A trap for the intellect

a reply to: whereislogic

Science itself is still defining itself! That's the actual beauty of the logical process of science. Everything is up for debate and testing. It's just that if the same experiment is ran 1 billion times it starts to become generally accepted as fact.

Some might say that science is abandoning it's foundations these days, I'd say if we're going to talk like that then the house of science has been dismantled numerous times and reassembled on sturdier ground. The rest is optics.

Real scientists do science, I'm not a scientist and I probably did pick the wrong word when I went with 'theory' as there's absolutely no way of testing nothingness or what was before.

So yes, speculations. From my own perspective I'm influenced by earlier works and I'll assume that applies to most who play with these subjects.

Put Michio Kaku, Einstein, a 10 yr old kid and the brightest minds any religion has to offer into a room with only creation stories to read and journals to write down their ideas on what was before...

I highly doubt there'll be much difference between the thoughts. The difference will be the ability to articulate them and probably the slant put into the workings. Who do you think would be the most honest?

Daft question I know. Because non of them can know.

Modern day forensics is the magic of 50 years ago though and it's just science, extremely well understood maths and a little psychology. We can detect the present to predict the future and calculate the past fairly accurately but that could only lead you to the singularity point anyways right? We're looking in that direction anyways.

Circular logic. I'm the worst person in the thread to explain these things most likely lol. In a nut shell it's a box and we're all in it. Outside of it is nothing we can comprehend so we'll call it nothing?

God isn't an answer for me but then again I'm not necessarily asking the question if God is everything before and after. Every religion has failed to frame God... Absolutely non of them have his picture.

Sorry for the babbling long post, I could've just repeated it's a fools errand with a friendly reminder of the premise of the thread. I'll happily spend tea, time and conversation on the topic.

Once righteousness becomes a theme I'll just smile and bid a good day.

a reply to: wellhello

I'm really not well versed in anything religious/spiritual, so my comments may be pointless. Nevertheless!

Nah, never pointless wellhello, sometime an innocent question trips up the experts and makes them think. Such times can be hilarious, and really good fun ; )

That's where it gets so dicey. It would be fantastic, if what ever religion/belief being held was considered more along the lines of a guideline, not the be all, end all. A moral or ethical guideline. Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek. Not used as an excuse to demonise or hurt others, just because it doesn't fit exactly in their religious/spiritual/personal view.

One of the offshoots in the OP was to think of different religions and philosophies as separate things. Just objects with an inside and an outside. Inside lays all the pomp and whatever, outside is everything else. Philosophical communities for people one might say.

But then, I suppose, why would someone want or need to adhere to, or subscribe to, someone else's thoughts on a righteous way to live - I think the majority of people don't set out to willingly hurt or harm others. I could also just be too optimistic, haha.

I think so too.

I quite like that way of thinking. It can be very easy to think yourself into some terribly bad ways. Why is this happening? Have I caused a higher power to hate me? Why would God(s) do such a thing?
I don't know if perhaps it's a way to, I suppose, shift the burden of having to deal with any strife and hostility we might encounter? Sort of, take a backseat to what is actually happening to one's self, try to minimise suffering?
It can seem awfully bleak thinking that horrible things are happening to yourself, just because, and now you have to get through it. No special significance, just deal with it.

I think it's kind of liberating, to think that we are all here just by what ever coincidence or cosmic craziness. No rhyme or reason, it's all here just because. You get to create your own reason! Hopefully for the betterment of yourself and without malicious intent to others. I, again, like to think that's what most people want.

And if one borrows from the buddhists the idea that this is the desire world, then it is understandable that a desire is the ticket to here.

The reason I say that is because I saw my mom a few days after she passed on. She was sitting up in an afterlife bed. A few people were with her she knew from life who has passed on before her. I stood some distance away at the foot of the bed.

Two interesting things I saw. The first was who was not there with her. The ones in life one would have expected were not there, and the true freinds were. The ones who actually cared about her. She was excitedly telling them about something she achieved in life.

The other interesting thing was she looked all of sixteen years old, and she did not know who I was. The look on her face said she knew she must know me but could not place me. She did not remember I was her son in life.

To understand the context here, one must know the desire that brought her here. She wanted to be a star in the ballet. She achieved that at the age of sixteen as a soloist in the ballet company. I was born three or so years later. That is why she did not know me.

Her memories of life returned over the next few weeks in order of emotional importance.

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: whereislogic

Science itself is still defining itself! That's the actual beauty of the logical process of science. Everything is up for debate and testing. It's just that if the same experiment is ran 1 billion times it starts to become generally accepted as fact.

