Thread: The problem of heaven.

Originally Posted by bcomp

Well for that first part, I was using the majorities as an example, not as leverage to sway opinions, so I don't think it was really a fallacy... but whatever.

I'm glad you answered the last part the way you did though. Well communicated to be sure.

Oh and btw, the fail i was referring to was the "greedy" thing. Your opinion's just fine.

Yeah, I admit greedy was probably the wrong word to use, hence the correction I made.

Also, glad to see that I can at least communicate the basis of my argument. I was getting kinda worried considering some of the responses I was getting. All is good now...

I think people definitely understand the points you're making, they just disagree with them.

Originally Posted by Schmaven

I think people definitely understand the points you're making, they just disagree with them.

Well, overall, people understand them, though the impression I get from a few is not the case, which is why I wondered whether if it was my ability to communicate my ideas effectively or not (in case I took a few too many shortcuts in the construction of my argument).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Why should I accept that claim though? Reality in itself is defined by your senses and not by some nebulous concept.

You don't need senses when you Realize you are what you are "perceiving"; everything.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Even though at the very basic level, we are nothing but self-replicating chemicals? If this sounds a bit nihilistic, fair enough, but that is the harsh reality.

There is no True harsh Reality. Reality is Perfect. It is not harsh to be "chemicals" nor is it harsh for a chair to be wood.
I am talking about the essence of "replicating/being". Tell me, how hard is it to grow? It is effortless.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Hence why I can't accept your claim that somehow True Reality™ is something beyond 'mental comprehension'. There is no way to objectively know about such things, therefore to take a gnostic approach on this argument is a little... dogmatic.

The unenlightened think there is no hope, which is why the mind fails in recognition of God; All Hope. This is understandable as the ignorant have no divine experience to formulate a comparison with (nor will that be necessary to oneself when the time comes).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

What's this? A challenge? I accept!

Kissing God's ass becomes "To brush one's lips sensually against a deity's sphincter"

Man, this is fun

Don't get too lost. God has no personal qualities - this is an obvious error in some religions (But it was only a method for understanding, with unforeseen consequences).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Once the ripples fade, the ripples do not ascend to some higher plane, they simply merge back into the water, and everything becomes still once more.

Same thing. It is a "higher plane" to the "lower plane". Perfection is normal to God, thus normal is Perfection to God.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Enlightenment is knowledge of one's self and the world around him. That is how I define enlightenment. For me, it has nothing to do with matters concerning spirituality. What I am doing here is simply questioning certain spiritual matters so to provoke thought and understanding.

Whatever helps one understand the Truth, which does not depend on definition. How you define a boat does not absolutely change the boat, only relatively.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No, I was acknowledging a difference of opinion through a colloquialism.

I was acknowledging that which does not depend on opinion; Truth.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No, I came to be through the actions of my mother and father.

Meaning says this ^, but Essence says "God's will".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My existence came about from actions beyond my own control.

Hence the ego (my) has no control. Transcend the illusion of "my", and you transcend karma.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Superiority complex... great.

The ego projects itself onto others/external.

"What you say is what you are."

Originally Posted by bluefinger

How are you to determine that what I have mused upon is a "limitation to [my] growth"? All I'm doing here is questioning the validity of a concept.

It appears that you are immature in some ways, whereby you entirely miss the point.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Illusion this, illusion that... so you believe in a deceptive God?

Again, you are assuming that what is Perfect is deceiving. It would be foolish to believe in a god who is deceptive; who does not love. I believe in transcending deception; hence reveal Truth.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Then eternal peace is simply non-existence, if it is timeless.

You have no idea what it is. It is both existence and non-existence at the same eternal "time". What is seen and unseen are one and the same.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The universe is just the universe. The sun is nothing but a hot ball of gas, and so are all the distant stars. Galaxies are gigantic collections of stars and the superclusters are nothing but gigantic collections of galaxies.

Once again, you fail through your definitions of what you see with your eyes. The human body is "a bunch of chemicals", whether it is alive or not (That ignores the life which may be of it). It does not matter what it is in physical definition; Spiritual matters are of Essence.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

A mere human, even as a spirit, does not drive this enormous universe.

If "God is within you", then the human spirit is one with God.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Great. You should ponder about it more then... it might bring a fresh perspective to some of your beliefs.

Likewise to you. But you are assuming I haven't already done that. Just because I know something that may be "too good to be true" for others, doesn't mean I have no idea what I am talking about. Over-criticism I have found to be misleading.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Again, reality is defined by our experiences, not by nebulous concepts such as heaven or spirits.

Yes, all experience is a reality. The Reality I speak of is therefore not a nebulous concept.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Because our mind is actually a deterministic system that creates the illusion of free will. This is what Neuroscience has pretty much found to be the case.

The mind is not a deterministic system but part of one: Collective Consciousness. The illusion of choices is karma: "I have no choice but suicide." and "I have all choices to Love and be Loved!" It is also found by realizing just how many barriers you are putting up to a spiritual understanding.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

lolwut?

You may be able to describe the growth at arbitrary points of reference, but you can not understand why until you are one with the tree.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Technically, plants can be grown without soil. As long as they can obtain the nutrients they need, then soil is irrelevant. All I need is a way to provide the nutrients (water with all essential nutrients dissolved in it) and a source of light. A little harder to do than growing a plant in soil, but possible. Also, I wouldn't want a plant in front of my screen... because then I can't read the screen. That would be silly.

That's not the point. Be the tree. No ego can be a tree, yet God is All that Is.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Nothing is beyond rationalisation.

Did you mention "strange quantum phenomena"? It looks chaotic to the mind, yet Perfect to God.

What is beyond the mind - the mind cannot deal with.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The world doesn't have to have all this spiritual stuff attached to it. People will have spiritual ideas nonetheless, but whether they can justify these beliefs articulately varies from person to person. All this shows is that everyone experiences things differently and thus one standard that one individual may have cannot be applied to all.

Once again, the ego gets caught in details. It cannot determine truth from falsehood; appearance from essence. Changing the name of "Spiritual" will not change what it signifies.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

You say Reality exists beyond this illusion being Life... but to me, all I see is this life, because I know nothing else apart from this existence. I only form my ideas upon what I know, and not what is unknown to me. Until the unknown is made to be known through discovery (and/or through science), then I can't base any of my ideas on the unknown as that is irrational.

This is perfectly understandable, because I was once "where you are". It is up to you to trust me; to trust the Unknown. Verification is everywhere in my world, but perhaps not in your world. The sky is not obvious to those who live in boxes.

Originally Posted by really

You don't need senses when you Realize you are what you are "perceiving"; everything.

...

