in this thread. you. just. don't/won't. underestand. it.
> 
> and there is nothing wrong with that. it doesn't make you inferior (or superior) in any way. we're just different.
> 
> and there is no reason for you to instigate more debate as there is no indication on your part that it will be any less futile than before.
> 
> 
> btw: rashomon is my favourite movie of all time. it's brilliant.


Perfectly and beautifully said!!!!!!!!! Thank you!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Explain it and lets see if I just don't understand.
> 
> So far no one has explained what energy fields being aligned with parts of unconscious means.  So no Deja, you guys have not been trying to explain this to me the whole time.


....but I will also add, that if you need an explanation of it, though you have been given plenty (more then enought but you end up attaking it thereby not learning nor understanding it), so if you don't understand it as is expressed and you need explanations, then it is a sure way that you don't understand. But your refute that and you insist that you do. Actions speak louder then words!

There are a lot of things in life that are not expainable by chemistry, but you insist wanting to reduce everything about life, with that and to that! You destroy everything that has been put across to you, so no more explanation can do it! You will only do, what you always done and if if you always do what you always done, you will only get, what you always gotten!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## daysonatrain

man, this thread turned into one just like one with mooneyham a little while ago.  people really have gone out of their way to explain their opinions/beliefs to you over and over.

"Explain it and lets see if I just don't understand."  I cant see how people can express themselves any better without you shooting them down, as you have in so many posts.

no offense man, i love a good debate, but this thread is really getting old.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Well it was an epic discussion, no doubt. And yes, the "Explain it and let's see if I understand" at the end of it was funny, LMAO. Ten pages explanation are not good enough, but he's gonna get it at the 11th page, I know it!


----------



## Enlitx

I will leave this one to rest, and hopefully there can be some better discussion on a more specific topic.


----------



## opy

I do , I think god is a supreme being that far surpasses us intellectually and our brain is just too small to understand and comprehend  of his/her  existence, eg.  an ant and a human. I am not saying this is how it is, just one of many the possibilities.


----------



## lostNfound

the older i get the more i subscribe to the idea of a god as simply being a mother earth type thing, we get so many healing properties from the earth for one. i also see this mother earth as an energy or energies which allow for anything to happen, this allows me to be very open to all possibility.
i also think that the human race over the past thousands years have grown detached from this and this is why things like fairies and all other mythical creatures are myths now.
sometimes the more we learn the more we question and the more we choose to discredit simply because we do not understand.

getting in touch with nature away from the city these days helps put me at peace and so allows me to get further in touch with i am.


----------



## Ryka

OP...I do not believe in a conscious "god/creator" watching over us.

I do believe in evolution, and have a very scientifically educated background but...

There are things I've experienced that science can not explain that are real (and feel free to say "real to me.") as has been stated if I have to explain you won't understand.

To MNIND: you have said some things here that I would like to understand more, let me digest this and if you would be willing, when I'm no longer a Greenlighter I would like to PM you.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Sure, no problem. :D ^^



> the older i get the more i subscribe to the idea of a god as simply being a mother earth type thing, we get so many healing properties from the earth for one. i also see this mother earth as an energy or energies which allow for anything to happen, this allows me to be very open to all possibility.
> i also think that the human race over the past thousands years have grown detached from this and this is why things like fairies and all other mythical creatures are myths now.
> sometimes the more we learn the more we question and the more we choose to discredit simply because we do not understand.
> 
> getting in touch with nature away from the city these days helps put me at peace and so allows me to get further in touch with i am.



QFT.


----------



## opy

Ryka, I can tell you there are some things I experienced that I or nobody else can explain, but even after all this I am still hesitant to believe in god. I think there is a great power within us that science has not discovered yet, we are just far more complex than science can explain. Again one of my many hypothesis.


----------



## Enlitx

lostNfound said:


> i also think that the human race over the past thousands years have grown detached from this and this is why things like fairies and all other mythical creatures are myths now.



Or it could be the fact that over the last thousand years technology and science have developed to check claims of fairies and mythical creatures.


----------



## lostNfound

i still prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt
if nothing is proven either way
i'll choose my own ideals and stand by them
id prefer not to completely give into science
if i did
i would have to stop asking my own questions all the time
i rather enjoy not knowing the answers sometimes


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Enlitx said:


> Or it could be the fact that over the last thousand years technology and science have developed to check claims of fairies and mythical creatures.



It's a sad world when people don't believe in fairies! :D


----------



## Enlitx

lostNfound said:


> i still prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt
> if nothing is proven either way
> i'll choose my own ideals and stand by them
> id prefer not to completely give into science
> if i did
> i would have to stop asking my own questions all the time
> i rather enjoy not knowing the answers sometimes



Its not like this issue could go either way though, and you just happen to side with one theory.  As I have been saying all along, there are good ideas and there are really really bad ones.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

No. There are just ideas. Everything else is a matter of opinion.


----------



## L2R

lol@ science & tech remark.

hey, let's measure radiation levels with a spatula! wow, no result. therefore radiation must not exist.


----------



## lostNfound

Enlitx said:


> Its not like this issue could go either way though, and .*you just happen to side with one theory.*  As I have been saying all along, there are good ideas and there are really really bad ones.



As are you my friend.

Pot
Kettle
Black

lolz at spatula comment.


----------



## MynameisnotDeja

Impacto Profundo said:


> lol@ science & tech remark.
> 
> hey, let's measure radiation levels with a spatula! wow, no result. therefore radiation must not exist.




Hahaha! :D Brilliant.



> Pot
> Kettle
> Black


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

lostNfound said:


> i still prefer to give it the benefit of the doubt
> if nothing is proven either way
> i'll choose my own ideals and stand by them
> id prefer not to completely give into science
> if i did
> i would have to stop asking my own questions all the time
> i rather enjoy not knowing the answers sometimes


my advise? Don't waste your breath or ink with him, he tried to kill the thread before, he came back to finish the job he started after a small  exile. The question is, why with such limited mind or the spititual consciousness, does he lurk around P&S, to attack any philosophical or spiritual experiences some have. I thought he might want to develop what he lacks but NO, he is here to destroy other's spiritual happiness.


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Impacto Profundo said:


> lol@ science & tech remark.
> 
> hey, let's measure radiation levels with a spatula! wow, no result. therefore radiation must not exist.


You quack me up!!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Its not like this issue could go either way though, and you just happen to side with one theory.  As I have been saying all along, there are good ideas and there are really really bad ones.


......and most certainly you have proven to us over and over again, that YOU are certainly a bad idea in the P&S!


----------



## LivingInTheMoment

Enlitx said:


> Or it could be the fact that over the last thousand years technology and science have developed to check claims of fairies and mythical creatures.


These have metaphorical and subliminal meaning of importance, not measured by technology or science. Get off your chemical labolatory and start living and imagining and ponder! Your right side might develop and find some meaning!


----------

