We have been bombarded with (utterly absurd) 'Western materialism'. We have been forced to believe that we (as consciousness) are a product of matter and this is the predominant way that we view it (the entire material universe), and ourselves.
But in reality - we are (the way it can be best described) on 'a platform of consciousness' - the pinnacle of which is what we commonly term as 'God'. The material universe that so acutely insist on us - can be adeptly compared to 'a grand software program' created and designed by the 'pinnacle consciousness'. The examples of it are almost everywhere - from the pull of gravitation on a drop of dew - to the 'beauty' and 'design' we witness all around us in the universe.
We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them. Actually - we still do not have enough idea how 'the organ that we employ to see the stars' (eyes) - exactly function. We still can't create them ourselves to give sight to the blind.
The magnificence of the 'pinnacle consciousness' is boundless on us. But it excepts us to behave well with each other - and to love.
Interesting concept, but I do take exception to some of it.
First, only a fool would believe that "thus we understand it (the entire material universe)." - very few, if any, people would believe such nonsense. We ARE a product of matter - as an experiment (performed billions of times in our history, with identical results every time) you can take away the matter and see if the consciousness remains.
We can use our senses and instruments to find this "matter" we are composed of; what do you use to find the god you propose? How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion? The pull of gravity, after all, is a material thing, not consciousness, and that humans find beauty in everything they see is a comment on humans, not on nature and certainly does not indicate any form of design outside what we design and find beautiful ourselves (The Sistine Chapel, perhaps).
You may not understand how stars form, but others do. You can understand, too, by studying the problem (it's called "gravity"), just as you can understand what goes on inside one (it's called a nuclear reaction). This ignorance, then, does not promote the idea of a god, only that we are ignorant of some things around us (contradicting your first statement).
So you are left where you started, trying to provide support for a boundless god and for what you have determined it wants. Do you have something to support the idea or just imagination?
1. "First, only a fool would believe that "thus we understand it (the entire material universe)." - very few, if any, people would believe such nonsense."
~ I've no idea what you're talking about.
2. "We ARE a product of matter - as an experiment (performed billions of times in our history, with identical results every time)"
~ Well, our (what are 'we'?) 'bodies' are definitely made of 'matter' (what is 'matter' by the way? what are 'atoms' made of?).
3. " you can take away the matter and see if the consciousness remains."
~ As I said earlier, 'Western materialism' is utterly absurd. It may (and does) negate the most obvious realities of life.
4. "We can use our senses and instruments to find this "matter" we are composed of; what do you use to find the god you propose?"
~ Who are 'we'? What are 'we' made of? We can study 'matter' - can 'matter' study us? We may use the same 'faculty' to study 'God' - that we may use to study 'matter'.
5. "How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion?"
~ I choose answer this a little later.
6. "The pull of gravity, after all, is a material thing, not consciousness,"
~ You've misunderstood what I've said on there. Please recheck.
7. "that humans find beauty in everything they see is a comment on humans, not on nature and certainly does not indicate any form of design outside what we design and find beautiful ourselves (The Sistine Chapel, perhaps)"
~ That is what YOU believe that issue (of 'beauty' and 'design') to be.
8. "You may not understand how stars form, but others do"
~ You've misunderstood what I've said, again.
9. "You can understand, too, by studying the problem (it's called "gravity"), just as you can understand what goes on inside one (it's called a nuclear reaction). This ignorance, then, does not promote the idea of a god, only that we are ignorant of some things around us (contradicting your first statement)."
~ What is 'gravity'? What is 'gravity' made of? Have you taken a tour inside stars? How do know what exactly goes inside them or how they start off? What allows and enacted the system of 'nuclear reaction'? How exactly does the process happen and what are all the ingredients that participate in that process - made of?
10. "So you are left where you started, trying to provide support for a boundless god"
~ You're not on a very good platform to profess anything like that. It's inherent in the Western way of thinking that to fragment human understanding of the world that they live in. It's a catastrophic belief system, and we witness its influence and affect on our lives everyday. It has internally enslaved us because we haven't been exposed to anything that is better than this system.
It's quite like the 'Windows vs Mac' scenario. Windows definitely comes cheaper.
From the OP: "We have been forced to believe that we (as consciousness) are a product of matter...".
Again you seem to claim there is something else, but can only insinuate it without providing any support for the claim. My 5 senses provide support for the claim of matter; what provides support for a claim of something else?
Do you deny that removing the body removes consciousness? Can you provide support for the denial?
Repeating: what do you use to provide support for your claim? Irrelevant questions do not support your claim.
"created and designed by the 'pinnacle consciousness'. The examples of it are almost everywhere - from the pull of gravitation on a drop of dew - to the 'beauty' and 'design' we witness all around us in the universe." You claim that a material action (pull of gravity) is an example of god, but of course it is nothing of the sort. No misunderstanding, just claims without reason behind them.