Originally Posted by really

There is no True harsh Reality. Reality is Perfect. It is not harsh to be "chemicals" nor is it harsh for a chair to be wood.
I am talking about the essence of "replicating/being". Tell me, how hard is it to grow? It is effortless.

To grow? Well, I need to eat food consisting of a suitable diet to provide me with all the necessary nutrients required by my metabolism, I need to drink water on a consistent basis so not to dehydrate. I need to sleep so to allow my body to recover and divert energy normally used for movement to regeneration. I need to exercise in order to maintain a level of fitness and healthy body, etc

Growing is not effortless. Without effort put into surviving, one cannot grow in the first place.

Originally Posted by really

The unenlightened think there is no hope, which is why the mind fails in recognition of God; All Hope. This is understandable as the ignorant have no divine experience to formulate a comparison with (nor will that be necessary to oneself when the time comes).

lolwut? No hope? I see that someone is clearly afraid of their own mortality here...

Originally Posted by really

Don't get too lost. God has no personal qualities - this is an obvious error in some religions (But it was only a method for understanding, with unforeseen consequences).

LOL, someone has no sense of humour.

Originally Posted by really

Same thing. It is a "higher plane" to the "lower plane". Perfection is normal to God, thus normal is Perfection to God.

Or something simply ceased to exist.

Originally Posted by really

Whatever helps one understand the Truth, which does not depend on definition. How you define a boat does not absolutely change the boat, only relatively.

No. Just no. Truth is a subjective term and open to interpretation, not an objective assertion.

Originally Posted by really

I was acknowledging that which does not depend on opinion; Truth.

Again, Truth is a subjective term (especially in the religious sense). Absolute truth is essentially a load of rubbish.

For example, I can write on a piece of paper the number 6 and then bugger off. Then a group of people stumble upon the said piece of paper and see the number. They can all come to all sorts of interpretations upon what the number represents, but as long as all these interpretations acknowledge that what is written on the paper is a number of the value 6, then it is 'truthful'. This could be "God's Number is 6" or "6 is a score" or "6 cats", etc. What isn't truthful is assertions such as "That isn't a number, it's a letter".

Facts can be established, for example: The paper is A4 sized, the writing is done in ink, the paper is laser-printing quality, etc. But any interpretation upon what the number represents is simply subjective interpretation. Perhaps what is written only really means just that, the number 6. Though even that assertion is a subjective interpretation, as how can one be sure upon what is actually means?

Originally Posted by really

Meaning says this ^, but Essence says "God's will".

Proposition 1:
??? -> God -> God's Will -> Parents -> Sex -> Me

Proposition 2:
Parents -> Sex -> Me

Occam's Razor says "Piss off Proposition 1".

Seriously though... what kind of God will's people into having sex? That is quite perverted, if I might add.

Originally Posted by really

Hence the ego (my) has no control. Transcend the illusion of "my", and you transcend karma.

Or lose the dogma and understand that your 'personal revelations' are nothing but hearsay to everyone else.

Originally Posted by really

The ego projects itself onto others/external.

"What you say is what you are."

O RLY? The fact I treated everyone else with the assumption that they are perfectly articulate individuals capable of forming coherent arguments fails to register with you? You have shown yourself to have some rather undesirable traits that alert anyone with enough sense that you are nothing but another dogmatic theist with a superiority complex.

Originally Posted by really

It appears that you are immature in some ways, whereby you entirely miss the point.

I shoot that straight back at you

Originally Posted by really

Again, you are assuming that what is Perfect is deceiving. It would be foolish to believe in a god who is deceptive; who does not love. I believe in transcending deception; hence reveal Truth.

A perception... that is an illusion. That is deception. No other fluffy terms attached.

and ad nauseum.

Discussion is impossible if all you do is present hearsay as a basis for your argument. You make all these fluffy terms and explanations, but lack a grounding in reality. Unless I were to have a personal revelation myself (which may be completely different to yours), then there's no point in trying to convince me otherwise on such matters. They have no meaning as they are nothing but personal subjective interpretations on such religious text or personal revelation.

Please, don't try to convert me. I'm not going to fall for any form of confirmation bias, circular logic, and other logical fallacies. So unless I see solid reasoning based upon an understanding of reality and backed up with enough evidence to meet the burden of proof, I'm gonna remain being a sceptical bastard.

Simple question: if God has infinite love, and there he has also created a heaven where beings experience infinite goodness for an infinite period of time, then what the fuck is the point of Earth?

Anyway, I'm afraid heaven is mathematically impossible, too:

x = number of moments spent on Earth
y = number of moments spent in heaven = infinity x
probability of it currently being a moment on Earth = x/(x+y) = x/(x+infinity x) = 0

So as heaven is real, it is mathematically impossible for us to be on Earth at the current time.

Oh wait, hold on a second...

Darn it, guess that's another insane religious concept we'll have to do away with.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Heaven is where you are pumped full of drugs constantly without dieing.

lol.

Originally Posted by Xei

Simple question: if God has infinite love, and there he has also created a heaven where beings experience infinite goodness for an infinite period of time, then what the fuck is the point of Earth?

Anyway, I'm afraid heaven is mathematically impossible, too:

x = number of moments spent on Earth
y = number of moments spent in heaven = infinity x
probability of it currently being a moment on Earth = x/(x+y) = x/(x+infinity x) = 0

So as heaven is real, it is mathematically impossible for us to be on Earth at the current time.

Oh wait, hold on a second...

Darn it, guess that's another insane religious concept we'll have to do away with.

By what i have read, it's to learn. Learn things to take us into forever. Perhaps you never really learned to ride a bike, you may jot that down in your memory or whatever they use, aswell as whatever else you wanna learn in this life time. Also, by what i have read Earth isn't the only place you go to learn things. If you are gonna be alive for the rest of time, i'm sure there is more to learn then a brain can handle. Probably 42394327432934320-47832094375093456734895346y589385935634895 the size of the universe.

Being mathmatically impossible means squat.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

By what i have read, it's to learn. Learn things to take us into forever. Perhaps you never really learned to ride a bike, you may jot that down in your memory or whatever they use, aswell as whatever else you wanna learn in this life time. Also, by what i have read Earth isn't the only place you go to learn things. If you are gonna be alive for the rest of time, i'm sure there is more to learn then a brain can handle. Probably 42394327432934320-47832094375093456734895346y589385935634895 the size of the universe.

Being mathmatically impossible means squat.

What you've read, but do you understand? The problem with heaven is the component of eternity, like I've been saying before. As time is not finite, your existence is perfect, and so forth... well... what do you do with yourself in such a situation? Infinite potential destroyed by the perfection that exists. If things are perfect, there's no need to do more, no need to improve, no achievements possible, nothing to contemplate on, nothing for you to gain. You'd might as well be in a sensory deprivation room for all of time or go down to join all those people in Hell. At least with them, they are receiving some sort of stimulus.

