The mathematical probability of randomly guessing as to your God's properties are below epsilon, which means that it is theoretically impossible to do so.

This would mean that for our God, assuming he exists, to judge us based upon what we do/believe on earth, it is necessary (if he's not a malicious God) for him to provide a way for us to know him.

Sure, one who holds a religious belief can claim all they want that he provided that way to know him through their religious paths, but these are hollow claims. The very basis of Science is to gather knowledge, and even our modern science that has come so far lacks the ability to discern if there even IS a God, let alone that God's properties. So then, this opportunity has not been provided.

So then, what we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

Under any of the above circumstances, it can logically be determined that any attempt to know or worship a God is fruitless.

-This is my current standpoint. Comments or critiques would be appreciated.

Is that where Karma comes into it, if you believe in it?

Has to balance it out some how!

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

[B]

So then, what we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

B]

Could it be argued from point B) That god does'nt judge or condemn in a permanent fashion? We consistenyl hear how god forgives everyone, If he forgives everyone eventually this could ... improve ,even if it doesn't negate matters .

DS says that it is belief in Jesus and God that saves you , and I admit that I would beleiev in God if they plonked me in limbo and said ,"Right dude ... You're a pretty nice guy ,so we won't send you to hell ... But we need you to sign here ... here .. and uh... here. This is to certify that you accept that God and Christ will save you. We have a phone if you wish to speak to either of them..."

Eventually we will have all the evidence we need of Gods existence. We die and we go to hell/heaven/downstairs, we figure out theres a god ... or a downstairs...

If theres oblivion, well we don't care.

Eventually God will revela himself to us ,and If we are good people it is unlikely a NICE god wuld send us to hell...

But still ,I think It's an alright argument , If we don't know for sure here then it seems a waste of time to have to wait to sign everything in triplicate.

D) Exists, but only as a figment of our hopeful imaginations. Can only be used as a "symbol" for some to help explain what we don't understand about our Universe. Essentially, just a very convenient metaphor which also doubles as a successful meme that empowers the Carrot-on-stick method of staying alive in our memories.

Jesuit, so you're saying that a 'nice' God would just punish you temporarily for not knowing something that.. can't be known?

We all would believe in God in the type of scenario that you described, but that's not how the Christian God is supposed to work. Even if it was how he worked, that would still mean some people are condemned and some people are stuck in limbo, on account of God's not making it possible for us to know him (and this would make him malicious).

Yeah, maybe some day in the future God will make himself known, but he hasn't thus far. If I die without God ever being proven, then it is totally unjust to condemn me for not believing in him.

AngryFemme, a being existing only as a symbol is the same as the being not existing. The symbol exists, not God. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Edit: I would like to add that the argument I presented above doesn't, by any means, discount all religions. It only discounts a conscious deity whom passes judgement.

[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 05-28-2006).]

I'm not a Christian, but it seems you left out the option of a God being "good" and still chose to include "malicious". Any particular reasoning behind this? I completely agree that its not only impossible to know the properties of a god, but also really arrogant to pretend to.

It is my opinion that:

If god/goddess/gods/supreme force/etc.. (hereafter refered to as "god" for simplicity) exists, he is infinitely "above" human logic and understanding. To think that "god" is anything remotely like a human being or even a human mind seems silly to me.



[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

*chokes on tongue and dies from the shock of witnessing an actually well articulated thread*

Cheers,

Lost

A 'good' God would fit under the second option, my friend.

Why do you assume that God is infitely above our logic? In this argument, do you mean to say that God can simultaneously condemn someone for not knowing what he has made unknowable while still being 'good'?

Edit: Thank you LostCause! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Iam (edited 05-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:



If god/goddess/gods/supreme force/etc.. (hereafter refered to as "god" for simplicity) exists, he is infinitely "above" human logic and understanding. To think that "god" is anything remotely like a human being or even a human mind seems silly to me.

If god is infinitely "above" logic, then to praise, worship, or believe in him loses any and all meaning. You cannot possibly arrive at the conclusion that we should do any of those, since it could very well be (by virtue of logic and reason not applying to him) that doing those things is actually worse than to not do them.

It therefore becomes meaningless to hold your position.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

The mathematical probability of randomly guessing as to your God's properties are below epsilon, which means that it is theoretically impossible to do so.

Here, we agree - God's properties are interchangeable and constantly evolving, because the intrinsic values vary from human mind to human mind, and from culture-to-culture. Mathematics is universally agreed upon and understood. We use numbers as symbols to express these truths to each other, even when struggling with language and cultural barriers.

The concept of God and the symbol we attach to it is chaotic, and unclear - definitely debatable among different cultures, as is evident by the wide varieties of diety symbols human beings assign to it, each with their own set of properties and values.

Universally, in any language, using any mixture or variety of symbols, it can be agreed upon that 1+1 = 2.

Never has the concept of God been universally agreed upon. Never have the punishments, rewards, doctrines, or versions of the Afterlife been universally agreed upon or perceived as the same.

quote:

AngryFemme, a being existing only as a symbol is the same as the being not existing. The symbol exists, not God. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Iam, you are preaching to the choir on that point. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) I agree with most everything you said except for:

quote:Under any of the above circumstances, it can logically be determined that any attempt to know or worship a God is fruitless

Although my actions and beliefs would prove to be atheistic, I can comment with a straight face: "God exists", because Cultural Anthropology tells me this is so:

Culture represents the entire database of knowledge, values, and traditional ways of viewing the world, which have been transmitted from one generation ahead to the next--nongenetically, apart from DNA--through words, concepts, and SYMBOLS.

Proving to a religious culture that their FAITH is fruitless, and without merits - could be impossible. It is very difficult for human beings to "unlearn" something, and attempting to re-write the way a person conceptualizes GOD as a symbol could be more damaging than good. In some cases, it would be completely fruitless.

If you consider various world views, dipping in and out of cultures, civilizations and religions world-wide, you'd find something in common in every culture that creates the need for God - the experience of The Great Mystery, knowing there is a dimension of the universe that is NOT available to our senses. You and I may favor a scientific-bent method of realizing these Truths, with scientific-based symbols and concepts, while others depend on the power of myth and symbolism to just fill in all the gaps for them, while effectively uniting their "spiritual" and physical selves.

Man's tendendcy is to personify such experiences, to anthropomorphize natural forces. More often than not, we lean towards our own cultural myths and symbols to trick ourselves into not just understanding these forces, but in actually attempting to define them by attaching to it a unanimously agreed-upon and recognized symbol to represent it.

These points of view exist. They've shaped cultures, won wars, wrote history and have gone on to survive as the most powerful memes in the history of humanity. Considering this, I cannot say with complete clarity of mind that (the concept of) God does not exist, because I know full well that it does exist in the minds of these individuals who shape their world view around it. God exists simply because man created the concept to believe in.

I say to you:

"Iam, blue does not exist".

You retort back:

"Yes, it does! It is a symbol of the perception of color for that (points to fabric, sky, denim) hue of color! And I know it exists, because everyone else can see it, too! And AngryFemme, you will find that everyone else agrees with me that the fabric/sky/denim is, in fact, BLUE!"

(audible sigh)

"But Iam, 'blue' is just a word-symbol we use to describe what we see. We have to borrow the term 'blue' from the kazillion set of eyes who came before us who also used this word-symbol to describe this hue of color, so that we can all unanimously agree when we see this hue that it is, in fact... blue! If the rest of the Universe referred to that shade of color as "hurazagag", you too would agree that "blue", as a description, does not exist, and is not a fair or accurate description of the color. So it all revolves around a definition that was coined, accepted, and passed around a loooooooong time before you and I existed! Admit that it's not really true, Iam! Admit that it only seems to be true to us because that is how we were taught to conceptualize and verbalize it!"

So does "blue" exist? As a symbol for that particular shade of color, yes. And we accept that to be true because that is what is Universally recognized to be the description of that color, even though the word itself may vary from country to country. We are able to illustrate and differentiate "blue" because we live in a world with other colors, which gives us the ability to first conceptualize, and then define the differences "blue" has from red and yellow and green. It would be extremely difficult to illustrate "blue" without the rest of the palette to compare it to. There was even an anthropological study done on a tribe in Indonesia that had no language word for the word "red". It could be said that the color "red" did not exist for those people. (I will find that link, it is very interesting)

So does "God" exist? For many, it does - as a symbol to represent abstract "divine" meaning in an unknown Universe. Cross different cultures, and you will find that the symbol is alive and well, existing under many different terms, with many different "acceptable" definitions and symbols. Replace the word "God" with the word "blue" in the above mock-debate and you will see how absolutely pointless it is to try to point out to a Believer that their concepts concerning The God Myth is false. Now, having said that - If God was everywhere, all-emcompassing, omni-present, all-knowing, and the true "definition of" Reality that presents itself in the exact same manner to all of mankind, everywhere - it would be impossible for the Iams and AngryFemmes of the world to try to convince others that it does not exist. We would be liars, because we would be testifying against what our actual senses tell us. This not being the case, we come away from these debates feeling a great deal more "in the know" than our spiritual counterparts - only because our perceptions tell us so.

Because we are given other alternative symbols to describe it, and because we are not limited by our minds to accept what scores of others before us has blindly accepted as the "truth", we are able to do so with not only strong convictions, but with all the confidence in the world that there are other methods to explain it with - much like there are several hues of color to compare "blue" with, and prove how it contrasts with the others colors, making it's Blueness even more real, and provable.

God does not exist as a reality for me and you because we recognize it as a symbol others use to define these unknowns, and not much else. We have other symbols, our own symbols, with different definitions. We use our symbols to help clarify to others how we perceive the Universe. They are correct and unfaltering to us - beyond debate, even! Is our attempt to "know and worship" this fact fruitless? It is not. It is the only tool we have to express our (keyword here!!!): BELIEFS.

The belief in God exists. This belief is only fruitless to you and I, who have no use for it to shape our perception of the Universe. To the scores of people who rely on it to define their perceptions ... it's as real (and apparent) as the color Blue.

quote: This would mean that for our God, assuming he exists, to judge us based upon what we do/believe on earth, it is necessary (if he's not a malicious God) for him to provide a way for us to know him. .

God doesn't have to judge, nor does "he" have to prove "himself" - no more than the color Blue has to assert it's "blueness" in order for us to understand it, or judge yellow and red as inferior colors just because it doesn't embody the essence of blueness that Blue possesses. Symbols never have to "prove" themselves - their existence is substantiated by the mere creation of it by mankind to help illustrate our abstract concept of it. To be able to "prove itself", a symbol would have to first and foremost possess some kind of intentional stance. Symbols, as we know, don't have "intentions". Blue doesn't have the capacity to care about mankind's perception of it. It's just a symbol, we've already assigned it a "purpose". Nor does God have the capacity to care about the individual thoughts, actions or belief systems of actual human beings - "he's" just a symbol. Some people who have conceptualized God symbiotically like that have already assigned God a purpose to serve our OWN intentions and needs - the purpose of being a guide, a teacher and an object of worship.