Some might say that science is abandoning it's foundations these days, I'd say if we're going to talk like that then the house of science has been dismantled numerous times and reassembled on sturdier ground. The rest is optics.

Real scientists do science, I'm not a scientist and I probably did pick the wrong word when I went with 'theory' as there's absolutely no way of testing nothingness or what was before.

So yes, speculations. From my own perspective I'm influenced by earlier works and I'll assume that applies to most who play with these subjects.

Put Michio Kaku, Einstein, a 10 yr old kid and the brightest minds any religion has to offer into a room with only creation stories to read and journals to write down their ideas on what was before...

I highly doubt there'll be much difference between the thoughts. The difference will be the ability to articulate them and probably the slant put into the workings. Who do you think would be the most honest?

Daft question I know. Because non of them can know.

Modern day forensics is the magic of 50 years ago though and it's just science, extremely well understood maths and a little psychology. We can detect the present to predict the future and calculate the past fairly accurately but that could only lead you to the singularity point anyways right? We're looking in that direction anyways.

Circular logic. I'm the worst person in the thread to explain these things most likely lol. In a nut shell it's a box and we're all in it. Outside of it is nothing we can comprehend so we'll call it nothing?

God isn't an answer for me but then again I'm not necessarily asking the question if God is everything before and after. Every religion has failed to frame God... Absolutely non of them have his picture.

Sorry for the babbling long post, I could've just repeated it's a fools errand with a friendly reminder of the premise of the thread. I'll happily spend tea, time and conversation on the topic.

Once righteousness becomes a theme I'll just smile and bid a good day. [/quote

You are no fool. Just saying.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: wellhello

I'm really not well versed in anything religious/spiritual, so my comments may be pointless. Nevertheless!

Nah, never pointless wellhello, sometime an innocent question trips up the experts and makes them think. Such times can be hilarious, and really good fun ; )

That's where it gets so dicey. It would be fantastic, if what ever religion/belief being held was considered more along the lines of a guideline, not the be all, end all. A moral or ethical guideline. Love thy neighbour, turn the other cheek. Not used as an excuse to demonise or hurt others, just because it doesn't fit exactly in their religious/spiritual/personal view.

One of the offshoots in the OP was to think of different religions and philosophies as separate things. Just objects with an inside and an outside. Inside lays all the pomp and whatever, outside is everything else. Philosophical communities for people one might say.

But then, I suppose, why would someone want or need to adhere to, or subscribe to, someone else's thoughts on a righteous way to live - I think the majority of people don't set out to willingly hurt or harm others. I could also just be too optimistic, haha.

I think so too.

I quite like that way of thinking. It can be very easy to think yourself into some terribly bad ways. Why is this happening? Have I caused a higher power to hate me? Why would God(s) do such a thing?
I don't know if perhaps it's a way to, I suppose, shift the burden of having to deal with any strife and hostility we might encounter? Sort of, take a backseat to what is actually happening to one's self, try to minimise suffering?
It can seem awfully bleak thinking that horrible things are happening to yourself, just because, and now you have to get through it. No special significance, just deal with it.

I think it's kind of liberating, to think that we are all here just by what ever coincidence or cosmic craziness. No rhyme or reason, it's all here just because. You get to create your own reason! Hopefully for the betterment of yourself and without malicious intent to others. I, again, like to think that's what most people want.

And if one borrows from the buddhists the idea that this is the desire world, then it is understandable that a desire is the ticket to here.

The reason I say that is because I saw my mom a few days after she passed on. She was sitting up in an afterlife bed. A few people were with her she knew from life who has passed on before her. I stood some distance away at the foot of the bed.

Two interesting things I saw. The first was who was not there with her. The ones in life one would have expected were not there, and the true freinds were. The ones who actually cared about her. She was excitedly telling them about something she achieved in life.

The other interesting thing was she looked all of sixteen years old, and she did not know who I was. The look on her face said she knew she must know me but could not place me. She did not remember I was her son in life.

To understand the context here, one must know the desire that brought her here. She wanted to be a star in the ballet. She achieved that at the age of sixteen as a soloist in the ballet company. I was born three or so years later. That is why she did not know me.

Her memories of life returned over the next few weeks in order of emotional importance.

You presume too much without experimentation. Just saying.

a reply to: quintessentone

I presume too muchly where?

You presume too much without experimentation. Just saying.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Thank you for sharing that story of you mum, I appreciate it. I feel like it would difficult to navigate an experience like that, but also very special, to be able to see your mum so excited about something dear to her

And I apologise for lateness in replying, your post brought up some feelings in regards to my brother, who recently passed, and experiences my mum and I have both had since his passing. So much to think through.