No i don't really understand because i am not dead and still living in this brain that protects me from knowing things like that with my ego i live every day. There is nothing wrong with heaven, you just want there to be something wrong with it because you don't understand what it is and the thought of living after you completly shutdown makes no sense to you and for a good reason, it's okay as it's normal. Nobody understands what it is, it just is. Heavens not a place, it's a state of mind. As i said before, it's all an ego thing. People who go beyond their ego by meditation, or something like DMT all see this and know their ego is the one in the way. I'm not one to disbelieve stuff because i have lived by things people want me to live, what people want me to learn, what people want me to see. I can't see past it, but i wont ignore it. I can't seem to ignore it, maybe i'm not supposed to ignore it but perhaps embrasse it, or just know there are things beyond my understanding and even as silly as believing in heaven seems logically, still know there is a chance it exists because i can think, i am alive, i
am able to see things, or do things that are every day things that seem really strange and intresting.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Growing is not effortless. Without effort put into surviving, one cannot grow in the first place.

That's what the ego thinks. Surviving, to me and you, I assume is not hard. My point is: Do you have to concentrate on digestion? Do you have to try to beat your heart? Do you have to filter toxins and release hormones? If you did, consciously, you'd be in deep trouble (in terms of survival).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

lolwut? No hope?

I was generalizing about the ignorant.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

LOL, someone has no sense of humour.

Make no assumption, you have no sense of my humor. Missed the point?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or something simply ceased to exist.

Or maybe a duck flew by? Just guessing?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No. Just no. Truth is a subjective term and open to interpretation, not an objective assertion.

^ This is a relative truth.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Again, Truth is a subjective term (especially in the religious sense). Absolute truth is essentially a load of rubbish.

^ This is a relative subjective truth. Who said the Absolute wasn't subjective?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

For example, I can write on a piece of paper the number 6 and then bugger off. Then a group of people stumble upon the said piece of paper and see the number. They can all come to all sorts of interpretations upon what the number represents, but as long as all these interpretations acknowledge that what is written on the paper is a number of the value 6, then it is 'truthful'. This could be "God's Number is 6" or "6 is a score" or "6 cats", etc. What isn't truthful is assertions such as "That isn't a number, it's a letter".

It is "ink" (ink substance) forced onto paper into an apparent shape, for example. "It is what it is" is Absolute Truth, which is not found by applying relative meaning. The six could symbolize a paper clip, but it does not then magically turn into a tangible paper clip. The sign is not the signified.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Facts can be established, for example: The paper is A4 sized, the writing is done in ink, the paper is laser-printing quality, etc. But any interpretation upon what the number represents is simply subjective interpretation. Perhaps what is written only really means just that, the number 6.

What you have listed are not facts but relative preferences. A4 paper size is just a desired pair of dimensions for a piece of paper. One typically won't measure the length/width right down to the nearest microscopic unit, which means it is not Absolutely A4 if there is rounding in measurement. Even if A4 dimensions were supposed to be rounded, in terms of exact measurement, it would be very indefinite.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Though even that assertion is a subjective interpretation, as how can one be sure upon what is actually means?

It is not about being sure what it means, but in essence, what it is.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Seriously though... what kind of God will's people into having sex? That is quite perverted, if I might add.

The linear ego mind is limited to cause-effect paradigms which are false in Reality. That is why many things are beyond the mind. Nothing "caused" God, nor was God at the "beginning" of the Universe and "end". God is always "here/within/without", eternally, beyond space/time.

God has no desire for sex (because that is out of context), but the ego does. The ego is divine in itself, it is an expression for survival. It also doesn't depend on what you think sex is, "perverted" or "love", either way, it is part of nature.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or lose the dogma and understand that your 'personal revelations' are nothing but hearsay to everyone else.

I did not say they were personal, but you assume so. Research if you are interested at all.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

O RLY? The fact I treated everyone else with the assumption that they are perfectly articulate individuals capable of forming coherent arguments fails to register with you?

My point was that the ego is the superiority complex.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I shoot that straight back at you

You project it back at me, yet nothing is culpable. Don't take it personally.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

A perception... that is an illusion. That is deception. No other fluffy terms attached.

Perception is deception, but I am transcending perception. All terms are then deemed "fluffy".

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Discussion is impossible if all you do is present hearsay as a basis for your argument. You make all these fluffy terms and explanations, but lack a grounding in reality. Unless I were to have a personal revelation myself (which may be completely different to yours), then there's no point in trying to convince me otherwise on such matters. They have no meaning as they are nothing but personal subjective interpretations on such religious text or personal revelation.

I am only communicating with you. Once again, it is not a personal-revelation. Enlightenment is not exclusive to me; if it was, I wouldn't bother talking about it in such a way.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Please, don't try to convert me.

Don't worry, I am only responding to you because we are part of a discussion. I am not converting you either, because that would imply that you need to be different. It is all your choice. If you are genuinely interested though, you can solve your apparent dilemmas; become in Heaven. If you want to talk about this more, PM me, because there may be too much ground to cover here in this thread.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I'm gonna remain being a sceptical bastard.

I don't see you as a "skeptical bastard", if that helps. I see you as I see everyone else.

Originally Posted by Xei

Simple question: if God has infinite love, and there he has also created a heaven where beings experience infinite goodness for an infinite period of time, then what the fuck is the point of Earth?

Earth is for surviving, for intelligent beings to populate. However; Heaven is just that - Heaven; without need. Eventually, you will go to heaven; the choice will eventually dawn on you (this life or not). Then you will realize that it's time to "leave" the world; Heaven seems to hold a greater "point". (I don't need to explain this in the Philosophy forum).

If you are ignorant, what is the point of paying attention? If you are paying attention, what is the point of being ignorant? Your choice; your karma.

Originally Posted by Xei

Anyway, I'm afraid heaven is mathematically impossible, too:

x = number of moments spent on Earth
y = number of moments spent in heaven = infinity x
probability of it currently being a moment on Earth = x/(x+y) = x/(x+infinity x) = 0

Heaven is mathematically impossible, but that doesn't mean heaven is non-existent. Likewise, I cannot mathematically prove that which is beyond mathematics.

I hope that saves you some of your "time".

Originally Posted by Xei

Simple question: if God has infinite love, and there he has also created a heaven where beings experience infinite goodness for an infinite period of time, then what the fuck is the point of Earth?