And what makes your claim that a god designed it to match humans any better?
"We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them." Outside of contradicting your first statement that we understand everything, what is the meaning of the statement?
What are your questions driving at? That we do not know everything in spite of your saying we are trained to think we do?
You are correct: we haven't been exposed to anything better than this system, including a god. Which is what I've been saying, in spite of your unsupported claims to the contrary. And maybe that's because there IS nothing else, and we really ARE getting a handle on understanding what is around us by dumping the old notions of a creature from another universe that makes demands of us without ever saying or doing a thing.
1. "Again you seem to claim there is something else, but can only insinuate it without providing any support for the claim. My 5 senses provide support for the claim of matter; what provides support for a claim of something else?"
~ How do you assure yourself of the existence of 'air' using your 5 senses? How do you convince yourself of the actual size of the sun and the stars (that they are really big, and that they just appear small because they are far away from earth) using your 5 senses?
Are sure that our 5 senses can even detect the 100% of the totality of the reality that we live in?
And most importantly: what created these 5 senses on which you rely so desperately and on which you have that much faith?
2. "Do you deny that removing the body removes consciousness? Can you provide support for the denial?"
~ I negate - for the sheer sake of reasoning with other 'consciousnesses' - that there is a certainly that human body produces human consciousness during conception - and that it (consciousness) dies once the body dies (we do not know what 'death' exactly is, by the way). That idea is preposterous.
Personally, I know that 'consciousness' is eternal.
3. "Repeating: what do you use to provide support for your claim? Irrelevant questions do not support your claim."
~ I've already elaborated my idea regarding evidence and all that. Please quote at least one example of the numerous ' Irrelevant questions' that you see anywhere in my post.
4. "You claim that a material action (pull of gravity) is an example of god, but of course it is nothing of the sort. No misunderstanding, just claims without reason behind them."
~ Well, it appears to you that way. For me - it doesn't.
Seeing from your perspective: unless you can pin down the exact codes that hold up the phenomenon that we call 'gravity' - you can not honestly assert what might not be behind that phenomenon.
5. "And what makes your claim that a god designed it to match humans any better?"
~ Please first off define these 2 phenomena: 'beauty' & 'design'.
6. " "We still do not know exactly how the stars - that we see on the night sky - are formed or what precisely goes inside them." Outside of contradicting your first statement that we understand everything, what is the meaning of the statement? "
~ Any sane person may understand what's written in that statement. I can't help it if you can't. Please mention how that (statement) contradicts my first statement - if you 'CAN'.
7. "What are your questions driving at? That we do not know everything in spite of your saying we are trained to think we do?"
~ My questions are driving at where they are driving at. And you presumably have no idea where.
8. "You are correct: we haven't been exposed to anything better than this system, including a god. Which is what I've been saying, in spite of your unsupported claims to the contrary. And maybe that's because there IS nothing else, and we really ARE getting a handle on understanding what is around us by dumping the old notions of a creature from another universe that makes demands of us without ever saying or doing a thing."
~ You are providing one after another glaring examples of what Western thinking is all about, and its actual worth and where it belongs.
1. Additional questions do not answer the question of how you know. Can and will you provide any more data or just ask questions to which you already know the answer?
2. You know that consciousness is eternal, but what are you basing that knowledge on? So far you've refused to give any evidence at all, just unsupported opinion - and it IS opinion whether you call it knowledge or not.
3. The question was asking for supporting data (" what do you use to provide support for your claim?"), not an idea. You've presented your ideas, now present the supporting data, please.
4. Why? What are you using for data?
5. Look up the definitions yourself: there are several good dictionaries online.
6. Already did: I've quoted you in two statements that are contradictory.
7. Oh, I understand where; trying to show a god where there is no data to support the statement. That's what people do, after all - make up an imaginary creature, claim it is real, and talk all around it as "proof" of the claim. Which is what you are doing.
8. Sorry - I did not supply anything showing the worth of "western thinking". I've let the progress of humanity from pre-stone age to present speak for itself. It took many millenia to improve a stone spear point while it took 50 years to go from the Wright brothers to Neil Armstrong via "western thinking". I'd say the difference is striking and does not need repeating from anyone.
You don't seem to understand a very basic matter: while I find your ideas intriguing (and not always wrong) it is not the idea that I'm looking for. I want to follow your reasoning, I want to see your evidence, I want to make the deduction of a god myself rather than merely take your word for it. Man has done that for thousands of years and come up completely blank; it's time we actually know if there is a god, but you have supplied exactly zero reason to think it is out there. If all you can provide is unsupported imaginings, it isn't worth much; if you can supply reasons, verifiable and testable, for the belief it suddenly becomes worth looking into. Can you?
