“What do I think happens when we die? I think we enter into another stage of existence or another state of consciousness that is so extraordinarily different from the reality we have here in the physical world that the language we have is not yet adequate to describe this other state of existence or consciousness. Based on what I have heard from thousands of people, we enter into a realm of joy, light, peace, and love in which we discover that the process of knowledge does not stop when we die. Instead, the process of learning and development goes on for eternity.”
- Raymond Moody, from Paranormal: My Life in Pursuit of the Afterlife
My contention is that God (the entity that we popularly call 'God') is a part of reality: 'God' is real.
God created (and perhaps It is still creating) the universe the way we human beings have created 'softwares'. The core principle that underlie here is this: that to apply our creativity ~ we need some medium ~ something 'concrete' and 'stable' that we can manipulate according to our wish. If you think about it this way: All the good things that human beings have 'ever' come up with ~ medicine and surgery, machines, science and technology, art and architecture ~ are all 'inferior versions' of what was already there in the universe before we appeared here: the universe displays incredible precision.
We might fancy that our doctors (medical professionals) have mastered all about biology and have 'godlike' knowledge and expertise. Even a good doctor often struggles to cure as simple a physical disorder, as a skin rash. They can't cure the deaf, the blind, and an array of such disorders. The human body is such a sophisticated piece of engineering that we take this masterpiece for granted. If it were a clumsy one ~ we might have.
The entire universe is an incredibly delicate piece of artistic engineering. We take 'it' for granted because it is utterly beautiful and utterly awe-inspiring.
How did 'God' do it: God began with creating something like a 3D software. To successfully use a 3D software ~ It invented something like an operating system. To successfully use an operating system ~ It had to invent the necessary hardwares and the energy required to power the entire system. In brief: God had to conceive a system (from scratch) ~ think out how to build this system ~ to generate the essential data that is required to launch something like the universe. Only a 'software-like' system could provide the kind of mathematical precision that we witness all around us.
God spoke everything into existence.
Fascinating. Moody believes that "we enter into a realm of joy, light, peace, and love in which we discover that the process of knowledge does not stop when we die." for no other reason than that he has talked to thousands of others (which is doubtful) that all believe the same, and all presumably base the belief on the fact that each other believes.
Now you believe, also presumably because others believe (why else post the quote?) and go on to make up new theories about creation, still without anything to support them.
What happened to old fashioned reason, logic, observation or testing before coming to conclusions? Is imagination all we need now to answer all of life's questions? Just make up answers, convince a thousand others to believe and therefore it must be true?
Moody is well known in the spiritual world, so I'm sure he has spoken to tens of thousand.
He's been around for years and yous. Leonard Nimoy endorsed him, and they were together once when I heard Moody speak
I believe because of God, not man. I had never gone to church, when God revealed to me, some truths about himself
Moody may have spoken to tens of thousands, but I highly doubt he has listened to that many. Certainly Obama has spoken to millions, via TV, but listened to only a handful.
I trust you questioned those truths, and investigated then thoroughly before swallowing the tales. You tested, both for veracity (and determined the truths came from above, not from someone's mouth) and for fact. And when you were through testing and questioning...you ignored the questions and tests because no one can prove a god's existence but you want to believe anyway?
I go by my experiences, and life, not others, thank you
How about you, ever try to listen with your spirit?
After years and years (About 30 or more) in the public eye, I'm sure he's listened to tens of thousands
He held group workshops and taught, He also held one on one sessions.
Just because you think it, doesn't make or so
It also doesn't take away from what I know.
Even when we read scripture, we've already read many times over, we approach it on many levels
The Jewish sages identify four levels of interpretation of the Scriptures, called (pardes), an acronym formed from:
1. P'shat (literal meaning based on historical intent of author)
2. Remez (hint, allusion, analogy, allegory)
3. D'rash (application, exposition)
4. Sod (looking for the mystery, "deep" meaning)
We are taught to investigate, and try everything. You don't have a patten on research
A closed mind is as bad as a deceived mind. I will always listen to everything, and decide for myself. At least MY mind is open.
You think you can hide your insults, and it'll be okay
?? No insult intended; just a discussion of the differences of rationale and thinking processes when dealing with real life events vs those of religion.
For there is a vast difference, and your post hear bears that out. You did not indicate any testing logical inferences or observations for your religious views; just experience. Experience wherein events are laid at the feet of a god without ever checking to see it if is so - where no tests are ever made to determine causality and the default is "God did it".
Yes, a closed mind is as bad (or worse) than a deceived one. And until you open that mind and truly use it to find truth instead of making conclusions based on emotion, subjectivity and desire you will be deceived by your own wants.
There is absolutely nothing "wrong" somehow with beliefs, just with trying to put them onto others. Trying to call your beliefs Knowledge, and wondering why others don't see them that way. Assuming that your belief is the "right" one, and somehow "knowing" that everyone disagreeing is wrong. Communication would be much enhanced if belief is just recognized for what it is and as much veracity given to the beliefs of others as to our own.
Do you think that the human mind is capable of 'knowing' anything as it really is?
If the human mind can make up things, it can also make up truth. It will be coincidence if the imagined is also true, but it can happen.
So yes, the human mind can also know things as they really are. Whether we can know whether our "knowledge" is real is another matter; as knowledge is constantly growing and changing it becomes a matter of usefulness, not absolute truth.