Anyway, I'm afraid heaven is mathematically impossible, too:

x = number of moments spent on Earth
y = number of moments spent in heaven = infinity x
probability of it currently being a moment on Earth = x/(x+y) = x/(x+infinity x) = 0

So as heaven is real, it is mathematically impossible for us to be on Earth at the current time.

Oh wait, hold on a second...

Darn it, guess that's another insane religious concept we'll have to do away with.

How long is a moment? Many interpretations of heaven put the 'number of moments spent in heaven'=1, not infinite. Your units are dubious, and I'm not sure they match.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

No i don't really understand because i am not dead and still living in this brain that protects me from knowing things like that with my ego i live every day. There is nothing wrong with heaven, you just want there to be something wrong with it because you don't understand what it is and the thought of living after you completly shutdown makes no sense to you and for a good reason, it's okay as it's normal. Nobody understands what it is, it just is. Heavens not a place, it's a state of mind. As i said before, it's all an ego thing. People who go beyond their ego by meditation, or something like DMT all see this and know their ego is the one in the way. I'm not one to disbelieve stuff because i have lived by things people want me to live, what people want me to learn, what people want me to see. I can't see past it, but i wont ignore it. I can't seem to ignore it, maybe i'm not supposed to ignore it but perhaps embrasse it, or just know there are things beyond my understanding and even as silly as believing in heaven seems logically, still know there is a chance it exists because i can think, i am alive, i
am able to see things, or do things that are every day things that seem really strange and intresting.

Or it's you clinging onto the idea of it due to a subconscious fear of mortality, and maybe it's your ego that has created the illusion of the feeling that maybe heaven exists.

Nothing is beyond understanding if you are willing to delve into deep thought and contemplation.

Also, the whole state of mind is nothingness. You may experience bliss before death or fear, BUT as soon as one dies properly, you cease to exist. That may sound scary, but that's the natural way of things. I myself, see no reason why souls exist, no reason for these spiritual matters other than the occasional musing, but whilst I admit I have an innate fear of death (I mean who doesn't?), I have come to accept it. I don't need a heaven to make it more bearable. Hell... Life is by far scarier than death. I have yet all this time ahead of me, and I know not of what I want to do with it all. But that's the experience of life, that's the experience you get to share. Heaven is tasteless if it really is simply one mental state in which you experience over an eternity. In Life, you have all these different experiences, all these sights, sounds, emotions, smells, tastes, etc and it all happens within a finite amount of time. There is so much more to be had than anything a heaven can offer (especially the descriptions given of it).

I hope that once I get into the situation where I'm on my death bed, that I would have lived a good enough life, so that I wouldn't care if I was about to pass away. I don't care if I return to dust, my life already has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. People say Heaven will complement my life, fuck that, Life dwarfs any sort of heaven in terms of scope and experience. Life isn't perfect, but that's what makes it worth while. Heaven is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by really

That's what the ego thinks. Surviving, to me and you, I assume is not hard. My point is: Do you have to concentrate on digestion? Do you have to try to beat your heart? Do you have to filter toxins and release hormones? If you did, consciously, you'd be in deep trouble (in terms of survival).

Survival is both a conscious and unconscious effort. Whilst a lot of processes are done unconsciously, you still have to go out of your way to eat, to sleep, to drink, to defecate and urinate, etc.

Originally Posted by really

^ This is a relative subjective truth. Who said the Absolute wasn't subjective?

Absolute implies objective, not subjective.

Originally Posted by really

It is "ink" (ink substance) forced onto paper into an apparent shape, for example. "It is what it is" is Absolute Truth, which is not found by applying relative meaning. The six could symbolize a paper clip, but it does not then magically turn into a tangible paper clip. The sign is not the signified.

Or you realise that without the context by which one can discern the objective meaning of the said number, it is pointless to try and speculate on what the number means.

Originally Posted by really

What you have listed are not facts but relative preferences. A4 paper size is just a desired pair of dimensions for a piece of paper. One typically won't measure the length/width right down to the nearest microscopic unit, which means it is not Absolutely A4 if there is rounding in measurement. Even if A4 dimensions were supposed to be rounded, in terms of exact measurement, it would be very indefinite.

A4 is a categorisation of size for a sheet of paper. A standardised size. All it means is that the sheet of paper has certain dimensions. Also, if one wanted, they could measure down to the molecular level... won't mean much though.

Originally Posted by really

The linear ego mind is limited to cause-effect paradigms which are false in Reality. That is why many things are beyond the mind. Nothing "caused" God, nor was God at the "beginning" of the Universe and "end". God is always "here/within/without", eternally, beyond space/time.

God has no desire for sex (because that is out of context), but the ego does. The ego is divine in itself, it is an expression for survival. It also doesn't depend on what you think sex is, "perverted" or "love", either way, it is part of nature.

Again, Occam's Razor can shave all the God stuff and simply say it is survival instinct coupled with emotions that lead the liaison that eventually lead to me coming into existence. Still beyond my own control.

Originally Posted by really

I did not say they were personal, but you assume so. Research if you are interested at all.

A revelation to one person is hearsay to another, because what one has experienced himself cannot be experienced by another in order to confirm whether the revelation is true or not.

Originally Posted by really

I am only communicating with you. Once again, it is not a personal-revelation. Enlightenment is not exclusive to me; if it was, I wouldn't bother talking about it in such a way.

See above response...

Originally Posted by really

Don't worry, I am only responding to you because we are part of a discussion. I am not converting you either, because that would imply that you need to be different. It is all your choice. If you are genuinely interested though, you can solve your apparent dilemmas; become in Heaven. If you want to talk about this more, PM me, because there may be too much ground to cover here in this thread.

I don't see you as a "skeptical bastard", if that helps. I see you as I see everyone else.

Ahh, the snake oil salesman technique. "It's your choice, but you could be missing on the fantastic Mystery Box! Who knows what lies within? Could be a holiday to Tahiti, or the keys to your new car!"

I am a sceptical bastard. Live with it.

Great discussion, I read most of it from page one to page four. I'll add my own opinion on this.

I believe that it is impossible to determine whether or not there is a heaven, or a hell, or a God, etc. There are many things that nobody can answer or understand and can only guess. We can all theorize all we want and it is possible that none of us are right at all. For example, it makes no sense that the universe had "a beginning" to us because that would mean that nothing existed before, and we can't imagine nothing. As far as we know, there is always something. Even the space in space is something enough... we can't perceive a true "nothing." Yet, scientists place an age on the universe of (I believe) around 14 billion years before the big bang. I also agree that what we observe today evidences this "big bang" theory, but why it happened does not make sense. I also think they say that what was before cannot be accounted for because time, space, and everything was in ways we can't understand. In other words, we've basically admitted that we can't know everything; ie. heaven does not necessarily have to be a mindless fantasy.