"You don't seem to understand a very basic matter: while I find your ideas intriguing (and not always wrong) it is not the idea that I'm looking for. I want to follow your reasoning, I want to see your evidence, I want to make the deduction of a god myself rather than merely take your word for it. Man has done that for thousands of years and come up completely blank; it's time we actually know if there is a god, but you have supplied exactly zero reason to think it is out there. If all you can provide is unsupported imaginings, it isn't worth much; if you can supply reasons, verifiable and testable, for the belief it suddenly becomes worth looking into. Can you?"
~ I thank you for saying this. And I understand your position. The point is - you need to first soften up a bit. It's actually a question of attitude.
You, or anyone standing where you are standing (intellectually) - may ask: "What will I get if I know (discover) that 'God' is real?" - which is a very valid question. Will that knowledge have any practical application?
Will that make us financially rich or improve our employment status or anything of this sort?
We need to get the basics right before we approach. You can't learn - and I can't learn also - from anyone whom we do not trust and respect - and are not willing to understand how they view themselves, the world, and the universe.
In my world one does not get automatic trust OR respect. I listen to my Yoga instructor, for instance, and try what she says. If I get the results I hope for I repeat the process - this I have done until I both trust AND respect her, at least to a point (she tells me to jump off the cliff and flap my arms, that trust will disappear very quickly as the results if she is wrong are too severe).
But you don't give me anything to try. You don't give me anything I can test or check. Just unsupported opinion that you refuse to explain. You, an unknown voice on the web, have not earned any trust - on the contrary the refusal to explain any reasoning process at all gives rise to the opposite.
I never thought about it that way. You always ask questions in a way that makes me feel that you disbelieve/suspect everything I say.
It would have been much better if we could communicated like this much earlier.
But I DO suspect what you say! Automatic belief is foolish, and no thinking person follows that path. People must make their own conclusions, not simply believe whatever they hear or see - anyone that spends time on the net comes up against that very quickly.
Yes, there is a basic antipathy between us; the natural and normal difference between the "spiritual" and "material". Unfortunate but not unexpected; it is a major problem between the two. We simply do not speak the same language or think the same.
I require proof, however tenuous; you don't. When your logic and thought lead you to a conclusion you accept it as truth; I don't. Discussion is difficult and debate is worse, but it can be accomplished if both sides make a real effort to speak the language of the other and to understand what is being said.
[ I had to quit because it was bedtime here. I'm back and let's continue :-) ]
"Automatic belief is foolish, and no thinking person follows that path. People must make their own conclusions, not simply believe whatever they hear or see - anyone that spends time on the net comes up against that very quickly."
~ First off I thank you for what you've said here. It's brilliant. And the rest of what you've said is outstanding as well.
The experiences that I've had in my life - from my childhood to current adulthood - has led me to discover an almost 'hidden' element in life. It is the world of my feelings, and the existence of 'myself'. I am consciously aware of their existence.
I do not consider myself to be the electrical impulses in my brain.
I have talked with you on this website before as well. And it is clear that you view yourself from a strictly materialistic standpoint. I must confess that I, too, once started my intellectual journey just the way that you did. I had (tremendous) faith in (Western/European) science and technology, and I thought that they have figured out everything. I was content with what I had learnt in school, and then books that I had read, independently myself, hours after hours in library and in home, on the rooftop in the sun sitting on chair, delving the writings of Stephen Hawkins, Albert Einstein, to all the other 'big names' of science and technology whose names I do not recall anymore.
It went on this way for years. My faith was intact.
But something happened afterwards. I became, due to specific circumstances, very dissatisfied with myself and this worldview that I had developed through school and the conventional education system.
I had to rethink and reconsider everything that I had accepted very innocently - to be absolutely true - when I was a child and as a teenager.
This phrase of 'reawakening' lasted for a few years. And I'm convinced now that there exists more than just physical 'matter'. And that there are several heights of understanding that human beings may achieve during their lifetime. A person who stands on the Swiss Alps, gets to see a very different view than the one who stands on the railway platform of Geneva.
While you are on the Swiss Alps near Geneva - you can easily see the person who is standing on the railway platform of Geneva waiting for his train - if you use an optical device. But that person would not (ever) notice you that you are standing on the Alps and watching him.
It's a metaphor. But there is no other way to convey the understanding that is contained within this metaphor, in a brief space like this, without converting it into a metaphor.
"How is it detected, where is it to be found and what evidence do you propose to support the notion? Do you have something to support the idea or just imagination?"
~ Let me begin by exploring something that you've just brought into my attention. The thing is - there are two type of evidence to be found here regarding this issue - and regarding all human issues as well.
The first type is the evidence that is required to convince yourself - the other type is the kind of evidence that you need to convince others. You may see a 'golden eagle' through the window. That's enough evidence for you to accept that you have seen a golden eagle. But your friend may not believe that you have seen a golden eagle through the window that day exactly at 10.03.01 am on the 31 December's morning in 2012 while you were affected by conjunctivitis and were in Maui, Hawaii.