People who are alive and well today who accept the existence of God and his punishments/rewards EVEN THOUGH they've never experienced firsthand the judgement, the rewards, the punishments, or the supposed afterlifes - can do so comfortably and without questioning, because they accept their culture's definitions without feeling the need to test it out with their own individual perceptions, which may, if examined long enough, contradict with society. They feel completely at home borrowing from the mythology of others who have attempted to conceptualize it in the past.

Created by man as a symbol, "God" leaves the judging, the malice and the condemnation to the same mortal human beings who devised the myth and symbol to begin with. God cannot perform any actions that has not already been subscribed to him (in concept) by other human beings. The tendencies of God will always be wrapped around the tendencies that human beings have the capacity for, nothing more or less. It cannot exist outside the realm of human activity, because it was devised by human activity, and human activity alone.

The proof that God (as a symbol) exists is clear. There are many people who will testify to that truth. And how can we argue with perceptions that are not our own? If it shapes their world, if it brings to fruition the hopes, dreams and warmfuzzy feelings that these Believers know to be true, how can we testify against that? We can't. We can only assign these instances our own set of symbols, and explain it away with our own strain of perception.

The fact that Iam and AngryFemme can voice with complete confidence and surety that it is not necessary to believe in God (the concept) in order to have a complete and accurate view of the Universe - does not undermine it's existence. It just proves that as conceptual thought, there are other avenues to be considered, other methods to be "tested", and other forms of logic to be weighed in before we blindly accept that there are no other feasible alternatives and adopt it as our own Truth.

It also gives us a standing argument to pose to people of Faith :

Why would God (if he existed as an actual entity capable of intentions) provide to Mankind, the beings he supposedly created in his own image, the POSSIBILITY of conceptual thought processes? It's as if God's sole purpose in creating Man was to equip him with the tools he would need to disprove his own existence.

God's "intentions" and it's properties can be tested in a memetic sense, easily. A meme's only sole "intention" is copying itself and ensuring it's longevity by surviving throughout all of time as a concept in the minds of human beings ... and the God meme has undoubtedly acheived that! The concept of God will never need to be proven or disproven in order to be successful. As a meme, it has already proved to have super-fitness and super-success!

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

A 'good' God would fit under the second option, my friend.

Why do you assume that God is infitely above our logic? In this argument, do you mean to say that God can simultaneously condemn someone for not knowing what he has made unknowable while still being 'good'?

Edit: Thank you LostCause! http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



What i tend to believe was intended to be seperate from my questioning the topic starter about why he chose not too include a "good" god.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

If god is infinitely "above" logic, then to praise, worship, or believe in him loses any and all meaning. You cannot possibly arrive at the conclusion that we should do any of those, since it could very well be (by virtue of logic and reason not applying to him) that doing those things is actually worse than to not do them.

It therefore becomes meaningless to hold your position.





I don't really see how it could be "worse" to worship, etc..., just pointless.

My holding of a vague concept of the idea of what a god might be hardly constitutes believing in "god", worshipping "god", or praising "god". All you did was point out that if I'm right, then it probably doesn't matter if we believe in "god", worship "god", or praise "god". I would tend to agree with this statement (assuming that my original statement is correct).

Your last statement doesn't make much sense to me. Mind rephrasing it for me?

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:



I don't really see how it could be "worse" to worship, etc..., just pointless.

You don't see it, preciesly because you're using "human logic".

quote:

My holding of a vague concept of the idea of what a god might be hardly constitutes believing in "god", worshipping "god", or praising "god". All you did was point out that if I'm right, then it probably doesn't matter if we believe in "god", worship "god", or praise "god". I would tend to agree with this statement (assuming that my original statement is correct).

Correct, I did't assume you did any of those things, I was pointing out how if what you said was true, then belief would be meaningless.

quote:

Your last statement doesn't make much sense to me. Mind rephrasing it for me?

The belief that god is infinitely above logic becomes meaningless because not only do you not know that to be correct, but if it happens to be correct, it would be futile to even attempt to acertain what god is, or has. It becomes the equivalent of simply lacking belief in gods.

Originally posted by Rust:

___________________________________________

If god is infinitely "above" logic, then to praise, worship, or believe in him loses any and all meaning. You cannot possibly arrive at the conclusion that we should do any of those, since it could very well be (by virtue of logic and reason not applying to him) that doing those things is actually worse than to not do them.

___________________________________________

God/Supreme force/consciousness exists outside of time and space! When you learn how to transcend time and space you will start getting answers.

Whatever you think isn't really you thinking it anyway. All you are doing is putting a thought to this nonlocal concsiousness that exists. When you learn how to better connect with this nonlocal consciousness/force/God your answers to your questions will be answered.

Ahah! Eureaka!!! There is no way of knowing what you will be thinking in 30 seconds a head of time.

There is no God as a person figure, it is what religions base him around to boost the ego. God is within, and not out in your outter reality, so the only way of connecting with it, is by getting on the brain levels that will get you there.

You are as much as God is, as God is itself. When you learn that we are all illusions and living in this reality, then we are able to alter that illusion to make the life we want and search for the answers we wish too find.

There is no judge/or judging as these concepts are with in the realms of space/time and couldn't of come from God even if there was one.

Whatever you believe is what your reality will be! Subjective reality is exactly the same as objective reality.

[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 05-29-2006).]

AngryFemme: Beautiful work and very informative. Some of the material you presented, I haven't ever really thought about. I'm sorry that I failed to devote as much time to writing this as you did, and I don't want you to feel like I don't appreciate that lengthy response because I do appreciate it!

The Point of Existence) Of course God exists as a symbol. I meant the exists within the context of a conscious being with all the traditional qualities attributed to God.

On the Subject of Being Fruitless) What I intended by the use of that phrase was merely that worship and devotion will not yield the fruits of either reward in afterlife or exemption from punishment in the afterlife. Someone can experience positive life-changing benefits from anything: reading a book, shooting up some heroin, taking a vitamin. The list is comprised of nearly everything known to man. Perhaps it would've been better if I had said, "Supernaturally fruitless."

God Is a Symbol) Every word in our vocabulary is a symbol in the sense that you describe; God being a word, he too is a symbol. I don't feel that this is very relevant to my original argument. All of our words are just names we have given to represenst things

Does Blue Exist) Not in the sense in which I originally meant the term 'existence'. It does exist as a symbol though, because it is a word.

Iam:

I live for swapping ideas with other human beings. Thank you for indulging in my long-winded reply - a "too long/didn't read" post from you would have been a proverbial kick-in-the-shin.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:



God/Supreme force/consciousness exists outside of time and space! When you learn how to transcend time and space you will start getting answers.

[...]

Whatever you believe is what your reality will be! Subjective reality is exactly the same as objective reality.



You've wasted all that time and space to say absolutely nothing. Your beliefs are nothing but a self-reinforcing delusion.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The belief that god is infinitely above logic becomes meaningless because not only do you not know that to be correct, but if it happens to be correct, it would be futile to even attempt to acertain what god is, or has. It becomes the equivalent of simply lacking belief in gods.

If my theory(used very loosely) is correct, then yes, it would be futile to attempt to know god's nature. However, it does not become "equivalent" to lacking belief in gods. The definition of the "theory" i've presented actually assumes that a god of some form exists.

Simplified Outline(this is NOT intended as a proof!):

1) Assume "god" exists

2) Assume "god" exists beyond/above human logic

3) Therefore we cannot know anything about "god's" nature or attributes

The very first assumption is that god exists (this is all theoretical). For that reason alone, one couldn't claim this as being anywhere near "lacking a belief in god".

Does the thought of thinking god might exist but not ever knowing how he works or who he is scare you? it makes me pretty uneasy.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You don't see it, preciesly because you're using "human logic".

text isnt the best medium for sarcasm, but you are either:

A) Using humor to lighten the conversation. For that I give a single ha: "Ha"

B) Mocking me. [insert childish insult here]

C) Claiming that you are, in fact, the god of my theory. I would worship you, but i would have no idea how to do so properly or even if there is a proper way. I would wonder if the concept of worship would even translate to anything significant or meaningful to you.





[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:



The very first assumption is that god exists (this is all theoretical). For that reason alone, one couldn't claim this as being anywhere near "lacking a belief in god".

Lacking a belief in gods does not mean that a god could not exist, it could very well be that one exists. So the main difference would be (note that I never said the two positions were exactly alike) one would remain neutral on whether or not they actually exist, while the other position does not.

But if you cannot not even begin to worship, praise or even believe in your god, because of the inherent uncertainty that surrounds him, how is that any different that lacking a belief in that god? He may very well exist, but if he does, and if belief in him is futile, then the differences between the two concepts become trivial.

quote:

Does the thought of thinking god might exist but not ever knowing how he works or who he is scare you? it makes me pretty uneasy.



Not in the least. Being scared or uneasy for not being able to accomplish the impossible is rather silly.

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:

text isnt the best medium for sarcasm, but you are either:

A) Using humor to lighten the conversation. For that I give a single ha: "Ha"

B) Mocking me. [insert childish insult here]

C) Claiming that you are, in fact, the god of my theory. I would worship you, but i would have no idea how to do so properly or even if there is a proper way. I would wonder if the concept of worship would even translate to anything significant or meaningful to you.



None of the above.

I'm pointing out how your belief that worship of a god would not be "worse" is based on human logic. While you may think that it your god would consider it good or trivial to be worshiped, you cannot conclude that at all since according to you, your god is beyond your own logic! He could very well believe that it is the most despicable act ever to be done. He could in fact, punish you for all eternity for worshiping or believing in him!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

But if you cannot not even begin to worship, praise or even believe in your god, because of the inherent uncertainty that surrounds him, how is that any different that lacking a belief in that god? He may very well exist, but if he does, and if belief in him is futile, then the differences between the two concepts become trivial.

"trivial" is a pretty loose word, but i'm willing to leave it at that if you are.

Perhaps what defines this theory is not only the end conclusion (which is somewhere between agnostic and atheist despite also assuming god's existence from the get-go), but more the method used to get there. A different way of ending at a semi-atheist belief.



[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

None of the above.

I'm pointing out how your belief that worship of a god would not be "worse" is based on human logic. While you may think that it your god would consider it good or trivial to be worshiped, you cannot conclude that at all since according to you, your god is beyond your own logic! He could very well believe that it is the most despicable act ever to be done. He could in fact, punish you for all eternity for worshiping or believing in him!