However, just because we don't know something doesn't mean something else exists. That's silly. Why should heaven exist if we can't understand everything? It doesn't have to. I think that heaven is a purely a man-made concept. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it is extremely improbable to me that it exists as people imagine it. I hate admitting it, but we really could just cease to exist forever. Once again, a state of not existing is difficult for a human being to grasp. We always remember existing. Naturally if you don't exist it isn't really a "bad" thing because you aren't there to experience it. If we do continue to exist there is that problem of eternity. That's another thing you can't truly imagine. Boredom sounds pretty much guaranteed in a state of continued existence. Hell, I get bored after five minutes of doing nothing. What happens after I've seen it all?

I also thought about the idea of lost memories. Memories make you yourself. Why do I not want to be reincarnated? I'll lose all my memories; I won't be myself at all. Also, living in eternity would give you an eternity of memories if you could remember. What would you do with something like that.

I hear people in the background telling me not to doubt the abilities of God to make it work. I somewhat agree. Like I said we can't know everything; I'll bet the whole of humanity knows just the tiniest amount of "everything." However, it is illogical to assume that some sort of supreme being exists at all. People chose God because the simple idea God makes sense to them. It's the easy way out. Does that automatically make God wrong? No, not at all. However, just because we can or can't understand something doesn't make it wrong to go back to my original point. Complications arise when we ask where God came from, why he exists, and what he is. But again, nobody can prove it right or prove it right or wrong.

Ugh, sorry about the rambling, I tend to repeat myself.

I personally would rather have a heaven than nothing. I don't want to not exist. I'm pretty sure that in a heaven there is a way to chose not to exist anymore if you really want to. What happens when the universe fades to nearly nothing. No clue.

...Well, that's about it. I don't have any set opinion on the matter. I hope for a heaven but I think it is likely it is a selfish fantasy.

Feel free to totally break apart this opinion. Just play nice, OK?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In my eyes, it is still spirituality, not religion. Semantically different, but the only reason I suggested the use of spirituality was not to get the nastier connotations of the word religion embroiled into the discussion.

It is relatively smart to be skeptical of 'religion', as most people know it today. For the most part, the temporal Temple has shown time and again its inability to grasp its own principles and its tendency to abuse power. The rational mind is a powerful tool, and I would never agree with someone giving that up to blindly follow a religion. However, I wouldn't be so quick to completely dismiss all atemporal phenomena solely on the opinions of those who ignorantly speak on behalf of such things, either for or against. These are things that ultimately have to be experienced for one's self. I even hesitate to write about these things, as language inherently confuses them - especially to a modern Western mind which over the past several hundred years now has completely lost its atemporal sense (something which would take too long to explain in this thread). The danger is that after losing this sense, it is now accepted as "normal" to the point where most people are not even aware that this sense exists, or deny its existence because of their incapacity to understand it due to their education.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Okay, but as I have to admit, I'm not a believer of higher planes or forms of existence, I feel my own 'enlightenment' comes from being to think logically and rationally, ultimately using reason to investigate and probe deep matters such as the meaning of one's existence. To me, there is nothing beyond this existence and therefore there is no need to speculate on the meaning of the unknown. I can argue for debate's sake on how certain concepts can be worse than they seem, but from my understanding on such topics, what I have reasoned does not equate to the ideal situation that these concepts promote.

With what I was saying above, I agree the rational mind is a certain type of "enlightenment" and I would never give that up, nor do any of these concepts (e.g. Heaven) imply giving this up. All I am point out is that the rational mind has its limitaitons and that one can transcend these limitations when they 'realize' that they are ultimately not bound by it. By identifying yourself as nothing more than your rational mind, of course you will not understand that which is beyond it! It is exactly this identification which is the cause of the inability to understand higher knowledge, gnosis. Without this understanding, one is immeditately thrown into a state of "agnosticism". This is due to one's education and conditioning, and not by their essential nature.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Unnecessary suffering? I don't think that is the case for me. I take a very naturalistic viewpoint and perspective on these matters, and yet I am quite content with my existence. I accept my fear of my own mortality, knowing it is a product of my survival instinct, but that does not push me into matters concerning the supernatural. My perspective differs because despite the harsh reality that exists, I still see beauty in this life, I see no point in concepts like heaven, because ultimately, I don't see how I could gain a sensation of bliss from such an existence, 'spiritually enlightened' or not.

Heaven is only relative to a specific state of being. Any state that is more free is a heaven to the state of reference and any state that is more limited is a hell. Since there is Infinite possibility, Heaven cannot be a "resting place" as most people envision it. It is another state of being, among an indefinite amount. Being is Infinite and Eternal, therefore death is an illusion. Death is only relative to a specific state, and death to one state is birth in another. Is freedom, peace, and beauty not what we are striving for?
To free one's self of this illusion of limitation does not make one less appreciative of this life, but rather quite the opposite. It allows one to experience this life in the eternal Moment, understanding that each moment is beautiful and new. Boredom is only the rejection of this fact. Heaven can be obtained in this life because the eternal Moment contains every state of being in itself.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

The Ego and The Being are two complementary parts of what essentially constitutes our mind. It doesn't matter whether one is in control or not, the fact is neither can exist without each other. A naked Being or a naked Ego are both essentially hollow, one lacking expression, the other lacking substance. When I mean Being, please taken into consideration that I mean the subsconscious mind, not soul (because again, I have to admit, I'm not a believer in those things).

By Being I mean nothing like the subconscious mind, but rather I am refering to Being in itself. What is it that allows you to exist from moment to moment? What is it that itself doesn't change, but which allows change to happen? Isn't this more Real than any of the changing things themselves? Is this not the essence of all existent things?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Unfortunately, all I can bring to this is simply the possibility that all the supernatural and seemingly spiritual experiences are products of the rationalisation and creativity of the ego. You said it yourself that we are inherently limited, and I concur with that, but what if these very limitations are the source of the experiences or at least concepts we are talking about?

The experience comes first; the mind's understanding of it comes second. You are trying to do it the other way and are left with absurdity.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

To me, the whole spirit thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Intangible concepts and speculation just doesn't motivate me in the spiritual sense, as my idea of enlightenment is essentially very different.

They are only intangible to the rational mind, and not to the Being. Identify yourself with the rational mind and you will not understand. Give up the rational mind's control over your point of view and you will understand.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Non-linearity of time, yeah, I get you... BUT I'm talking about clear-cut definitions. You are talking about timelessness, in the sense that the normal progression of time that we experience at this moment does not apply. Unfortunately, I have little patience for fluffy terms, so don't take this personally when I point these things out.