He might be convinced only if you manage to show him a photograph of the whole scene (you + window + 'golden eagle + Maui, Hawaii).
You may not want to go through the labor to produce such a photograph, because that's impossible.
You've said that you know how stars are formed and what goes on inside them. No human being has ever physically explored the insides of stars. But we can freely use our consciousness to imagine what that might be like inside stars - and we may come up with a rational possibility which is very close to the reality of the issue. And we do it during our daily life activities and interactions. The pump isn't working - and a mechanic may tell you within a second what's wrong inside the pump.
That a human consciousness survives after physical death - and that it may 'telepathically' contact the persons (consciousnesses) that it loves - is one of the most successful evidences to convince someone (denying everything 'spiritual') - that these 'things' are real and alive.
And yet...every single claim of a ghost talking to us has been either ignored or debunked. Not a single case has ever been proven to be true. Lots and lots of fraud, but not a single true case.
Most people, upon seeing such evidence, will come down on the side of truth and decide that ghosts aren't there. What is it that makes you decide they ARE there? What are you using to convince yourself?
Well, there are (and have been) quite a number of human beings who had developed (or they have been endowed with) telepathic abilities. Trouble with these people are that they seldom realize that what is so acutely real to them - maybe alien to others who don't have access to that spectrum of reality.
To us (human beings) - colors are insistently real. But there are many animals who may not see them all - or any colors at all. If they could communicate with you - you could never assure them that colors exist and are real.
As far as I know - no one has ever tried to deal with this issue (of telepathy) very 'seriously' - perhaps just because they didn't feel any desperation to prove to others that its a real 'thing'.
To them - it was a by-product which was triggered as a result of the extension of 'them' (the consciousness / spirit that they fundamentally are) on a level not commonly experienced by others. It was the result of the purity of their heart and the love that they felt inside, which manifested as a connectivity between them and the people/animals that they have loved. They didn't view it as a magic whose mysteries should be demonstrated to the disbeliever.
But it (telepathy) is demonstrable.
Sorry - I am unaware of any telepathy experiment that clearly showed telepathic abilities. You claim many have the ability, but don't know it - how then do YOU know of it?
There are a great many things we can't see that are quite real. Neutrinos, for instance, and electrons. But that we cannot see, with our own senses, something does NOT mean we should decide it is real. The question of invisible unicorns comes to mind, as does a god that never interacts in any verifiable way with this universe.
No one has investigated telepathy? Have you heard of the Rhine Institute? Or look back into military studies.
If telepathy is demonstrable, beyond statistical error, then someone would have shown it. Can you provide a link to such research - I've been unable to locate anything.
Well, it depends upon one's level of understanding, experience, and many other factors to determine what they 'can' believe - or 'can not' believe.
To some remote African villagers, the existence of something like a 'helicopter', or a 'computer' - might seem be an impossibility. It may be that they can't even imagine that such things could ever take up a form in our reality. If you show them a mobile-phone, and tell them that this thing sends a kind of invisible wave and we can talk with anyone in the world through this system - you might cause a laugh riot amongst them.
If they had some elementary knowledge and interaction with the physical science - then - they could still disbelieve you - but in more 'realistic' way.
So you take them a helicopter and give them a ride on it.
Or you produce your god, but in all the thousands of years that has never been done. Just the claims, without the proof.
Now when your aborigine wants to know how or why the helicopter (or cell phone) works, that's another matter and will require much education.
But I don't ask why your god exists, what it is, or how it created the universe. Just that it exists at all. Show me the "helicopter".
I do not have the exact (global) data of how many people can/could communicate telepathically. I personally have met at least one (and he is alive) - and I can demonstrate it (telepathy) to others.
I do not trust news agencies or internet organizations. I can not recommend their research on 'telepathy'.
This, then, is a problem. You don't trust research organizations, but you have proof telepathy works in your own (repeatable) experience. Proof you refuse to show anyone, and yet expect (hope?) they will take your word you can do it.
No one in their right mind will do so. Unsupported claims contrary to experience are worth exactly what the evidence is worth; zero evidence = zero worth.
Quote the exact sentence(s) where I've said that I have advised anyone to blindly trust me or my words. I've shared what I know. The rest is up-to you. If you find the 'shared knowledge' to be unacceptable or invalid - then just ignore it.
If you find it interesting - then you are always welcome to ask questions or inquire more about it.
The Way I First Encountered Telepathy: The way it happened was that one night, around 10 pm of night, I remembered a person whom I had (accidentally) met a few days ago, and who had showed me strong support for my spiritual endeavors.
I actually remembered (flashed) his image - in my mind - his physical appearance and his face, that I had seen few days ago. A few seconds later, my cell phone rang - and this guy asked whether I 'remembered' him a while ago. I was surprised. His explanation was that if you like (love) someone - a connectivity is bridged between you and that person. And that it is possible to communicate - this way - even after (physical) death.