Oh ok, I completely misunderstood the "flavor" of what you had typed. I hadn't thought about it from gods perspective (if he has one). You make a good point.

I'm picturing all theists of the world burning in a stereotypical christian hell, while all the atheists are in heaven. i wonder where i would go, hmmm....



[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:

"trivial" is a loose word, but i'm willing to leave it at that if you are.

Perhaps what defines this theory is not only the end conclusion (which is somewhere between agnostic and atheist despite also assuming god's existence from the get-go), but more the method used to get there. A different way of ending at a semi-atheist belief.

The thing is, even the "existence" of god would be questioned if he is beyond human logic.

The law of non-contradiction dictates that something cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. However, if you believe that if a god were to exist, that he would be beyond this, then it could very well be that he doesn't exist to begin with, or that he both doesn't exist, and exists at the same time!

Your conclusion ("Therefore we cannot know anything about "god's" nature or attributes") negates the original premise to begin with!

That further removes the differences between your theory and unbelief!

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The thing is, even the "existence" of god would be questioned if he is beyond human logic.

The law of non-contradiction dictates that something cannot exist and not-exist at the same time. However, if you believe that if a god were to exist, that he would be beyond this, then it could very well be that he doesn't exist to begin with, or that he both doesn't exist, and exists at the same time!

Your conclusion ("Therefore we cannot know anything about "god's" nature or attributes") negates the original premise to begin with!

That further removes the differences between your theory and unbelief!

god existing and not existing at the same time seems like a good conclusion, although a confusing one. i dont think that believing an infinitely mysterious god exists and does not exist at the same time = plain old "i DONT believe in god"

i present a classic argument athesits use. i think it may have been what started me into this line of thought:

"Could god create a boulder so heavy he could not lift it?"

If god exists, i would think the answer would be yes. He could create a boulder he couldnt ever lift and then proceed to lift it. This defies human logic, but if god operated outside of those constraints it would make it possible, yes?





[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

That's it!

I proclaim that god does and doesn't exist. Because of his superlogical nature, I shall use the label "The Riddler" to refer to him from now on.

I now proclaim that I am an atheist and theist at the same time! I will simultaneously worship, insult, ignore, and deny the existence of "The Riddler"!

quote:Originally posted by JK_the_CJer:

god existing and not existing at the same time seems like a good conclusion, although a confusing one. i dont think that believing an infinitely mysterious god exists and does not exist at the same time = plain old "i DONT believe in god"

The thing, is you can't know if an infinitely mysterious god exists and doesn't exist at the same time, precisely because it could very well be that he doesn't exist. Your conclusion removes any validity from the initial premise (i.e. "god exists") or this new one now, because the conclusion is that we can't know anything about god, whether it be his existence or his non-existence, or both.

So your "theory" boils down to saying, 'If a god exists, then I cannot possibly know that he exists'. That's the prototype position of the agnostic, and unless you still (after acknowledging that you can't possibly know [anything about that him, even whether he exists or not) possess a belief in a god, then you're a weak-atheist as well.

quote:

If god exists, i would think the answer would be yes. He could create a boulder he couldnt ever lift and then proceed to lift it. This defies human logic, but if god operated outside of those constraints it would make it possible, yes?

Yes, since the "problem" is based on human logic, if he were to be above human logic, it could potentially be resolved.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The thing, is you can't know if an infinitely mysterious god exists and doesn't exist at the same time, precisely because it could very well be that he doesn't exist. Your conclusion removes any validity from the initial premise (i.e. "god exists") or this new one now, because the conclusion is that we can't know anything about god, whether it be his existence or his non-existence, or both.

So your "theory" boils down to saying, 'If a god exists, then I cannot possibly know that he exists'. That's the prototype position of the agnostic, and unless you still (after acknowledging that you can't possibly know [anything about that him, even whether he exists or not) possess a belief in a god, then you're a weak-atheist as well.

This is interesting because I actually do usually describe myself as:

Strong Agnostic/Weak Athiest

i use the qualifier "Strong" simply to indicate that i dont just "not know"(i use the term Weak), i actively support the idea that i "cant know"(i use the term Strong). Somewhere in this mix is an agnostic that chooses not to believe simply because real uncontested proof isnt there one way or the other. I'm not sure if this is a valid usage or not. Although i dont believe in god, i accept the idea that his existence is possible(thus: weak atheist)

Sidenote: the meat and potatoes of the theory focuses on the attributes (ignoring existence when usually i think about it admitedly) if he were to exist. When I start thinking about "what if god exists?", that theory is usually used as a starting point to get to other places.

Just out of curiousity, do you mind me asking where you stand personally in all of this god business. I have no intention of criticising or debating your beliefs, i'm just interested. I'm you feel comfortable just posting a concise label that comes close to your beliefs, thats cool. If not I'll read anything you can manage to type up.



[This message has been edited by JK_the_CJer (edited 05-29-2006).]

I consider myself more of a materialist; not only do I lack a belief in gods, but I lack a belief in the supernatural, be it ghosts, souls, or some sort of "mystic energy".

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

The mathematical probability of randomly guessing as to your God's properties are below epsilon, which means that it is theoretically impossible to do so.



Somehow I don't think probability applies to philosophy/theology but instead to the likelihood of events occuring.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I consider myself more of a materialist; not only do I lack a belief in gods, but I lack a belief in the supernatural, be it ghosts, souls, or some sort of "mystic energy".

All the properties of a Bright. Rust... are you a Bright?

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Somehow I don't think probability applies to philosophy/theology but instead to the likelihood of events occuring.



Lets pretend that everything about the "true god" is represented by A (a very complex data structure). He's saying that the chances of the human race learning, figuring out, etc... exactly what A contains is so slim that it may as well be impossible. The fact that there isnt a function in real life that will output true or false when comparing two "god" data structures makes it even more difficult. Because of this, we can't just bruteforce the true value of god because we have no way to check for a correct answer.

The probability lies in us guessing a value with no way of verifying that we "got it right". The probability element isnt being attached to the true nature of god here.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

All the properties of a Bright. Rust... are you a Bright?



"Brights" appear to be atheist skeptics with a less scary name and a political agenda.

It definitely rolls off the tongue better than Secular Humanist.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

It definitely rolls off the tongue better than Secular Humanist.





agreed!

Materialist, eh? I've always been drawn to the supernatural. Whether I acknowledge it as being true is something contingent upon where I'm discussing it. If I'm in a scientific situation I must readily admit that there isn't much of anything to back up the belief that there is something beyond the material world. Regardless of whether there is anything else, I search. Perhaps it is that I am searching for something to fill in the gaps, perhaps I feel inadequate and so am trying to find higher power.. Whatever the case, I just feel that there is something.

I'd be interested in hearing some more about your materialist views, Rust.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

All the properties of a Bright. Rust... are you a Bright?



Pretty much, but I despise the name "Bright", it seems like a blatant marketing ploy with a subtle insult thrown in. That probably wasn't their intended purpose, I know, but it still has that unappealing aspect.

Besides, I also consider myself a Marxist, and the term "materialist" would also apply nicely there considering the dialectical and historical materialism of Marx.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Jesuit, so you're saying that a 'nice' God would just punish you temporarily for not knowing something that.. can't be known?

We all would believe in God in the type of scenario that you described, but that's not how the Christian God is supposed to work. Even if it was how he worked, that would still mean some people are condemned and some people are stuck in limbo, on account of God's not making it possible for us to know him (and this would make him malicious).

Yeah, maybe some day in the future God will make himself known, but he hasn't thus far. If I die without God ever being proven, then it is totally unjust to condemn me for not believing in him.

AngryFemme, a being existing only as a symbol is the same as the being not existing. The symbol exists, not God. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



Le'see. I'm saying that this nice God wouldn't require our belief ,he would judge us on a basis of how good we were. If he were a God worthy of worship he wouldn't punish us for not believing him, he'd punish us solely for being bastards.

Lets assume that we don't sin ,we've led good lives up to reaching god. However we haven't had a belief in this god. Once we realize that god is real ,we will believe in him. This will lead us to heaven.

However ,I'm sure that there are several believers in the god of classical theism would say, incongrously, that our lack of beleief would leave us in a fiery pit for the majority of eternity... Like ,oh, only an infinite sentence.

I believe that if there is a god ,and he is worthy of my worship ,he will not punish me of not worshipping him. But then if he is a bastard... well.. I guess that he'd best beware the revolution. A god that condemns people so arbitrarily will eventually be overthrown. Or imprisioned...

Sorry, you'll have to excuse me while I have blasphemous thoughts about warring against heaven....

And that was a good post AngryFemme. can't really think of anything to add. Nice.

SUpposing god was infintely beyond our comprehension ... how could the bible be his direct Word? We would not comprehend him in relation to word or thought ... so the Book would be solely the thoughts of a bunch of hairy dudes....

Yup.

Rust quote:

________________________________________

Originally posted by Rust:

If god is infinitely "above" logic, then to praise, worship, or believe in him loses any and all meaning. You cannot possibly arrive at the conclusion that we should do any of those, since it could very well be (by virtue of logic and reason not applying to him) that doing those things is actually worse than to not do them.

It therefore becomes meaningless to hold your position

____________________________________________

I am sorry I am delusional.

Will you forgive me?

(Yes, that is my easy way of saying, if you try to understand what I say, then you wouldn't be saying it, I should have explained myself clearer, but is there any point when you are so opposed to anyone against what you believe in, or don't know?)

I'm not opposed to what I don't know, I'm opposed to my time being wasted. Your rant, which provided nothing new, and only a blatant lack of evidence coupled with a humongous amount of outrageous claims, is not worth replying to in any meaningful way, hence why I did not.

When you manage to get any evidence for your conjectures, besides the self-reinforcing delusion, then by all means post it.

Rust wrote:

____________________________________________

I'm not opposed to what I don't know, I'm opposed to my time being wasted. Your rant, which provided nothing new, and only a blatant lack of evidence coupled with a humongous amount of outrageous claims, is not worth replying to in any meaningful way, hence why I did not.

When you manage to get any evidence for your conjectures, besides the self-reinforcing delusion, then by all means post it.

____________________________________________

Hence my self reinforcning delusion, is my delusion and why do you care so much about me posting it? To back up my claims? To put my money where my mouth is?

I don't care what you say, why do you care if your time is wasted?

What do you do, that is longer than life you live anyway right?

It is an easy thing to say your time is wasted when you can't get on the level and even bother to understand..

I am not having a go at you, it is just that you seem to shy away things you don't understand, by not trying to get on that level.