Example: pi is known to be 3.1415. Except it is not; it is 3.1415926. Except it isn't; it is 3.14159265359. Except it isn't that, either. The point being, where does the knowledge stop being useful and become just pure knowledge that we cannot use, where the change from "old" knowledge is so slight that it just doesn't matter?
Not meant to be; it was intended as a comment on reality vs what we think we know of reality.
Another example: Things on earth fall at 32 ft/sec^2. Except they don't, not at every point on the globe - it varies with location. The variation, however, is minute and of no practical matter to hardly anyone. Does that make the original "knowledge" of 43 f/sec^2 wrong? Or just not complete?
How do we determine who is 'seeing' the real thing, and who is 'getting' the unreal impression of it?
Tests. Additional observation.
"A" says the car is blue, while "B" insists it is green. Using a colorimeter, determine the wavelength of the light being reflected under controlled conditions and compare it to standard definitions of colors. And probably find out that both are colorblind and it is really red!
The prerequisite for such tests is that "A" and "B" trust each other.
Why? No objectivity at all; just a trust in the equipment used to measure and an agreement as to the definition of the colors.
Now if an agreement cannot be reached on the definition of words, there is a problem. They may both be right, simply unable to communicate.
What if "A" is way smarter than "B"? What if "A" is looking for revenge from "B" because "B" has got a lot better employment than "A" in the field of science, or religion, or in any other field where people investigate things to find truth?
What if? Can't see that that will make the colorimeter give false readings. Or, if a referee is absolutely needed, find one that can operate the machine and hire additional watchers to make sure he isn't bribed. And so on, ad infinitum if it's that big a deal.
People can be fooled in many ways. You have no idea where, and how subtle this might become.
Thus the test, with an "impartial" colorimeter.
I don't think a tin cylinder has much power before human satans.
Neither does anything else. "A" may have coated the chair "B" used with DMSO mixed with a newly discovered hypnotic drug, hypnotized him and thereby made him believe a falsehood.
But eventually we have only ourselves, and we can all be fooled. The question is the degree of difficulty it will take to do so, which is determined by hard we try to find truth (and how willing we are to accept truth that does not agree with what we wish to believe).
Going back to A and B, if A is absolutely convinced he is right and refuses to change no matter what, and B doesn't really care either way, A will convince B no matter what the color really is. And no matter what the test results are, A will retain his belief (belief as opposed to knowledge because it does not agree with reality). From the other thread, you cannot "make" anyone know anything; it is only through hard work that we learn (remove the screen over our eyes).
You've said what needed to be said here. It is indeed hard work. We all get 'molded' by our cultures where we are born, by people, by the societies where we find ourselves.
Which may be the hardest work of all. It's one thing to learn something new, quite another to leave behind what we "learned" years ago and have accepted as truth for a lifetime. To accept that the "common sense" knowledge of 30, 40, or 50 years just isn't true. I don't think any of us manage to completely remove the screen of time or culture - we all carry some beliefs as truth that just are not.
My screen or yours? I can work on mine, but can provide little effect to yours...until you decide yourself to question it. To poke little holes, little tears in the fabric of belief vs knowledge. Only you can take that step - no one else. Until such a time as you are more interested in truth than belief, no one can remove your screen.
This is not to say that the screen is not useful or that it should be torn away. Very often that screen is what keeps us happy and productive - without it we might live a life of despair and unhappiness. Our feelings and desires are important to all of us and that is usually the fabric of the screen. But not all of us have the same screen, or the same fabric - it is not a "one size fits all". Some have a different fabric, some have an intense desire for no fabric at all, and some have a "holey" screen. It just doesn't work to try and throw a massive screen over the population as a whole because it just doesn't fit for the majority of people. Whatever your screen is, it won't fit most people.
What will someone get if he/she is successful at removing his/her 'screen'?
Knowledge. Not happiness or contentment, not unless you value knowledge more than your feelings and desires. Just knowledge.
And, perhaps, tolerance. Not always, but screens have a nasty habit of introducing intolerance into people as the assumption is that there is no screen. Removing the screen, and allowing the light of knowledge to enter, can sometimes remove intolerance as well.
That (hopefully) matches reality and that you know matches reality within the limits of your ability to do that. That does not depend on subjective desires, analysis, feelings or wants as a basis, but on what is real and true. And that, sometimes, is simply "I don't know" without have the screen force an answer anyway.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar5 weeks ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So...
by Sa Toya2 years ago
A friend and I had a conversation/discussion on this and she believes such occurrences are proof that God is real.She went on to say:If evil spirits are out there, there must be good spirits...like angels God is...
by Thinkaboutit778 years ago
An Open Challenge to ALL Atheists and Agnostics: Prove that you would be willing to obey the One True God If His Existence Can Be ProvenMany people say they don't believe in the 1 True God (of the Bible) because there's...
by Obscure_Treasures5 years ago
In this advanced era Science has been able to invent new things....bt a above mentioned question still remains on back of my mind...
by paarsurrey5 weeks ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/51248pisean282311 wrote:do you think god's value would remain if there are no humans..god needs human since humans can only pray , hope and believe..do you agree to this?Paarsurrey...
by wordscribe417 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists...
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.