I distrusted what he said - and (internally) considered him a charlatan and an imposer. But he repeated this phenomenon. And this phenomenon is demonstrable.
I can arrange it for others if they find it helpful to experience it themselves.
I have only one real problem here; that the man claims to talk to ghosts.
Telepathy is something I consider possible, if not actual fact. Most of the rest of PSI is nonsense (precognition of a changing future, telekinesis, etc.), but to be able to manipulate and detect minute energies and forces by brain tissue; well, that is what the brain does.
I did misunderstand you, apparently; YOU are not telepathic and cannot communicate to me. Only your acquaintance, and that makes it difficult to demonstrate. That it can only be done between people that know and like each other makes it even more problematical; such people are all too likely to support each other rather than be strictly objective and say the other is lying. It would take some strict measures to ensure an objective conclusion.
And finally, a time correlation does not prove a causal relationship. Repeat this experiment 50 times, with 50 identical results (or a reasonably high number) and it means something. Once, twice - it means very little as I'm sure you recognize.
"I have only one real problem here; that the man claims to talk to ghosts."
~ That is not really a problem if you view the issue from a different perceptive. You're still viewing 'telepathy' as a sending & receiving process between two separate brain tissues located on two separate brains (which also implies that 'consciousness' is produced by the brain according to the physical laws of the universe) - while what I am (and that person, too) is is saying is that consciousness has an independent existence.
It uses the body as long as we are physically 'alive' ~ but it continues to exist even after the body has ceased to be and has mixed with soil or has turned into ashes. The human body can be compared to a motorcar. This car (body) may get destroyed in an accident - but we may survive and get out of the car - and may get a new car.
Telepathy is a connectivity between two consciousnesses - and it's a phenomenon which doesn't require or employ any property of the physical universe to make it happen.
Unfortunately, it's not a different perspective - it's a made up world without connection to reality. There has never been a single instance where a ghost ("disembodied consciousness") has ever been verified; the inescapable conclusion is that it is extremely unlikely to exist. Unless you have hard evidence, such as "Ghost Busters" had in their little box?
We may establish that afterlife is something real, very soon.
We may indeed. And we may find an invisible pink unicorn hiding in the closet.
But "may" does not mean "probably will" and is thus no reason to think either is there. This is an example of what I said earlier; believers and non-believers have a tremendous hard time communicating because of such attitudes: the believer behaves as if "may" means "will" because it is a desired event while the non-believer treats it as "may" while adding that it is of very low probability (or "won't") based on past history.
"I did misunderstand you, apparently; YOU are not telepathic and cannot communicate to me. Only your acquaintance, and that makes it difficult to demonstrate. That it can only be done between people that know and like each other makes it even more problematical; such people are all too likely to support each other rather than be strictly objective and say the other is lying. It would take some strict measures to ensure an objective conclusion.
And finally, a time correlation does not prove a causal relationship. Repeat this experiment 50 times, with 50 identical results (or a reasonably high number) and it means something. Once, twice - it means very little as I'm sure you recognize."
~ You are almost absolutely correct here. But there is a subtle element which plays a crucial function - and as it appears you are not fully aware of it.
It's quite different knowing about a person on the internet from someone else - and meeting that person yourself. Human beings have amazing capabilities for very precise discernment. We use these capabilities everyday.
We may immediately detect pretenders and liars, or men of 'evil' intentions. It's just built into our bones to isolate the good stuff from a lot of bad stuff. Our daily well-being depends upon it.
I've personally met this person, and he has what he says he has (ability for telepathic communication). I've seen his physical appearance and his history of spiritual activity, and when I consider all of these correlating information and connect with what he has demonstrated and has said to me - it becomes pretty clear that he in it and is honest about it. It's quite like the difference between watching a full movie and watching a trailer or a split-scene from the same movie.
Just because you are incapable of making discernments on this medium, do not make the mistake of assuming that others fail as you do.
I don't believe your claims, and if your opinion of the human ability to detect BS was accurate we wouldn't have any religions - would we? We certainly wouldn't have swallowed the whole "western materialism," so clearly the opposite is "built into our bones."
We like the easy answers that you claim to have found by majick and no work. But cannot demonstrate. Because you chose the wrong medium to be able to substantiate your claims and need blind believers. Yet still you make the claims. While whining that this is the wrong medium to prove them. Odd.
If you send a child to a school for 15 years every weekday - you can't expect any original thinking from him/her - can you?
Not everyone has those capacities at the same level of efficiency. But we all have them anyway. It's like the capacity to appreciate 'beauty' or the capacity to appreciate 'flavor' in food. We all do it.
And it's not uncommon to tamper these abilities during our childhood when these capacities are at their original state, unaltered, and functioning at their peak performance.
So it is not "built into our bones," after all.