If something in life you can't understand, you would say "don't waste my time"..Wasting your time has nothing to do with it.. it is with you to take the next step and understand!!!!!

P.s If logic is formed under the concepts of time and space, and God or whatever is above that, then to get answers you need, you need to get onto that level... Is that not correct or what?



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 05-30-2006).]

I am, while I understand where your coming from,

your point being that G0D is completely absent in the midst of eternal mishap as such events are not as you suggested:

So then, what we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

but under mathematical and scheduled by the moment and such.....!?!!?11?!



I dunno,

if you say there is no God you arer ignoring dozens os of scripts dating before your family probably began so your a fucking idiot as far as im concerned.....

why are there so many gospels, as i call any script giving a informative document from the past wheather religuos or not as breing va;lid,

but hey/////1!111?1?1?!?!?!?/

quote:Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:

I am, while I understand where your coming from,

your point being that G0D is completely absent in the midst of eternal mishap as such events are not as you suggested:

So then, what we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

but under mathematical and scheduled by the moment and such.....!?!!?11?!



I dunno,

if you say there is no God you arer ignoring dozens os of scripts dating before your family probably began so your a fucking idiot as far as im concerned.....

why are there so many gospels, as i call any script giving a informative document from the past wheather religuos or not as breing va;lid,

but hey/////1!111?1?1?!?!?!?/



WTF?

Since when have books alone been proof of anything. I have several fanstasy books that are far longer than the bible combined , yet I don't claim these to be the truth.

Or perhaps I am. I claim that my books are real ,there are after all a lot of them. And they detai several people in them . And they say magic is real. If you deny my books you are fucking ignorant. All of these gospels of mine have no contradictions are them and are told from several standpoints ,all of which collaberate. I call this valid.

.... *sighs* Shoot them now.



Edit... Hold ON a minute ... This doesn't seem right ... Are you lampooning me. Your lampooning me!!

Fine , FINE , Thats IT I guess this is it , the end of the el dude bro-

Err... I got carried away there.

[This message has been edited by JesuitArtiste (edited 05-30-2006).]

Anitchirst wrote:

___________________________________________

if you say there is no God you arer ignoring dozens os of scripts dating before your family probably began so your a fucking idiot as far as im concerned.....

why are there so many gospels, as i call any script giving a informative document from the past wheather religuos or not as breing va;lid,

____________________________________________

If I am saying there is no God, then it means I am not choosing to be brainwashed by one of the religions all this control happens beneath...Do some research in what religion does to somebody..

There is no God, it is what you make up in your head. I don't need to attack you as I feel sorry for your ignorance.

To me it is egotistical to put God into a human figure like religions do, and instead of God loving, you become God fearing.. just like all the other Christians out there.

When you realise whatever happens in your life is from your own doing's and deep seeded emotions then you will become aware of the reality your in and make it better.

You are GOD! Learn to transcend time and space, you are not a body.........You are nothing but consciousness, realise that, and you will realise what I am talking about.



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 05-30-2006).]

Nothing but consciousness, sure.

Consciousness that is completely and utterly dependent on the brain, and the physical activity therein.

quote:Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:

I am, while I understand where your coming from,

your point being that G0D is completely absent in the midst of eternal mishap as such events are not as you suggested:

So then, what we're left with is that our God either:

A) Is malicious

B) Doesn't judge/condemn, or

C) Is nonexistent.

but under mathematical and scheduled by the moment and such.....!?!!?11?!



I dunno,

if you say there is no God you arer ignoring dozens os of scripts dating before your family probably began so your a fucking idiot as far as im concerned.....

why are there so many gospels, as i call any script giving a informative document from the past wheather religuos or not as breing va;lid,

but hey/////1!111?1?1?!?!?!?/





1) You didn't read/understand my original post.

2) Ad hominem.

Your logic is based on the assumption there is either one, or zero gods, when it is equally possible there is an infinitite number of gods, whaterver they may be. This is even more likely from a religous standpoint considering the jewish/christian/many others said do not worship any other gods before me, or something to that effect. How is one to say maybe one god is malicious, one is non-judgemental, and none of them are all powerful. How is one to say these gods are not people on a phycic level or some other odd paradox?

Heres anouther one to think about:

Ancient people did what we now consider drugs to communicate with gods. Maybe gods only show themselves to people who use certain chemicals to percieve them? Almost all original religion stems from this, possibley even christianity. Based on this logic assuming one or more gods exist, there would be an ever present god, or gods, if that is what you would like to call it, only percievable through use of certain plants and the chemicals they contain. This is not a new theory. Note I say theory and not scientific theory. Possibley the only scientific study on this would be something to the effect of the one conducted in the book : The spirit Molecule. It was about DMT, a chemical naturally in the human brain, used for thousands of years, and illegal in most countries.

It is a possibility, and I like to think of every possibility when thinking of such things, but with the scientific knowledge we know now, and from a logical standpoint, there is no proof of (A) or (B) or (C). Unless some shocking evidence comes up, reason dictates C.

Thats all I can ramble about for now.

My argument was concerned only with the traditional view of God.

If you think there are many Gods and none are judgemental, then again, there's no reason to worship. If you have many Gods and only one judges, he must be malicious because he has provided no way for us to know what he wants us to do. If all the Gods judge, then they must either be in agreement or opposed to each other. In the former case, they must be malicious because they, again, have provided no knowledge of our duties to us. If the latter is the case, then each individual is malicious..... I don't see how polytheism, in any way, defeats my argument.

AfterImag3 wrote:

____________________________________________

It was about DMT, a chemical naturally in the human brain, used for thousands of years, and illegal in most countries.

____________________________________________

The brain produces this naturally and the drug involved with near-death experiences.

GET OVER the whole GOD JUDGING US.

It really is getting old....GOD DOESN'T Judge us...... You are only PARANOID, because of your religious beliefs. You strive for perfectionalism to impress god, yet failure is inevitable. This failure turns to self hatred, but because you are not allowed to express it because of your family, society and it isn't seen normal. Hence you anger is repressed then furth more depressed away from conscious awareness.

Whatever is repressed has to be expressed somehow and it comes in the form of Self anger towards self turns onto self anger towards others. "the ego starts thinking, I will get you, before you get me" And eventually get hurt. Or a physical illness occurs because of this.

AND who do they turn back to to give them HOPE? They turn to GOD....THe very first person who got them their in the first place.

There is no GOD, there is a universal consciousness nothing else.

Please tell me you are smart enough to understand that and realise there is no God that judges, it is all created in your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

AfterImag3 wrote:

____________________________________________

It was about DMT, a chemical naturally in the human brain, used for thousands of years, and illegal in most countries.

____________________________________________

The brain produces this naturally and the drug involved with near-death experiences.



After that sentance your entire post has nothing to do with what I said. I said it was a possibility god(s) judging.

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

GET OVER the whole GOD JUDGING US.

It really is getting old....GOD DOESN'T Judge us...... You are only PARANOID, because of your religious beliefs. You strive for perfectionalism to impress god, yet failure is inevitable. This failure turns to self hatred, but because you are not allowed to express it because of your family, society and it isn't seen normal. Hence you anger is repressed then furth more depressed away from conscious awareness.

Whatever is repressed has to be expressed somehow and it comes in the form of Self anger towards self turns onto self anger towards others. "the ego starts thinking, I will get you, before you get me" And eventually get hurt. Or a physical illness occurs because of this.

AND who do they turn back to to give them HOPE? They turn to GOD....THe very first person who got them their in the first place.

There is no GOD, there is a universal consciousness nothing else.

Please tell me you are smart enough to understand that and realise there is no God that judges, it is all created in your head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I don't even have religous beliefs, you assume everything with out knowing what your talking about. You even spelled my name wrong in your post.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

My argument was concerned only with the traditional view of God.

If you think there are many Gods and none are judgemental, then again, there's no reason to worship. If you have many Gods and only one judges, he must be malicious because he has provided no way for us to know what he wants us to do. If all the Gods judge, then they must either be in agreement or opposed to each other. In the former case, they must be malicious because they, again, have provided no knowledge of our duties to us. If the latter is the case, then each individual is malicious..... I don't see how polytheism, in any way, defeats my argument.

What I am saying is that using your reason of predicting god's properties, this logic would not be true in a case of multiple gods, some of which are too weak to contact people. Those weak gods could be trying to contact people but be unable to do so often. (I would like to add I believe in none of this but all possibilities should be considered when talking about something as useless to argue about as god) So if god is too weak to contact earth this contradicts traditional views, but it would be a D possibility. The other possibility somewhat mentioned by realitycourse is universal consousness which is a much more likely, and it could be mistaken as god/gods. Then as he accused me of doing, although I am an athiest, people fill in their own religous beliefs to interpret things the way they choose, however far from the truth.

So your arguement would be challenged with either:

God is not all powerful and he can only contact earth so often.

God is really just universal consousness and people misinterpret it as god.

You arguement from a traditional christian standpoint is undefeated.

If God's power is limited in his capacity to judge, then this fits under B. If God's only limitation of power is his frequency of contact to the earth, he can still contact the earth, correct? Without being malevolent he would either use the times he does contact well enough to give us the knowledge that is necessary OR he would recognize his lack of ability to give us that knowledge and then not impass the judgement.... Unless the morality he imposes on our cultures is that which he judges based upon, and in this case it would still be pointless to worship.

All you need in that case is to function in our culture and abide by the law.

Would this seperate entity of consciousness judge us? Is the consciousness like our own, in that it holds the same concepts of morality? If the consciousness doesn't judge/condemn us, then we have B. If it does, it would have to judge us based upon the principles of morality, in which case (as shown above) it would still be pointless to worship.

---That was sort of an on the spot roughdraft so if there is a flaw, let me know! I'm enjoying the dialogue here, everyone. Thanks for all of your input.

Seperate entity lolz

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by realitycourse:

AfterImag3 wrote:

____________________________________________

It was about DMT, a chemical naturally in the human brain, used for thousands of years, and illegal in most countries.

____________________________________________

The brain produces this naturally and the drug involved with near-death experiences.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AfterImag3 wrote:

____________________________________________

After that sentance your entire post has nothing to do with what I said. I said it was a possibility god(s) judging.

____________________________________________

Yes I know it has nothing to do with what you said. I was just agreeing with you about the release of DMT. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Like I said at the start..If there isn't God So to speak, or a universal consciousness in which we all have the same consciousness...Then what does Judge us?

Then how do the laws of Karma work??????



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 05-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

Then what does Judge us?

Then how do the laws of Karma work??????

Uh, no one judges us, and when we die our conciousness just ceases to be?