Obviously you do not get me, or you wouldn't think that perpetual renewal of Creation could be "boring"! How absurd. It is only an illusion that things remain the same. This eternal moment is constantly renewing itself, for itself. It doesn't need a purpose other than to express its Infinite possibility.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Unfortunately, all I have is knowledge of this world and sensory experience, even in the context of dreams (as they are essentially virtual experiences, simulated within your own mind), so again, such concepts are essentially meaningless to me. My line of reasoning takes in completely different directions in which the Natural World is the one that makes sense, for it can be understood through science, and I can take logic and reasoning to understand my position in this existence. My Self is collection of experiences that have accumulated over time and effectively created who I am today, and I'm sure future experiences will only enhance and augment my Self, or maybe even change me completely if the experience happens to be traumatic enough.

Go beyond your own limitations. It cannot be more clear: if you limit yourself to a particular point of view, you cannot "see" beyond that view. It is as simple as that. Do not think of what I say as "evidence" of these worlds; you have to explore them yourself. Others can point the way, but only you can decide to walk the path, and only you can 'Realize' it for yourself. All I can say is that Heaven exists potentially for everyone, but it is up to each person to "Realize" it, "Actualize" it within themselves. The first step would be to dismiss everything you think you know about Heaven.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

I am who I am, because of the path I have walked and will continue to walk, but in the end, no matter what path I take, it'll always lead to the same destination. Therefore it is not reaching the destination that matters, but the journey itself.

Yes! Now apply this understanding to Heaven and you will see what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Yosemine

Great discussion, I read most of it from page one to page four. I'll add my own opinion on this.

I believe that it is impossible to determine whether or not there is a heaven, or a hell, or a God, etc. There are many things that nobody can answer or understand and can only guess. We can all theorize all we want and it is possible that none of us are right at all. For example, it makes no sense that the universe had "a beginning" to us because that would mean that nothing existed before, and we can't imagine nothing. As far as we know, there is always something. Even the space in space is something enough... we can't perceive a true "nothing." Yet, scientists place an age on the universe of (I believe) around 14 billion years before the big bang. I also agree that what we observe today evidences this "big bang" theory, but why it happened does not make sense. I also think they say that what was before cannot be accounted for because time, space, and everything was in ways we can't understand. In other words, we've basically admitted that we can't know everything; ie. heaven does not necessarily have to be a mindless fantasy.

However, just because we don't know something doesn't mean something else exists. That's silly. Why should heaven exist if we can't understand everything? It doesn't have to. I think that heaven is a purely a man-made concept. That doesn't mean it is wrong, but it is extremely improbable to me that it exists as people imagine it. I hate admitting it, but we really could just cease to exist forever. Once again, a state of not existing is difficult for a human being to grasp. We always remember existing. Naturally if you don't exist it isn't really a "bad" thing because you aren't there to experience it. If we do continue to exist there is that problem of eternity. That's another thing you can't truly imagine. Boredom sounds pretty much guaranteed in a state of continued existence. Hell, I get bored after five minutes of doing nothing. What happens after I've seen it all?

I also thought about the idea of lost memories. Memories make you yourself. Why do I not want to be reincarnated? I'll lose all my memories; I won't be myself at all. Also, living in eternity would give you an eternity of memories if you could remember. What would you do with something like that.

I hear people in the background telling me not to doubt the abilities of God to make it work. I somewhat agree. Like I said we can't know everything; I'll bet the whole of humanity knows just the tiniest amount of "everything." However, it is illogical to assume that some sort of supreme being exists at all. People chose God because the simple idea God makes sense to them. It's the easy way out. Does that automatically make God wrong? No, not at all. However, just because we can or can't understand something doesn't make it wrong to go back to my original point. Complications arise when we ask where God came from, why he exists, and what he is. But again, nobody can prove it right or prove it right or wrong.

Ugh, sorry about the rambling, I tend to repeat myself.

I personally would rather have a heaven than nothing. I don't want to not exist. I'm pretty sure that in a heaven there is a way to chose not to exist anymore if you really want to. What happens when the universe fades to nearly nothing. No clue.

...Well, that's about it. I don't have any set opinion on the matter. I hope for a heaven but I think it is likely it is a selfish fantasy.

Feel free to totally break apart this opinion. Just play nice, OK?

Your opinion is fine, so don't worry about it. If anything, it resembles more my line of thought.

Originally Posted by syzygy

It is relatively smart to be skeptical of 'religion', as most people know it today. For the most part, the temporal Temple has shown time and again its inability to grasp its own principles and its tendency to abuse power. The rational mind is a powerful tool, and I would never agree with someone giving that up to blindly follow a religion. However, I wouldn't be so quick to completely dismiss all atemporal phenomena solely on the opinions of those who ignorantly speak on behalf of such things, either for or against. These are things that ultimately have to be experienced for one's self. I even hesitate to write about these things, as language inherently confuses them - especially to a modern Western mind which over the past several hundred years now has completely lost its atemporal sense (something which would take too long to explain in this thread). The danger is that after losing this sense, it is now accepted as "normal" to the point where most people are not even aware that this sense exists, or deny its existence because of their incapacity to understand it due to their education.

With what I was saying above, I agree the rational mind is a certain type of "enlightenment" and I would never give that up, nor do any of these concepts (e.g. Heaven) imply giving this up. All I am point out is that the rational mind has its limitaitons and that one can transcend these limitations when they 'realize' that they are ultimately not bound by it. By identifying yourself as nothing more than your rational mind, of course you will not understand that which is beyond it! It is exactly this identification which is the cause of the inability to understand higher knowledge, gnosis. Without this understanding, one is immeditately thrown into a state of "agnosticism". This is due to one's education and conditioning, and not by their essential nature.

A limitation is inherently human, but I feel there is nothing bad about some of these limitations. Also, knowledge is something you learn from experience, whether it is your own or an experience shared to you by another. However, certain things cannot be verified if I apply logic and reasoning to discern the experiences from another. When I look for knowledge, I also look for evidence. Understanding a concept comes from more than simply experience, but also looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion from it. To further understand the knowledge, you test what you know via various means, but essentially, it all comes down to analysing what is true and what is not. Something that cannot be falsified is not something that is rational, and thus my mind naturally sees it as absurd.

Originally Posted by syzygy

Heaven is only relative to a specific state of being. Any state that is more free is a heaven to the state of reference and any state that is more limited is a hell. Since there is Infinite possibility, Heaven cannot be a "resting place" as most people envision it. It is another state of being, among an indefinite amount. Being is Infinite and Eternal, therefore death is an illusion. Death is only relative to a specific state, and death to one state is birth in another. Is freedom, peace, and beauty not what we are striving for?
To free one's self of this illusion of limitation does not make one less appreciative of this life, but rather quite the opposite. It allows one to experience this life in the eternal Moment, understanding that each moment is beautiful and new. Boredom is only the rejection of this fact. Heaven can be obtained in this life because the eternal Moment contains every state of being in itself.