I still don't believe your claims but do find it interesting that you chose a medium it is impossible to demonstrate in to make them.
Perhaps it is all precisely because I felt desperate to attract your noble attention on the subject.
Don't worry - you will get fed up when you don't sell any tickets to your show.
And yet there are thousands (millions?) of frauds out there. They take our money for no return, they flat out steal, they set up fake seances, and they suck in millions of people doing it. Our ability to discern such isn't nearly as good as you think it is, and you were likely sucked in just as millions of others have been.
That's true. But it's equally true that we have not met in any real life setting. We can not really, so to speak, 'weigh' each other on these subtle scales right now.
If we could, we might have had a totally different perception of this entire conversation.
Possible but unlikely. Were I to meet your friend and hear his claims the immediate reaction would be "FRAUD - INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY BEFORE BELIEVING" whereas yours was "He seems a nice guy so I can take his word as proof of what I wanted to believe anyway.
This exemplifies the difference between believer and non-believer very well; one tries hard to be objective while one intentionally uses subjective feelings and desires to come to a conclusion. And neither understands why their conclusions are rejected!
It's very easy to label anyone as being a 'believer'. It's a very unhealthy tendency. You can't rightfully do it if you are honest and sincere. We have made a lot of progress from yesterday - and I hope that it continues.
First off it's very difficult to pin down what we really mean when we say someone has a belief. Most of the time - people are unaware when they have them. It's like someone has a lot of dirt on the back of his shirt and pant (because he slept on the floor) and he doesn't know it (what has happened to his dress).
Now, he is very fastidious about cleanliness and dressing-perfection - and he comes to office and a junior employee delivers him a file on the cover of which he observes a very tiny spot of (liquid) tea. He finds this to be offending and calls that employee and demands a satisfactory explanation. That employee then points to the back of his shirt.
You find it comfortable to label me a 'believer' in two minutes. Why? Because you have found one 'thing' which might be where I have invested some unmerited respect. I confess that you have a valid query. But it wasn't executed properly.
'Rational thinking' is not the only method available to us humans to judge and investigate any given phenomenon.
The phenomenon of 'rational thinking' was invented much later as a result of the achievements of the 'European Enlightenment'. This 'rational thinking' method is very precise and it functions well and is helpful during certain human activities. But it is not the only way available to the human consciousness to understand the world around itself. There may be reason in our feelings: the intelligence of feelings.
And that's the opening door to a whole new world of perception. And this method is more reliable than the one previously mentioned.
Before everything - we both are human beings. If both of us are actually spirits - then we would figure that out after we die (and everyone would eventually die someday).
If we are electricity in our brain - then too - we have enough reason to be optimistic, and should not worry or get irritated because my search for the spiritual dimension is nothing more than illusions of a particular electricity. And we should be content that at least electricity has the desire to know and discover its hidden origin.
And these 'superficial' differences should not be given as much importance that they start to disrupt our natural friendship which arises out of the mutuality of both of us being 'electricity' essentially.
It appears you have misunderstood. I don't think anyone is irritated by your search for the spiritual dimension. They are mostly irritated by your claims to have found it and insistence on arguing that you have some proof positive that you sadly cannot share with us because you chose to make these claims in an environment where it is impossible to prove anything.
Thank you for being frank and sincere. I agree with you that there is an apparent contradiction to the way that I share my ideas here.
But I really share my ideas so that we may have a conversation about these issues. And I do so because I have found a lot of people who are really interested in these issues. However, I have never (consciously) advised anyone to blindly trust me because I have some form of authority over these subjects. I may have expressed passionate convictions sometimes over 'things' that I've firsthand knowledge of - but I did so to provoke inquiry rather than uncritical acceptance. And I would restrain some of the passionate expression henceforward as it generates unacceptable following in some of us.
But I must also share the fact that I'm working on these issues seriously - and that you might take these conversations with equal attention if you wish to.
Every one is really interested in those issues. Just look at human mythology. But - as you say - is is not possible to provoke inquiry in this medium, so it is hard - if not impossible - to make any critical assessments and therefore all but impossible to have a conversation other than you have been having with multiple people, which tends to go like this:
1. You make a claim
2. People tell you they don't believe your claim
3. You state that your claims are true but you cannot prove anything
4. People tell you that they still don't believe you
5. You get defensive and try asking "esoteric" questions with no answers
6. People get irritated and tell you they still don't believe you
My personal experience has taught me that spirituality (a very broad term) is a wholly internal, subjective thing. So - how exactly do you intend to have anything other than a one sided conversation when you freely admit you have nothing to share but your personal experience?