Uh, karma is a bullshit concept created by mankind to make him feel better when bad things happen to good people?

quote: Originally posted by realitycourse: THERE IS NO BAD OR GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

Like I said at the start..If there isn't God So to speak, or a universal consciousness in which we all have the same consciousness...Then what does Judge us?

Then how do the laws of Karma work??????

If there is no distinction to be made between Bad and Good, why is Karma even necessary? Why is Judgement necessary?

These New-Age "Conscious Reality" religions should really make efforts at journaling their doctrines. Inconsistencies such as these are just entirely too easy to discredit.

There are some things that are bad for individuals and good for individuals.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by realitycourse: THERE IS NO BAD OR GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by realitycourse:

Like I said at the start..If there isn't God So to speak, or a universal consciousness in which we all have the same consciousness...Then what does Judge us?

Then how do the laws of Karma work??????

--------------------------------------------

AngryFemme wrote:

____________________________________________

If there is no distinction to be made between Bad and Good, why is Karma even necessary? Why is Judgement necessary?

These New-Age "Conscious Reality" religions should really make efforts at journaling their doctrines. Inconsistencies such as these are just entirely too easy to discredit.

__________________________________________

It isn't decrediting if I leave out information is it. All I am doing is just going with the flow as the questions roll out.

Should we go into the belief about the soul, which is surely beyond my scope of perception of what I understand. This is a journey inwards to find out truths like this out.

Say all there is, is awareness..All this individually created in what makes us feel individual. Is the soul part of that awareness or does it transcend it. There are other dimensions other than our 3d world, and what is all around us. It is a perception of the mind, that gets you there as we exist in it already.

So because souls may transcend the concepts bound by time and space in this reality, does it mean, it is the same for souls in their dimension.

So doesn't that mean there is one universal truth out there?

Then we go into the discussion about what goes around comes around, from one life to the next, that is if you believe you have a soul.

And the question to ponder is do we really choose our destiny or our lives all about fate.

What do you think about choosing your destiny or fate?



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 05-31-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

If God's power is limited in his capacity to judge, then this fits under B. If God's only limitation of power is his frequency of contact to the earth, he can still contact the earth, correct? Without being malevolent he would either use the times he does contact well enough to give us the knowledge that is necessary OR he would recognize his lack of ability to give us that knowledge and then not impass the judgement.... Unless the morality he imposes on our cultures is that which he judges based upon, and in this case it would still be pointless to worship.

All you need in that case is to function in our culture and abide by the law.

Would this seperate entity of consciousness judge us? Is the consciousness like our own, in that it holds the same concepts of morality? If the consciousness doesn't judge/condemn us, then we have B. If it does, it would have to judge us based upon the principles of morality, in which case (as shown above) it would still be pointless to worship.

---That was sort of an on the spot roughdraft so if there is a flaw, let me know! I'm enjoying the dialogue here, everyone. Thanks for all of your input.

My personal view is if god exists he has no concern over the actions of us tiny humans on this insignifigant little planet in a small solar system in a galaxy, just like any other, in a universe, one of an infinity, if our friend steven hawkings is correct.

realitycourse:

Your reply did not address my question at all. To reiterate:

If there is no distinction to be made between Bad and Good, why is Karma even necessary? Why is Judgement necessary?

quote: Originally posted by realitycourse

Should we go into the belief about the soul

Let's not, and say we did. The conversation would just become circular, as you are a dualist and I am a materialist, and ... well, it's just been done before. I'll pass.

Angryfemme wrote:

_________________________________________

realitycourse:

Your reply did not address my question at all. To reiterate:

If there is no distinction to be made between Bad and Good, why is Karma even necessary? Why is Judgement necessary?

___________________________________________

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by realitycourse

Should we go into the belief about the soul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's not, and say we did. The conversation would just become circular, as you are a dualist and I am a materialist, and ... well, it's just been done before. I'll pass.

____________________________________________

I personally don't believe in Karma, but there must be a universal truth, that balances itself out.

The reason why I asked you whether or not you believed in a soul was because of the point in choosing your own destiny or believing in fate. Why does this even make a difference? Because if you believe in fate, then why is your life predetermined, and what you did in a previous life does it effect, your life now?

By the way I am just providing another perspective, and in your opinion or judgement it doesn't have to be right or wrong, because when we talk about this anything can be right or wrong on a varying ratio between.



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 06-05-2006).]

quote:God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.

-- Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman, "Good Omens"

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

Because if you believe in fate, then why is your life predetermined, and what you did in a previous life does it effect, your life now?

What kind of processing system would it take to pre-determine the lives of every single sentient being? Would it run on full automata, evenly doling out the good/bad experience "situations" so that when judgement falls, All Is Right And Just in the end? I can't accept that it just magically works out correctly each go-round, like some kind of divine algorithmic computation, because why would the process find it necessary to keep repeating it through reincarnation? All the lives a reincarnated consciousness would take on would seem like several different answers to just one "problem". Why all the unnecessary complexity? What is the processor's goal if the action plan is in recycling the same consciousness over and over again?

If a certain measure of omniscience has to be considered in order for karma to be possible, why does it hold such a sadistic bent of intention to it? If all this was pre-scripted, why would human beings have the desire to probe their own states of consciousness, since having any effect on it would be impossible? If we're just not meant to "be in the know" about our alleged fate, why would the system design a feature that gives it's machine the mechanism (thought) needed to potentially damage the very core of it's main "program"? Why give the illusion of free will? More importantly - why give a human a glimmer of enlightenment and knowledge when ultimately, they can't alter or change their own destiny? Afterall - it has already been decided. There, in my opinion, lies the sadistic bent to it.

The task of making sure everything just "balances out" would require a great deal of intervention from this mysterious force, and would essentially reduce our existence to that of a computer program. That is usually a very strong analogy for our brains and consciousness, but not in this case - we're contemplating Good and Evil, baffling on about our existence, and also waxing dogmatic by assigning a creator (god symbol, the processor ) that somehow has the power to embody and manipulate the Universe, it's ultimate goal being to make damn sure that what comes around, goes around.

The big question here is: If the processor/creator and it's karmic check-and-balance program is what determines the direction of our lives, what would the purpose be, if any? That golden query could never be answered without relying on some kind of mystical element that comes from beyond our Universe, outside of our scope of comprehension, and magically unobservable to the programmed beings it created. If we were designed to probe our own consciousness and eventually, through self-awareness and enlightenment, realize our "place in the Universe"... isn't it a bit fiendish and perverse of our designers to require us to BELIEVE we're in control, when in actuality, we're just sock-puppet characters in someone else's play?

Souls transcending... Reincarnation... Alternate states of consciousness bestowed on us by a force that has the power and the might to see to it that justice is served...

My current belief system demands that these theories be de-mystified before they can be taken seriously.

I like breasts.

And the relevance of your liking breasts is...??

*obligatory drumroll*

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:

And the relevance of your liking breasts is...??

*obligatory drumroll*

It was a joke on the topic title "My new Perspective" the joke was somewhat intricate as it would imply that is a New perspective and...well, I entertain myself. lol

Angryfemme wrote:

____________________________________________

If we were designed to probe our own consciousness and eventually, through self-awareness and enlightenment, realize our "place in the Universe"... isn't it a bit fiendish and perverse of our designers to require us to BELIEVE we're in control, when in actuality, we're just sock-puppet characters in someone else's play?

____________________________________________

Yes sort of like Plato’s cave allegory where he speaks about Idealism back in 360BC. It is where prisoners are in an underground grave with a fire behind them, bound so they can see only the shadows on the wall in front of them, cast by puppets and manipulated behind them. They think that this is all there is to see; if released from their bonds and forced to turn around to the fire and the puppets, they become bewildered and are happier left in their original state. They are even angry with anyone who tries to tell them how pitiful their position is. Only a few can bear to realise that the shadows are only shows cast by the puppets; and they begin the journey of liberation that leads past the fire and right out of the cave into the real world. At first they are dazzled there, and can bear to see real objects only in reflection and indirectly, but then they look at them directly in the light of the sun, and can even look at the sun itself.

This allegory is related to idealism in the following way. The shadows of the puppets that the prisoners are watching represent their taking over in unreflective fashion, the second hand opinions and beliefs that are given to them by parents society and religion. The puppets themselves represent the mechanical, unreasoning minds of the prisoners. The light of the fire within the cave provides only partial distorted illumination from the imprisoned intellects. Liberation begins when the few who turn around get up and go out of the cave. Outside the cave they real objects are those in the transcendental realm. In order to see them, the light of the sun, which represents pure reason is necessary.



When you become the observer of your reality which transcends time and space, then you are not held down to polar opposites, and are free to choose whether or not you accept something or not as either being welcome in your reality, or not welcome. And those that "aren't" welcome then a thought isn't attached to the experience at all therefore, no emotions to feel if you choose not to.

For example the Chinese yin/yang symbol is a striking representation of duality. It graphically shows how Wholeness (the outer circle) appears to be broken into the two polar opposites. Yin (dark) and yang (light). Each part contains the seed (a small dot) of the other part, representing the ease with which yin/yang can change into yang/yin. The boundary line between the two represents conflict, while Wholeness Itself is never disturbed by any appearances within it.



The statement of nonduality is that Consciousness is all that there is. There is neither duality nor nonduality in Consciousness, since both are nothing but concepts. Good/Evil, negative/positive God/Devil are all but concepts that aren’t real. This means Consciousness cannot be objectified—rather it is transcendent to all objectification. Consciousness includes all existence, all absence of existence and all that transcends both existence and non existence. In otherwords it is the Universal Mind/Consciousness that is running through you. That is the only thing that is real. Everything else is made up from the illusion of your mind and ego, by finding the need to having duality in everything.

EQ wrote:

____________________________________________

What we experience here in our waking life, and what we would be experiencing as well in our dormant states if we could use the senses we associate ourselves with, is not only half the picture, its the *bottom* half of the picture!

Our sensory reality is a theatre who's inhabitants are the actors (or an even better description, although i don't like the concept the term implies, is puppets). Who is the audience? They are the same as those who are the stagemasters, the stagehands and especially the hands of those controlling the movements of the puppets. They are ourselves. Our mirror selves. When we lower ourselves into these deep states of meditation, we connect more closely to the versions of ourselves that, to stay true to the metaphor, are "pulling the strings" . When we sleep we become these versions of ourselves, wholly, forgetting about the strings and flying freely in the true sea of infinite reality. When we awaken we slide back down the strings back into the frames of the puppets in order to act out another scene of the play.