Limitation is inherent to humanity, it is inherent in all of us. We all are free to expand within boundaries, and it is natural to seek ways to overcome these boundaries. Sometimes it is through athletic means, others through knowledge and reason. Some opt for the spiritual means. All of these pursuits are neither right nor wrong, but to see these limitations as bad things is not productive. When we push through one boundary, we are presented with another, but instead of stopping, we continue onwards. We accept these boundaries because we all seek to overcome them.

However, some things are more than just a boundary, they are a reality. Death is not an illusion. There is nothing to suggest there is more to Death other than what it is.

Originally Posted by syzygy

By Being I mean nothing like the subconscious mind, but rather I am refering to Being in itself. What is it that allows you to exist from moment to moment? What is it that itself doesn't change, but which allows change to happen? Isn't this more Real than any of the changing things themselves? Is this not the essence of all existent things?

My mind exists because of the vast neural network that is my brain, not some concept such as a soul. If I receive enough damage to my brain, essentially, my consciousness and ability to think is altered. My brain effectively is my anchor to reality, so if anything were to happen to it, then the effectiveness of my mind is altered.

Originally Posted by syzygy

The experience comes first; the mind's understanding of it comes second. You are trying to do it the other way and are left with absurdity.

Of course it becomes absurd. If I can't falsify a claim, then it is an absurd claim. It may be a valid one, but if there is no way to see if it really is a valid claim or not, then one can assume that it is an absurd claim. This applies to everything, not just the concept of heaven.

Originally Posted by syzygy

They are only intangible to the rational mind, and not to the Being. Identify yourself with the rational mind and you will not understand. Give up the rational mind's control over your point of view and you will understand.

So, you want me to assume a form of confirmation bias by giving up rationality, despite what you said earlier? Is it me or is there some lack of consistency occurring here?

Originally Posted by syzygy

Obviously you do not get me, or you wouldn't think that perpetual renewal of Creation could be "boring"! How absurd. It is only an illusion that things remain the same. This eternal moment is constantly renewing itself, for itself. It doesn't need a purpose other than to express its Infinite possibility.

In other words, infinite passage of time. So I was correct to assume so at first.

Originally Posted by syzygy

Go beyond your own limitations. It cannot be more clear: if you limit yourself to a particular point of view, you cannot "see" beyond that view. It is as simple as that. Do not think of what I say as "evidence" of these worlds; you have to explore them yourself. Others can point the way, but only you can decide to walk the path, and only you can 'Realize' it for yourself. All I can say is that Heaven exists potentially for everyone, but it is up to each person to "Realize" it, "Actualize" it within themselves. The first step would be to dismiss everything you think you know about Heaven.

Going beyond my limitations is to further my knowledge and understanding to a point I feel I can actually achieve something important with my life. And of course I can't see beyond this reality, because trying to see anything beyond it is nothing but speculation, no matter how you feel about it. The destination is not important, it is the journey, therefore things like heaven are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by syzygy

Yes! Now apply this understanding to Heaven and you will see what I am talking about.

No, because heaven implies a separate destination after the one I'm implying, Death. There is no way to objectively quantify the existence of such a place/state/etc, and this is what my path has lead me to conclude. The path I have taken already has lead me to such conclusions, so it is fallacious to say I haven't put a great deal of thought into this already.

Originally Posted by lseadragon

I was thinking about the concept of heaven, and I have come to the conclusion that the conventional heaven is actually impossible.

Take a definition (as I know it) of heaven - a place where nothing can be better. Now, consider certain things in life; things that hurt but also have a good side, like a sad song or candy-flavoured barbed wire or something. If heaven can't be better in any way, then it will have to include these things as it otherwise could be improved by adding them. But the bad side of these things also makes it worse by including them. And before you say "Why not just include the good side?", it should be known that for some things the good and bad are inseparable. If you take away the pain of a sad song, then most of its beauty is lost.

So whether you add these or not, a heaven cannot be a place where nothing can be improved - because there is always something that could be made better.

Is there anything wrong with this argument?

EDIT: I'm not sure whether this should be in Religion/Spirituality. It didn't really feel like it to me, and it still doesn't, but I'll let the mods decide whether it should be moved.

No nothing is wrong with this argument, you are right.
Pain and sorrow is beautiful, just like love.

I think the concept is to look forward to something after death, people use heaven as an ecscape.
Hell could suck but how do we know?

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Or it's you clinging onto the idea of it due to a subconscious fear of mortality, and maybe it's your ego that has created the illusion of the feeling that maybe heaven exists.

Nothing is beyond understanding if you are willing to delve into deep thought and contemplation.

Also, the whole state of mind is nothingness. You may experience bliss before death or fear, BUT as soon as one dies properly, you cease to exist. That may sound scary, but that's the natural way of things. I myself, see no reason why souls exist, no reason for these spiritual matters other than the occasional musing, but whilst I admit I have an innate fear of death (I mean who doesn't?), I have come to accept it. I don't need a heaven to make it more bearable. Hell... Life is by far scarier than death. I have yet all this time ahead of me, and I know not of what I want to do with it all. But that's the experience of life, that's the experience you get to share. Heaven is tasteless if it really is simply one mental state in which you experience over an eternity. In Life, you have all these different experiences, all these sights, sounds, emotions, smells, tastes, etc and it all happens within a finite amount of time. There is so much more to be had than anything a heaven can offer (especially the descriptions given of it).

I hope that once I get into the situation where I'm on my death bed, that I would have lived a good enough life, so that I wouldn't care if I was about to pass away. I don't care if I return to dust, my life already has been a bit of a rollercoaster ride. People say Heaven will complement my life, fuck that, Life dwarfs any sort of heaven in terms of scope and experience. Life isn't perfect, but that's what makes it worth while. Heaven is irrelevant to me.

Actually that's what it is for everyone to believe in heaven, nobody wants to die and the thought of dieing and never being alive "forever" seems more rediculas then being alive after death. Forever is a long time, and for how people get treated or how life unfolds for them seems pretty stupid if this is all she wrote. What if a baby just gets born, and dies a few hours later because of complications? life was not ment for those people? how does nothingness seem to choose who lives, and who goes back to nothingness? hell, how does a life of nothingness become a life of something? besides mommy and daddy doing it in the back of an old car.

As for your life being a rollercoaster ride, mines been fucked since i was born.
You say lifes more scary then death, while the only time to be scared is when you're alive, being dead forever seems alot more scarrier then

If concsiousness can be alive once, why not again? if i remember correctly a star has it's own cycle. Once it dies it gets reborn, is it the same? no, but we wont be the same either. Born once, why not twice?
or three times? or four? or more?