"But - as you say - is is not possible to provoke inquiry in this medium, so it is hard - if not impossible - to make any critical assessments and therefore all but impossible to have a conversation other than you have been having with multiple people, which tends to go like this:
1. You make a claim
2. People tell you they don't believe your claim
3. You state that your claims are true but you cannot prove anything
4. People tell you that they still don't believe you
5. You get defensive and try asking "esoteric" questions with no answers
6. People get irritated and tell you they still don't believe you"
~ What you have pointed out here is quite true. But perhaps you are looking it from a specific point of view. I am always open to having a humane, and meaningful dialogue (just like the one we are having right now) on these issues. But while I'm trying to have it, and having with like-minded people ~ if I get constantly visited by people who seem to have some sort of desperate antipathy against the whole issue and the conversation ~ that naturally makes me rethink my strategy of being here and behaving with these diverse interests and attitudes.
I'm here to have a good time with people who have had similar experiences that I have had (and there are couple of them). I'm not here to feed or allow negativity. and hence I had to adapt to this environment and impose a kind of filter to let in the good stuff while protecting myself from other elements.
"My personal experience has taught me that spirituality (a very broad term) is a wholly internal, subjective thing. So - how exactly do you intend to have anything other than a one sided conversation when you freely admit you have nothing to share but your personal experience?"
~ First off you have a standardized conception of what you have termed as 'personal experience'. It's not at all like that. You may think that any human experience that is 'personal', 'internal' and therefore 'subjective' ~ should be kept private because those experiences have no 'objective' value. That's an outdated way to view the phenomenon of 'human experiences'.
My experience has been that an overwhelming number of people have had very similar 'spiritual' experiences. And we can't just shake it off by saying that all these people's heartfelt perceptions were unreal and without significance.
If anyone finds them uninteresting they are free not to participate. We're not dragging anybody here to communicate with us. But the people who had these similar experiences might benefit by sharing their experiences with others ~ and by discovering the surprise that they are not the only ones to have had gone through these life-altering events. That they have felt the same feelings through the same heart, and have searched the answers for the same questions from life.
Read the book written by Elizabeth Smart. I stood at Ralph's and read the whole entire book yesterday. I skimmed through the horrible unbelievingly disgusting parts. It was her faith in God and her prayers and His direct response which saved her and apparently many other girls as well. She was a beautiful soul who kept intact with her deep faith given to her by her family and their religion. Every religion is a path of God, an avenue. A way for us to get in touch with the Spirit that is.
"The magnificence of the 'pinnacle consciousness' is boundless on us. But it excepts us to behave well with each other - and to love."
And why wouldn't we? In her book Elizabeth explains how even when she had seemingly nothing, on the verge of starvation, raped daily, she recalled things to be thankful for.
It really is a very touching book. You just can't believe she emerged with her soul and self in tact, but she did.
Today she is fighting for children who are also being used and abused and taken from their families.
Why are there evil people who bring hell to earth?
Creativity and awareness, and such other attributes, which had hitherto been prevented to 'blossom' itself, may get unlocked once a person has been subjected by 'severe' crises.
Well, if you read her book, it is clear that she was able to stay in touch with her true self. She was forced to find that self and confer with it. That self lead her to her faith in God.
Prayers were literally answered by God. One time when she was about to die of thirst, after desperately praying to God to save her life, a storm occurred that very night. She drank water from tarps and collected it in buckets. (She had been held captive in makeshift camps in the mountains of California for a period of time during her nine month ordeal after being kidnapped.)
It's not necessarily logical to find any correlation between those two events that Elizabeth mentions in her book ( her prayer for water, to God - and the storm that occurred that very night).
It might have been a coincidence that she could view no other way but as a 'living' answer to her prayers. And given her situation - we can't blame her that she viewed it that way.
I've experienced 'telepathic communication', myself. And I can not dismiss the idea that we possess the 'natural' ability to contact the source of our origin, telepathically.
Given the fact that we have experienced ourselves, the strength of the bond that might form between parents and their children ~ this idea gains additional validity.
"I've experienced 'telepathic communication', myself. And I can not dismiss the idea that we *do not* possess the capacity to contact the source of our origin, telepathically."
Is this what you meant?
If so, I do not agree. I believe we can.
If this is what you believe, then I am surprised.
I thought you would also believe in contacting God directly. Without that ability there is no hope for us.
If this is what you believe, I am not interested in communicating further.
I cannot convince others of anything. Nor do I try. I thought I had found a kindred soul.
I am really sorry for the inconvenience. Perhaps you can realize that it was an unnoticed error. I've corrected that post.
okay. sorry. and thank you:
"I've experienced 'telepathic communication', myself. And I can not dismiss the idea that we possess the 'natural' ability to contact the source of our origin, telepathically."
Consider my question:- if you believe in ESP then, why do you not believe in miracles? We can intuit God but He can't intuit and provide for our needs?
I do not want to seem naive and I was an atheist for a while, but I have seen so many miracles in my own life. God has come through so many times! I cannot deny her story of the storm as the answer to her prayer.