BUT it is when we fall asleep that we have our chance. Because when we go to sleep, or near it, we climb the strings to ourselves and pass through a portal where the stream of mass, infinite consciousness resides. This is where the script of the play is. If we want to change the script, we have to do it here. If, rather than falling totally asleep, we hold ourselves here, in the place where we are just as much the puppets as the puppeteers, where we have the power to change the scripts, and in so doing, redirect the movements of the puppets, we can find the place where the program can be activated. Go any further and we will lose our sense of the importance of the play, because our souls are always free, we are not meant to be bound to the limitations of finite reality forever. Only until we learn to break its bounds. And this is how we can do it.

When we reach the event horizon of the mirror between our "underselves" and "overselves", we become whole, and when we are whole, we have the power to effect change well beyond ourselves. This is why effecting change to only ourselves can be so effective, as effective, as stated before, as our current immersion into the realities we have forged up until now will allow.

If we have forged a reality that deeply confines us, where we are hardly able to exert any free will, then it is sad to say that it may take some time to struggle and free ourselves from the shackles of the lower realm in which we are not even aware of the real play happening behind the scenes, the play of energy and of light and darkness. If it were only possible to shut off certain senses and focus on others, this would become very evident. If reality existing only in terms of the sixth sense, even for only a moment, we would all come to this realization, with its full impact, instantaneously. The deeper we engrain our mindsets into the world being a "certain way", the more it truly is that way, for us.

In so doing we sway our individual reality macroscopically and the reality of mass consciousness microscopically. But if those microscopic beliefs add up, they can make incredible influence over everything, no matter what the belief.

____________________________________________

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

I like breasts.

Me too,

this is very silly.

realitycourse:

I can't deny that you are not able to tap into this "sixth sense" by transcending what you perceive to be time, space, and "this realm". The mere testament of these experiences recanted by you to us (the reading audience, or more specifically, those of us who have never experienced the mental phenomena you have) indicates that you feel that on some level, we can all not only partake in this exercise ourselves, but actually draw the same conclusion of it with the help of a little goading and education by a fellow-perceiver who is quite certain that it is possible that these experiences be available to everyone, if only they try.

These things you describe, the portals we pass through and the mental obstacles of being attached to the Self that are overcome when one permits their minds to fall into a dreamlike state of lucidity - even the metaphorical "mirroring" that takes place - they are just representations of YOUR qualia, properties of YOUR mental phenomena that must be dependent on several other differentiating factors that can only be described as a compilation of all YOUR prior experiences up to this point.

Testifying about it in order to explain your view of the Universe and your place in it is noble, and should be continued. It may be the most efficient way of us getting to know who you are as an individual, and possibly the only way to be able to know "what it's like to be realitycourse, for a fleeting moment. However, you cannot honestly believe that without heavy suggestion, mimicking and comparative analysis based on an already pre-defined set of "rules" and agreed-upon metaphors, that we'd all come to have the same experience.

Dan Dennett illustrates it nicely:

So, to summarize the tradition (of effecting to others what goes on in our mental states), qualia are supposed to be properties of a subject's mental states that are

(1) ineffable

(2) intrinsic

(3) private

(4) directly or immediately apprehensible in consciousness

And even boldly goes so far as to attack the very nature of qualia itself in this article:

http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/quinqual.htm

Again, I can appreciate (and even enjoy reading) your testament to the experiences you describe, but it would read far better, be more honestly presented, and would seem less patronizing to us poor, un-enlightened individuals if you would replace all the "you's" with "I's", and stop insinuating that this mental state is something that the rest of us are blindly "missing out on". Include in your observations the fact that to different people, the conscious translation of similar experiences is going to appear quite differently than your own.

In short, don't feel so special.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Loved the link you provided us with.

Angry Femme wrote:

___________________________________________

The mere testament of these experiences recanted by you to us (the reading audience, or more specifically, those of us who have never experienced the mental phenomena you have) indicates that you feel that on some level, we can all not only partake in this exercise ourselves, but actually draw the same conclusion of it with the help of a little goading and education by a fellow-perceiver who is quite certain that it is possible that these experiences be available to everyone, if only they try.

__________________________________________

Angryfemme, anyone can partake in this exercise themself, and come to the same conclusion. Anyone can reach this way of perception. I am not saying this way of perception is better or worse, all I am saying is that there is no polar opposites that cause conflict or negativity.



The evolution of humans-Nonduality living. http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/004202.html

The SSUN Project is currently divided into 3 workshops.

1) The Infinity Breathing Technique - Accessing the Void



2) The Automation installer - Keeping your mind clear and free



3) Blurring the line between Fiction and Non-Fiction - The Portal Across the Dimensional Shift Itself

quote:Originally posted by Anti Christ Super Star:

Me too,

this is very silly.

You got it!

I spent a good part of my evening reading the entire SSun Project thread and even watched the trailers for "Down the Rabbit Hole".

This is what I surmised of it, please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. The workshops consist of exercises meant to lead an individual into discovering not two, but three selves: present self, post-future self, and evaluator self

2. It is the ultimate solution on how to "disappear from this reality".

3. This future self not only has the ability to affect and improve upon the present self, but it can even go so far as to direct how the present self will react!

4. Eventually, participants will hit full automata, and it will take less effort to perceive the Universe around us, as the "Shift" becomes more apparent (and as we humans become more lucid).

Is that a fair, if not loosely-assembled set of assumptions based on your testament?

Here are my questions:

1. 2012 is mentioned at least 10 times. What is the significance of that year?

2. Why is the 3rd Workshop contingent on group participation?

3. Would you consider it a Religion?

4. Are there any serious repercussions for NOT choosing this path?

if not:

5. Then isn't it really just a shared mass-hallucination brought about by hypnosis?

[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 06-05-2006).]

I do agree with the OP.

However...

I would say if God exists he is beyond the comprehension of human beings using "logic" or "mathmatics" to describe character and being.

Either the force governing the entire universe ensuring existence and present in everything, describable only as "the peak" of life. Such a "god" would imo, feel and be so beyond the warped and weak minds of religious people, and yet would be one and the same, it's hard to explain.

I guess on mushrooms and things i definatly felt the presence of life force and nature, penetrating my very soul, that feeling of exquisite bliss. I personally would be content if that is just "me", but i don't rule out the posibility of a god far beyond what humans make out.

AngryFemme Wrote:

____________________________________________

Here are my questions:

1. 2012 is mentioned at least 10 times. What is the significance of that year?

2. Why is the 3rd Workshop contingent on group participation?

3. Would you consider it a Religion?

4. Are there any serious repercussions for NOT choosing this path?

if not:

5. Then isn't it really just a shared mass-hallucination brought about by hypnosis?

____________________________________________



EQ Wrote:

1) 2012 is completely insignificant. I will say it straight out. Why? Because as of right, right now, nothing is going to happen that year. Nothing at all. Why might it *become* of significance (because that is a much more accurate way of looking at it) is as follows:

As of right now, the actions of people who are planning big things, such as myself, have not happened yet. It is in our actions, communications, thoughts, everything we do as we chart our way into the "future", has a reverse magnetic effect on major breaking points such as the one that 2012 represents. Actually, even more accurately, it is the *acceleration* of this course of events that allows major breaking points to be "pulled" closer towards us from the future. Suppose some of us were to give up and do nothing... 2012 would maybe then happen in 2015, or 2020, but it is the fact that when we fully make the transition, and are quite sure now that we will never give up, that we become "anchors" that ensure that this breaking point is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Does this make sense? As more people become "sure" and donate their undying and unfading efforts to the cause, the acceleration/magnetism becomes stronger and the breaking point becomes more assurably, in the gauging of probable futures, located around the period of time the "prophets" can see ahead as to it being located. When it gets close to the time, it will have more to do with working with everything at our disposal to actually create the event, or chain of linked events, that make that breaking point what it actually ends up being.

As to what actually happens, I would say its good to be getting into the project and such things before worrying too much about it. It could be described quite intensely but it should never be perceived this way - it is a simple and inevitable point that just represents the global overturning onto this type of understanding. How it ends up physically and sensorally manifesting itself is of far less importance (although it will still be quite fun indeed).

2) That's a funny question! 1) helps partially answer that, but just to elaborate more specifically to this exact question - the 3rd workshop is actually contigent on nothing - I can experience dreamtime completely right now, but in doing so, I am in a sense "shutting myself off" from those who are, for whatever reason, nowhere close to it just yet. People who are close you can share glimpses of dreamtime with, but it is only with others fully experiencing it themselves that dreamtime starts to become just as real as it seems, well, dreamy! When a working understanding of dreamtime is achieved, this question sort of answers itself. The more people participating and exchanging energy with each other, the more vivid all of our experiences of dreamtime becomes when interacting with one another!

Dreamtime can seem pretty magical alone, but the real magic is only felt when you share it with others you are closely connected to... especially soulmates and such things. It is pure magic.

3) No, it is nothing like a religion at all. A religion seems to need to attach followers to itself, keep them in a routine of weekly service etc. This type of spirituality works in a somewhat practical, and then celebratory, sense. There is only the intention of passively offering a single interpretation of the perceived "truth", but as more people share their angles, the truth becomes more universal and easy to share. I mean, a good example is that as much as I have tried to work on this project here, share what I have came to learn in the least biased and impure sense, with the best light on it possible (I mostly just want it to seem really really normal), I still have only managed to engage a few participants like Wizard and you, Evan.

I have no way of knowing what other people think of the material presented here, since they are not interested and will not post they are not interested, confused and will not post they are not confused, or perhaps taken a little aback and do not know what to post, aside from the occasional encouragement that is appreciated more than they think I am sure! The whole project is right now contigent on group participation so that we can troubleshoot the necessary shortcomings that come with such a broad, universal truth only being described from one, two, or three perspectives! We would need many more perspectives for the refinement to really get going.

Regardless, we are luckily pretty well at the point we can boil this stuff down into a course form that makes it appear the best way it could - a simple but extremely powerful meditation course that bleeds over into waking life.

4) - again, I am so glad to have this kind of skepticism posted in the thread, because it really helps to shed light on the way I *really want* it to be looked at. The way I am describing it just represents one angle to a much much broader path, I can't possibly hope to describe the whole path alone. It is not something that can be even really looked at as an option among many paths, because just how universal it is should become apparent when more people click and can share their "after-the-fact" perspectives to complement the one I have already posted. In fact, there is only really one alternative to the path, and we can see it everywhere in the world right now - just to shut so many things out, to become oblivious and to focus exclusively on the "cold, hard, tangible" aspects of reality like making alot of money without necessarily knowing what to do with it, having impressive physical objects in one's possession that may or may not even have a practical or aesthetic purpose... etc.