I hope, and like to think, that if there is more after this life here, that we are able to find peace. What ever that may be for any individual, I hope that one can find comfort.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
Philosophers of ATS, I pose a simple thought. A question if you will.

It is said that god is all. Even the newage has it's 'universe', it's all.

A common concept that this or that is everything. The mind always chases a first principal and a beginning. People fight over this very question from the point of view that their own religion is right. Though in modern times someone came up with the idea that god must be everyone's god, and so let us have a one world religion.

To my own way of thinking the heaven of the Catholic is not the same heaven as the Hindu, nor the same heaven as the Theosophists for that matter.

Always the starting point, a trap for the mind I shall suggest; "god is everything".

Can you escape from that thought?

To step outside so to speak?

I can say that you are all, you are the one, you have it all. That is if you want to connect with others that are also the 'all'.

a reply to: quintessentone

I can say that you are all, you are the one, you have it all. That is if you want to connect with others that are also the 'all'.

In general? As in an altruism?

While I can't say definately that on some "level" there might not be some "all", I would suggest that consideration is in the practical sense: theoretical.

I once had an encounter with a yellow grey "alien" (she fitted the stereotypical grey except she was bright yellow) . After the 'close encounter movie' light show, she announced "we are all one" as her opening line. My reply was "I don't think so". Later she tried the mesmerism thing with her eyes up close. My guess is the "all is one" thing didn't work.

We eventually worked out a working relationship, but that was to create a relationship in the human sense. I adopted her as a grand daughter. I can go into the reasons for that seeming silly idea deeper. Basically any relationship is rules based. For example an grand-daughter does not poke about inside her grand father's mind. This is my alternative to becomming one with them within their mind, with their rules, if any.

So I have an ingrained suspicion of the "oneness", a bias if you wish. So I have given it a lot of attention in the practical sense. Bottom line for me is I don't want to become a part of a grey collective mind. Not the grey 'avatar's' mind, rather the mind(s) within the avatar of the grey. It isn't difficult to examine other things in the same light.

So a question; is the grey batch mind a part of the "all"?

I would suggest "no, not a part of the human collective minds".

a reply to: wellhello

No need for appologies, threads can take their own time : )

Not difficult to navigate these things, one just has to work out what is happening before jumping to conclusions. The logic is not always apparent. I also have a lot of experience with the deceased, mostly fixing things when things go wrong. So this was a nice change.

I found one deceased kid in an old fallen down shed on a farm near my house. She died of neglect in pioneering days is my guess and was hiding in the shed still. I still 'see' her now and again when I think of her. She is doing well in the afterlife now, just needed someone to show her that she was deceased and there are better places to be.

From what I have seen, memories return over a few weeks in order of emotional importance rather than chronologically. I spose it depends on the culture and their practices to an extent. I have not seen folks go to their own funerals by the way. Funerals are for the living more than anything else.

a reply to: whereislogic

It is all about the details.
Your diatribe is belief based, and rather religious.

What I said has nothing to do with belief or religion.
Quantum physics, as best that we understand, is the only thing that comes close.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: whereislogic

What I said has nothing to do with belief or religion.
...

What you said was "God is everything" (your central claim, the rest was part of your argument why you were saying that). That view is a belief called pantheism. (mind you "everything is God" has the same meaning, just like "all is god", quoting from below)

pantheism | Etymology, origin and meaning of pantheism by etymonline

"the belief or metaphysical doctrine that God and the universe are identical" (implying a denial of the personality of God), 1732, from pantheist (n.), which was coined 1705 by Irish deist John Toland (1670-1722), from Greek pan- "all" (see pan-) + -theism. Toland's word was borrowed into French, which from it formed panthéisme (1712) which returned to English as pantheism "the doctrine that all is god" in 1732 (there is no evidence that Toland himself used pantheism).

a reply to: whereislogic
So do you believe that God is a person?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Yes. And the Bible informs us that he's got only 1 personal name as well (not to be confused with titles such as God, Lord, Creator, Almighty, Most High, etc.; you can see a list of titles used for him in the Bible in this article: How Many Names Does God Have?).

“That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.”​—PS. 83:18 (NW)

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”—PS. 83:18 (KJV)

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I wonder, Itisnowagain. Can you step out of that thought dzogchen?

If I gathered correctly from the video; "dzogchen" is to view the world as an illusion.

All I can say is looking at the world as an illusion is a human thing, and out of humanity buddists along with some theosophists are about the only folks who do that.

The non-human Beings I am aquainted with certainly don't view the world as an illusion.

And geez, that guy is creepy, just look at those eyes . . .

I tell yer what Itisnowagain, it wouldn't hurt to put a brief description of these videos in your own words.