I've never said that I deny 'miracles'. First off, I must make it clear that I do not believe in anything magical and illogical: things which can not be logically explained.
I've said, in the beginning of this thread, that I feel that the world (and the universe) is a kind of grand software program, created by 'God'. Parents can give away all their assets to facilitate medication to their children if their children are critically ill. We all know and some of us have witnessed this ourselves.
It's not impossible if 'God' does that same thing sometimes to rescue It's 'spiritual children'. We never know.
I seem to be picking your brain. I'm very sorry. Please forgive. We make ourselves vulnerable to so much here in the HP forums, don't we? Peace, God Shet.
Thank you very much for the great OP and the conversation/discussion.
And yet you tell us you've experienced ESP? Can you logically explain ESP?
Sure, while ignoring the deaths of millions of children per year! It seems it's human nature to ignore the horrible deaths of millions of children who have parents actively praying to pretend there is justice in the world. Go ahead pretend.
Perhaps we need to learn that the root of evil lie in our mind (consciousness) - and not elsewhere. A stone is not evil. A chair has no thoughts of its own: it never feels jealous or greedy, or the urge to hurt someone. Anything which is lifeless and which is devoid of consciousness - doesn't meet the basic requirements to be classified as evil.
The way that I see it: We inherit some of this element from our parents from the day one. They inherited it from their parents. Their parents inherited it from their parents, and this chain would continue and would only cease when we reach the life of the First Man who was created by the 'pinnacle consciousness' (God) ~ and when he/she willingly engaged in a sinful activity.
- what did we actually inherit? In the case of her captor, he was selfish as he could be, delusional as he could be, conniving as he could be. Sexual as he could be and ultimately as unloving and manipulating as he could possibly be. I should't even be keyboarding about it.
It's the education that we have received, which have been holding us back from accepting and expressing the authenticity and reality of our true identity. The internet has opened a novel avenue for us to communicate with like-minded individuals crisscrossing geographical considerations. We couldn't have accomplished this conversation a hounded years ago by posting letters to each other. Well actually we could. But that conversation would have taken up a very different shape compared to the one that we are having now.
And perhaps we should take the advantage of this new form of communication to update many of our ideas which were developed by people who had lived during the past centuries, when they had to develop their ideas by posting letters to each other.
No - it is not. Shocking lack of understanding on your part. We are not actually having a conversation. You are making baseless claims and ignoring any response.
Typical religionist behavior. Sadly. There I was hoping we might converse - apparently not.
Telepathy would be something that would occur consistently, if indeed, the brain even worked that way, which it doesn't. You're making a claim for something that has never been shown to exist from one single coincidence. Does every single person you've met a few days before (accidentally) call you when you think about them?
"It's not necessarily logical to find any correlation between those two events that Elizabeth mentions in her book ( her prayer for water, to God - and the storm that occurred that very night).
It might have been a coincidence that she could view no other way but as a 'living' answer to her prayers. And given her situation - we can't blame her that she viewed it that way."
You say this with so much authority. You have not even read her words.
- just never mind.
- if you believe in ESP then, why do you not believe in miracles? We can intuit God but He can't intuit and provide for our needs?
Please recheck that post as I've updated it. And I do feel that telepathic communication with 'God' is a 'valid' idea. It's possible. And it's possible to have that communication from both the ends.
Have you experienced miracles in your life? do you think God had restricted the use of miracles? Because they are not logical?
When the whole world/universe is a **** miracle!!!
But I must also make it clear that if I were 'God' - I might have restrained myself from using any 'miraculous' methods to rescue my 'spiritual children' - as that would easily disclose myself before the world.
And given that our 'God' has designed a world where It has let lions and tigers to freely hunt innocent deers and such pacific creatures - we have every right to doubt the exact level of 'misery' that can really moves It to cross It's boundaries - even though these boundaries are Its 'personal' boundaries.
But it is also true that most 'miracles' are found in such a way that they can be considered as coincidences as well.
If 'God' is behind any of those miracles, and if It really made that storm happen to help Elizabeth - I must say that our 'God' has discernment.
by Retrohawaii5 years ago
I believe in a God not necessarily in what the bible discusses
by pay2cEM5 years ago
This is a hypothetical question. If in fact whatever religion you happen to believe in was not true, what would it take to persuade you? Obviously, the more severe the charge, the more evidence we demand in order to...
by Anders3 years ago
We all have ideas about the Universe that its a physical entity, composed of matter. And we believe, that somewhere in the empty space there may be an invisible thing called God, What if, what really exists is the...
by Sooner283 years ago
The argument usually goes:1. All that begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.4. If the universe has a cause, it must be timeless and...
by RFox8 years ago
Where do we come from according to your personal philosophies?
by Mikel G Roberts6 years ago
IF God is everything, and everything minus anything is no longer everything, it is something else...Then either God is also Satan or God Is NOT everything.so which is it?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.