The paths are seemingly just: to care, or not to care. The only serious repurcussions I can see to chosing to not care is that one might feel silly in a little while when they have suddenly become the minority. There will be no "judgement day", or any ridiculous thing like that, it would just feel like perhaps that "oh geez, i might as well have done it right from the get-go!".

I feel that it is a good enough idea to be an early bird... remember, one can make the transition without necessarily immediately having to help further the cause. This is what I meant before in saying that it isn't a religion - it's perfectly ok for people to just learn the information and go back to their reality, looking at it all completely differently, and do more afterwards than to be a passive part of a growing group of people that really have no leader.

I would never become a leader of something like this in the "old sense", it makes no sense! No one is better or more suited to be an ambassador for this information than anyone else, in fact, it needs the perspectives of as many different people as possible for it to really hold any tangible weight. But for those who just want to know of it and remain passive, no one is going to hold it against them.

I believe that everyone should have an active portion or aspect to their lives, but for many, even upon knowing this information, it will not necessarily be their role to help further the spreading of the information, maybe they would be meant to carry on doing exactly what they were already doing beforehand, except in a whole new light!

5) I don't know what more I can add in answer to 5, but it is important to note that there is no hypnosis happening at any point in time during the project! We use the deepest mental state to try to detach ourselves from the former perception of ego, and we use a relaxed mental state to help engrain the sense of automation that will necessarily in turn enhance the surreality of the world around us as we continue to sink day by day further into dreamtime. It is important enough though to reiterate here that we are not *entering* into a mass-hallucination by doing this, but "awakening" from the part of our reality (not all of it was) that was the real mass-hallucination - the ever-so-deeply engrained notion that all things negative are a necessary part of life. It's so deeply engrained that many will never yet believe that that is something that is possible to wake up from (even though a better description is that we are "falling further asleep" from it), but that's ok, this is a thing that is slow to get going, and it is only once it gets going with the people closer to it that the people further from it will start to pull out just a little bit and get to know who they really are a little better before starting to come to terms with the information.

It is fairly important to know who *you* really are before absorbing this information - another thing that is hard to believe is that there is no need to "fear" anything necessarily after this information, so if you still fear any part of yourself, you need to get rid of that fear before you can ever fear nothing at all.

Many things change that are hard to believe, but they change under the simplest circumstances.

quote:Originally posted by realitycourse:

AngryFemme Wrote:

____________________________________________

Here are my questions:

1. 2012 is mentioned at least 10 times. What is the significance of that year?

2. Why is the 3rd Workshop contingent on group participation?

3. Would you consider it a Religion?

4. Are there any serious repercussions for NOT choosing this path?

if not:

5. Then isn't it really just a shared mass-hallucination brought about by hypnosis?

____________________________________________



EQ Wrote:

1) 2012 is completely insignificant. I will say it straight out. Why? Because as of right, right now, nothing is going to happen that year. Nothing at all. Why might it *become* of significance (because that is a much more accurate way of looking at it) is as follows:

As of right now, the actions of people who are planning big things, such as myself, have not happened yet. It is in our actions, communications, thoughts, everything we do as we chart our way into the "future", has a reverse magnetic effect on major breaking points such as the one that 2012 represents. Actually, even more accurately, it is the *acceleration* of this course of events that allows major breaking points to be "pulled" closer towards us from the future. Suppose some of us were to give up and do nothing... 2012 would maybe then happen in 2015, or 2020, but it is the fact that when we fully make the transition, and are quite sure now that we will never give up, that we become "anchors" that ensure that this breaking point is going to happen sooner rather than later.

Does this make sense? As more people become "sure" and donate their undying and unfading efforts to the cause, the acceleration/magnetism becomes stronger and the breaking point becomes more assurably, in the gauging of probable futures, located around the period of time the "prophets" can see ahead as to it being located. When it gets close to the time, it will have more to do with working with everything at our disposal to actually create the event, or chain of linked events, that make that breaking point what it actually ends up being.

As to what actually happens, I would say its good to be getting into the project and such things before worrying too much about it. It could be described quite intensely but it should never be perceived this way - it is a simple and inevitable point that just represents the global overturning onto this type of understanding. How it ends up physically and sensorally manifesting itself is of far less importance (although it will still be quite fun indeed).



2012 is also when the Aztec Calender ends and is thought by some as the end of the World.

Abrahim, the 6th Mayan calender is blank, which may mean it is up for us to create our own realities. Is it the end of a old perception? A new beginning in that way. Who knows, life is what you make of it.



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 06-08-2006).]

realitycourse - who is EQ? EQ - who is realitycourse? Just to further clarify things, please.

quote:Does this make sense? As more people become "sure" and donate their undying and unfading efforts to the cause, the acceleration/magnetism becomes stronger and the breaking point becomes more assurably, in the gauging of probable futures, located around the period of time the "prophets" can see ahead as to it being located. When it gets close to the time, it will have more to do with working with everything at our disposal to actually create the event, or chain of linked events, that make that breaking point what it actually ends up being.

It requires followers, the "faithful" and unquestioning, to participate with enough mass-hysteria and congealed school of thought in order to come to fruition as an event. It's very essence of potentially existing is reliant upon the amount of people it's teachings infect. The more minds, the merrier - right? The bigger the witness, the larger the perceived "effect".

quote:For those of you who are able to picture themselves in the future there is another fictional entity of yourself called your higher self. Your higher self which exists outside linear time, and is the observer in this entire process of viewing your present self try to catch up with your future self by creating “opportunities” and “coincidences”.

But what (if any) benefits could this fictional "higher self" AS A MERE OBSERVER bring to the present self, the You Who Is Sitting Here Reading This Thread self? Does it offer tips and advice, or throw caution and warning? Does it give an edge to the deliberation of your actions? And more importantly... why can't this exist for individuals alone? Why does it have to be a group effort?

quote:The whole project is right now contigent on group participation

That answered question #2 clearly, and I thank you. It reaffirms that this time-traveling event can only be experienced by people who perceive this (your words) dream-like state and imagines in earnest their (again, your words) fictional Higher Selves. It does not, however, explain WHY it relies on this group momentum, other than the obvious reason - because it is meant to be a sort of mass-hallucination/mass-belief system that is fueled solely on the number of minds who accept it. In this sense, it seems very cult-like.

quote:We use the deepest mental state to try to detach ourselves from the former perception of ego, and we use a relaxed mental state to help engrain the sense of automation that will necessarily in turn enhance the surreality of the world around us as we continue to sink day by day further into dreamtime.

The magical, time-warped, dream-like state sounds really, really similar in nature to psychoanalysis therapy, which is by definition:

The method of psychological therapy originated by Sigmund Freud in which free association, dream interpretation, and analysis of resistance and transference are used to explore repressed or unconscious impulses, anxieties, and internal conflicts, in order to free psychic energy for mature love and work.

As a skeptic, I can't believe in the promise of time-warping and altered states of reality, but as a human being, I can applaud you for encouraging others to look within themselves and visualize the kind of person they want to be. I just don't think all the excess fluff is necessary, even if it does make it seem more *magical*. Let's not further delude those who are seeking to find betterment in themselves by suggesting to them that the only way this is truly possible is through this "shift" you envision for mankind.

Last contradiction to point out:

quote:3) No, it is nothing like a religion at all. A religion seems to need to attach followers to itself, keep them in a routine of weekly service etc.

(Taken from 'the evolutions of humans-nonduality living' thread):

quote:Spirituality and science will be seamlessly bound together, just as prophecized in Ray Kurzweil's "Age of Spiritual Machines". The creation of a new religion, again as prophecized in the book, will come to be.

Again - kudos to you for suggesting to people that they try to seek betterment in themselves, but couldn't it be better if they did so without all the Time Travel mumbo-jumbo?

quote:As to what actually happens, I would say its good to be getting into the project and such things before worrying too much about it.

That requires a HUGE leap of blind faith, wouldn't you agree? Requiring people to partake in an activity without considering "what actually happens" is asking alot, IMO.

Last question regarding the "shift", directed at EQ :

If, like you say, our future selves are able to somehow interact with our present selves, helping us along the way ... what is it that propels the future selves? Is there an even higher being or force that somehow pushes the process along? What happens when the present self expires, through death? Does the future self get extinguished as well?

Thankyou for the interest AngryFemme. My name is Evan, and EQ is a friend who devised the project.

The reasons why group effort is needed because we would love everyones perspectives who is interested that is, on their feedback in relation to "their" experiences and questions, so it can be turned into a course that can be read from a to z without question. There are only few people involved so we don't know what others think about the project, but encourage more to try for this very reason.

One thing that I should point out is people are visualising goals everyday.

So the person they see reaching their goals is their future-self.

The person who is actually watching their future-self reach these goals is their higher-self.

People step outside of themselves like this all the time. But what the project tries to teach is live from that 3rd person view all the time and choose when it is desired to live from that 1st person view. (So what you are doing is acting on your futures behalf rather than reacting from the present.)

All around you there are opportunities and coincidences to be created from the higher-self and by living from the "observer" point of view your present-self is free to choose what path you want to take.

By observing and floating around in potential evaluation, you save energy through having no opinions or judgements on anything unless you feel it is a choice point that you can use to get to your goal quicker. This energy saved by your present-self, is passed to the higher-self to create more opportunities and coincidences. (If interested feel free to read Workshop 2, as it explains the process better than I can)

Knowing your goals, your future-self gives energy and motivation to your present-self to reach there even quicker. By imagining your future-self with this ideal in your mind already activated, it means your future-self must already have an abundance of energy that gets passed directly onto your present-self.

So the cycle of energy begins.

This sort of perception doesn't know the meanings of hate, anger, fear. Isn't that what is wrong in the world? By eliminating those elements the world would be a greater place to live in.

The reason I am posting this project here because I have always been a true sceptic I was 100% open minded and didn't really believe anything, until I actually tried it.

Sure, sure. It is easy for me to say that because you don't know me and my opinion isn't worth anything to you. So all I did was absorb the information, and try out the exercises. What is the harm right?

"Wow, it actually works, and is extremely powerful"

There is no right or wrong way to live your life, it is just another perspective that once experienced, there seems no reason to go back. The more you read the project, the more it will make sense as, the information needs to be refined through as many people as possible so it is clear for everyone.



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 06-08-2006).]

Thanks for answering all my questions and humoring me as a skeptic.

I'd try anything, once. Unfortunately, I can't seem to be able to meditate effectively, and no one has ever been able to really assist me in that. PWNED! by my own skepticism.

I was just wondering what you guys thought of the scientific side of things. I am a big fan of physics and cosmology, but in both of those fields there is something that is almost unexplainable. In physics you have to deal with the number phi and no I am not taking this directly from the Da Vinci Code, it is a truth in physics. There is also the first law of thermodinamics to deal with: Energy cannot be created or destroyed and the energy to matter ratio in the universe is always constant. In cosmology you have to deal with the existance of the universe. Therefore there is also the precision of the cosmological constant. There is almost nothing against the universe having a biggining, if there is please inform me, so now people have to deal with how something came out of nothing. In biology as well I have been noting certain oddities such as the sperm cell and the flagellum, both are built like actual machines and the probability of them coming together randomly is phenomenal. These are just some major issues I am dealing with concerning the whole existance of God theory, because in order to know God's traits it seems to me that you have to establish if there is a God. Your thoughts are much appreciated.

quote:Originally posted by AngryFemme:



Unfortunately, I can't seem to be able to meditate effectively





Same here. Is there anyone here who can help us? I've tried and I feel like.. my mind already is blank. I can't sit there for a long period of time though, and my focus isn't really sharpened, as is supposed to happen when your mind is cleared, it simply is.. gone. :s That's generally what happens. Sometimes I have trouble getting to the blank though.

Can anyone help?

quote:Originally posted by Iam:



Can anyone help?

Meditation is only difficult if you believe it is difficult. There are many forms and styles in which one can meditate. Some do it in a form of excercise such as Yoga positions or Muslim prayer or literal physical excercise. Others do it as simply relaxing and thinking, either sitting or lying down. Others attempt to "think no thoughts" this is impossible and causes a conflict and people usually find it uncomfortable to try. Others breath deeply and begin to relax and some fall asleep.

Others meditate through repeating some words or a mantra to enter into a kind of meditative trance.

Another way of thinking of meditation is coming to peace with everything, your environment, yourself, relaxing, letting go, and being humble. Taking a moment to ponder, to think, to wonder, to relax, to sleep.

You can meditate with your eyes opened or closed, sitting standing prostrate or sleeping. On your knees, on your butt, on your hands, anything.

Its finding internal peace and comfort, opening ones mind rather than closing it down.

Meditation can be performed anywhere.

You can meditate in the middle of chaos or in the serene beauty of a quiet place.

You might like to try sitting in a quiet room, shutting your eyes, you can lie down, breath slow, relaxed, deep breaths that are comfortable, and think whatever thoughts come to your mind, and dont resist any thoughts, let it all flow. Meditation is Surrender.

quote:Originally posted by Iam:

Is there anyone here who can help us? I've tried and I feel like.. my mind already is blank.

I've tried (with much tutelage), but can only get to the point of easy return where I am just on the cusp of "blanking out" - but then fleeting thoughts run rampant and take over. I am most positive that I am infected with malicious memes that refuse to become subordinate to the state of meditation.

Part of me is convinced that this "handicap" is somehow befitting to the state of mind I so thoroughly enjoy ... one that is inaccessible to suggestion outside of the "control panel" that I call 'me'.

But then that hypothesis is rendered null and void when you consider memetics as a science, and come to the realization that our "thoughts" are just units of information that propagate themselves independently of us, with their own survival trumping that of it's "host" (that would be us).

Although that might sound unappealing to most people, that our thoughts are mere survival races for the most "fit" memes and our consciousness a slave to this process - consider the difficulty of getting a song out of your head that continually pops up for no reason. Consider trends, philosophies, and "catch phrases" that quickly hop from mind to mind, gaining momentum by counting on the fact that it's survival is contingent on how much we spread it around to others. Consider Totse as a giant meme-plex where the premise is to infect mind after mind with information that will be passed on to others. It makes sense when you consider that the sheer SURVIVAL of these units of information rely 100% on being replicated (copied) from mind to mind. It's very, very similar to the evolutionary process genes have.

This theory reinforces my belief in the non-duality of consciousness. It makes my immaterial, ethereal "Self" seem less mysterious and more of a compilation of all the thoughts that make up my belief system. It dispels the Ghost in the Machine, and gives an actual purpose and clear picture of WHY this illusion of Self is so important to feeling in control of my thoughts.

To me, the real challenge isn't in meditation, but in recognizing the factors by which my thoughts actually FORM ... where they come from, why I "choose" to focus on one train of thought and voice my convictions on them. From that large pool of available information, there must be an innate force that makes possible the selection of certain ideas above others. Is it ME at the helm, driving this force, or is it just an illusion that I am in control?

Good reading material on this is:

The Electric Meme by Robert Aunger.

I will soon sit down and attempt to meditate, only to be disrupted by some trivial, meaningless song lyric or musical jingle. It could be caused by a song I heard in the car on my way home today, or a childhood rhyme drudged up deep from within my memories, or a snippet of a television commercial I just happened to accidentally absorb while channel-surfing earlier. Who or what is really in control here?

Iam, here is where I am convinced there is an upshot to us being unable to meditate:

If non-thought is an unreachable goal, if "total surrender" is an impossibility to OUR informational-dependent noggins ... look at it as a doorway that cannot be pried open long enough for subtle suggestion of others to sneak in and infect our minds with. Perhaps our unwitting "closed-door policy" is just a security precaution put in place by our already existing memes, there to safeguard any ideas already anchored in.

Does this make us close-minded, as individuals? I think not. I don't even look at it as us being unable to relinquish control - I look at it as us being "immunized" from stray thoughts that might disrupt our WAKING focus, the only real focus we could truly claim as being OURS, in it's own rite.

Edit: Forgot to add a supportive, interesting link:

http://www.memes.org.uk/extracts/SBOct1998Ch1.html



[This message has been edited by AngryFemme (edited 06-09-2006).]

Here is how I have learnt to meditate

There are four brain levels.

Beta: (awake state)



Alpha: (Start of Subconscious mind What your like when your relaxed or watching TV, or daydreaming.)

Theta: (Deep Subconscious mind, Access through sleep or meditation or sleep)

Delta: (Unconscious mind, Access through sleep or meditation, or anaesthesia)

(More on those brain levels later though.)

1) Complete physical relaxion is the key to entering deeper mind levels. So you should remember that you have no tight clothing on, or any external sounds, that will hinder you from concentrating. However if a mowing lawn mower or clutter noise outside is impossible to escape from use the following phrase:

"External noises do not bother me, infact they help me focus deeper within myself. Each time I hear these noises my mind gets deeper and deeper, my body get lighter and lighter until I am completely relaxed."

If you are having trouble physically relaxing try the below technique.

Take a deep breath and let it out slowly. Do that a few times and then take a deep breath and tighten your feet and lower legs. Make them really tight and then with the exhale release the tension. Do that a couple of times, then work your way up your entire body.

feet and lower legs

thighs and lower torso

upper torso & back

arms and hands

neck, shoulders and head

Then tighten the entire body 1/2 strength and release. This should put you into a nice state of relaxation. When you a physically relaxed then you are ready to move onto number 2.

2) It needs to be realised that forcing yourself to meditate will not work. YOU NEED TO LET GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a nice little story:

___________________________________________

A guy wants to learn karate. He seeks out the greatest karate master in his country. he approaches the master and explains how he really wants to learn karate and the master is pleased. The guy asks the master how long will it take to get really good at karate? the master says 10 years. The guy

thinks for a bit and says what if i try really hard? the master says it would then take 20 years. The guy says what if i TRY really, really hard? the mast says 30 years........

____________________________________________

The act of trying negates itself. Sometimes you just need to let go and let the waters take you where they are most comfortable flowing toward. Sometimes when you want to control something you are acting from a more intellectual frame of mind. This needs to be set free, let go, put aside. As you know theta is much more abstract and non linear. Logic/intellect is really only needed in very small doses to keep you focused and to make sense of what has happened when you get back to alpha/beta. When you can let go and PLAY with the experience you can start to understand the rules. When you understand the rules you can later break them and/or bend them One rule that comes to mind is to always be thankful for whatever experience you have this saves you a seat on the next trip to higher vibratory experiences.

3) Now with your body fully relaxed it is now time to concentrate on your breathing. It doesn't matter what breathing method you use. I personally when I do it is like this:

Deep inhale for: 6 counts

Hold Breath for: 4 counts

Exhale for: 6 counts

After getting into a nice rhythem of doing that the 1st exercise to try is:

4) "Becoming Your Breath"

This involves as you breathe in and out, you are putting your awareness in following what your breath does as you breathe in and out. You attach yourself to it mentally.

When you have "Mastered" that technique, you then can move onto the:

5) "Breathing through all your pores in the body exercise."

This technique is a step up from becoming your breath as it focuses on your awareness being "All over your body".

*As you breathe in imagine your awareness is still your breath, but you are getting the feeling of your breath/awareness getting pulled into every pore of your body.

*As you breathe out, you feel your awareness/breath being pushed out of every pore of your body.

This exercise should start to get you on a deeper level of mind.

6) This technique is exactly the same as the breathing through the pores of your body exercise..Yet now you are to imagine your breath is a golden/white light being breathed in and out of EVERY single pore in your body.

By doing this you if not all ready you will have already started to feel your body vibrate. Focus on those vibrations to get them even more intense

7) Filling the Balloon Exercise

This helps with getting rid of any negative energy you may have while doing the meditation. It is where you see a picture of yourself in your head, and a deflated balloon above you.

As you breathe in and out imagine this balloon filling up with all your negative energy. Dont think of specific's just reject them in bulk. When the Balloon is full, tie it up and release the balloon so it is never seen again.

8) The wall exercise.

Imagine while doing the meditation, that there is a force field, that rejects any negative thoughts before you can even get a chance to think about it.

9) Imagining Your Mind As A Tower Exercise

This involves imagining that your mind is your own personalised golden building, and imagining you are at the top of it.

You step into the lift or elevator and proceeded to travel down it. With each breath you go down the levels of your building, deeper and deeper your mind will follow.

10) Writing on the blackboard task

If your conscious mind gets distracted on thoughts give it a task to complete, while this process of you going down the levels of your building.

What task you may say? How about this.

You standing up at the black board in an empty classroom. You are to draw a circle on the blackboard in your mind.

From there you are to write the letter "A" in that circle nice and neat so all points of the letter are touching the circle. Once that is done, get the duster and rub the letter "A" out while keeping the circle perfectly intact. Then write the letter "B" in the circle and so on...

This whole time while doing this you are imagining yourself exploring your personal building, made out of gold, and finding the deeper you go into your building, the deeper your mind goes.

This exercise isn't needed if you are fully involved in visualising yourself go "down" your minds building.

The End

There it is, they are a couple of the basic techniques in learning to meditate. I will go into a few more intermediate exercises later. I hope this can help anybody wanting to learn to meditate.

Would love to hear anybodies questions or feedback after trying the techniques as well.

Light and Love

Evan