Originally Posted by EchoSun13

No nothing is wrong with this argument, you are right.
Pain and sorrow is beautiful, just like love.

I think the concept is to look forward to something after death, people use heaven as an ecscape.
Hell could suck but how do we know?

Hell froze over, we would all go ice skating.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Actually that's what it is for everyone to believe in heaven, nobody wants to die and the thought of dieing and never being alive "forever" seems more rediculas then being alive after death. Forever is a long time, and for how people get treated or how life unfolds for them seems pretty stupid if this is all she wrote. What if a baby just gets born, and dies a few hours later because of complications? life was not ment for those people? how does nothingness seem to choose who lives, and who goes back to nothingness? hell, how does a life of nothingness become a life of something? besides mommy and daddy doing it in the back of an old car.

As for your life being a rollercoaster ride, mines been fucked since i was born.
You say lifes more scary then death, while the only time to be scared is when you're alive, being dead forever seems alot more scarrier then

If concsiousness can be alive once, why not again? if i remember correctly a star has it's own cycle. Once it dies it gets reborn, is it the same? no, but we wont be the same either. Born once, why not twice?
or three times? or four? or more?

Shit happens... life is harsh and can be more so for others. In fact, why is that? Why can life be so unfair for others when some do just fine?

What makes us special in the first place? What puts us above some other animal? We inherently put value onto our lives because it is an instinctual behaviour. What you are doing is making an emotional appeal as an argument for heaven.

How does nothingness become a life of something? Or how does nothingness choose who lives or not? Wrong questions to ask as they presume a conscious direction. If your life had happened any differently, then you would have developed differently. We are all born from circumstance, not reason or will. I've had my fair share of hardships, but I've had good times as well. I have fucked up some things, but I've always worked my way out of the mess and found a way through, and because of that I find I am enjoying my life. Hardship is an inevitability, and one that anybody can overcome.

If anything, after all my hardships, I've come to a point where I am having to decide what the fuck I'm supposed to do with my life. I've reached a stage where I gonna make some pretty big decisions (if I don't fuck up, that is). But even then, I'll find a way on my own two legs.

A Heaven that you are trying to push is simply one who is finding it hard to accept reality for what it is. The loss of any life is hard, but so far, I've seen both believers and non-believers suffer just as much as each other when dealing with the passing away of a loved one. Reality can be a harsh mistress, but that shouldn't be a reason to justify a man-made concept.

Well...that's what you believe, not me.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Well...that's what you believe, not me.

The point I was trying to make is that you were making an emotional appeal and using that as a basis for your argument for a heaven, not a philosophical argument, an emotional one. That to me is not a good argument to make (if anything, it only highlights my case against it).

Originally Posted by Yosemine

If we do continue to exist there is that problem of eternity. That's another thing you can't truly imagine. Boredom sounds pretty much guaranteed in a state of continued existence. Hell, I get bored after five minutes of doing nothing. What happens after I've seen it all?

Boredom comes from a lack of interest in one's activity. We feel bored not because there is nothing potentially that could interest us, but because we are stuck in a situation (due to constraints of physical time and space) where we would rather be doing something else. Heaven, being a spiritual state, is free from physical time and space. Our activity in Heaven is therefore not bound by these limitations, and so what we experience is a direct result of our desire to experience it. It is therefore absurd to say that one could be bored in Heaven, because there would always be more to learn about ourselves. If you are bored of knowledge and existence, you are in Hell, not Heaven.
It is equally absurd to think one could "see it all". Infinite possibility is exactly that - Infinite. There is no end to the Knowledge of God, therefore there is no boredom. The eternal Moment is constantly in a state of renewal.

Originally Posted by Yosemine

I also thought about the idea of lost memories. Memories make you yourself. Why do I not want to be reincarnated? I'll lose all my memories; I won't be myself at all. Also, living in eternity would give you an eternity of memories if you could remember. What would you do with something like that.

Memory comes from experiences in the past. If past, present, and future exists simultaneously, then there can be no past memory that could not also be potentially the present (or future). If one is free from the constraint of an irreversible time, there can be no loss.

Originally Posted by Yosemine

People chose God because the simple idea God makes sense to them. It's the easy way out. Does that automatically make God wrong? No, not at all. However, just because we can or can't understand something doesn't make it wrong to go back to my original point. Complications arise when we ask where God came from, why he exists, and what he is. But again, nobody can prove it right or prove it right or wrong.

While I agree that many people believe in God for these reasons, I can honestly say that I am not one of them. I had been agnostic for most of my life, and it wasn't until I experienced these things for myself that I understood what it meant to believe in God. I have to say from how I understand it now, based on personal experience, it is completely different from how I imagined it when I was agnostic. How most conceive of spiritual phenomena, both those who speak for it and those against, is really ignorant of what it actually is. Things that made no sense to me before, that I thought were contradictory, suddenly came to make perfect sense. I learned that these things have to be experienced in the Moment to be known, because it is exactly this state of being in the Moment which is the Knowledge of this state. These things cannot be understood with analytical knowledge because they are beyond the limitations of that knowledge. For example, God is both Being and Non-Being, but to the rational mind this makes no sense - something is either Being or Non-Being. God, being Infinite, is beyond any distinction, free from any limitation that would make It a "thing" to be compared to another "thing". One can say that God is Being because It encompasses every "thing" that exists, but It is also Non-Being because It is not a "thing" in itself.

To understand the physical world, one needs a rational faculty, but to understand phenomena beyond this plane of existence, a rational faculty will only conclude that it is impossible. To superimpose knowledge of this world onto a world that is free of these limitations is an error in thinking. One cannot "prove" the spiritual with physical means. The only way to "prove" the existence of this state is to make oneself capable of receiving this state, because it is precisely the experience that is the knowledge. It can be said that the epistemology is an ontology; knowledge of this state of being is only possible by being in that state. Anything other than the experience is pure speculation.



Bluefinger, some of your other comments I felt I covered in the response above to Yosemine, so please take those comments into consideration.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Limitation is inherent to humanity, it is inherent in all of us. We all are free to expand within boundaries, and it is natural to seek ways to overcome these boundaries. Sometimes it is through athletic means, others through knowledge and reason. Some opt for the spiritual means. All of these pursuits are neither right nor wrong, but to see these limitations as bad things is not productive. When we push through one boundary, we are presented with another, but instead of stopping, we continue onwards. We accept these boundaries because we all seek to overcome them.

However, some things are more than just a boundary, they are a reality. Death is not an illusion. There is nothing to suggest there is more to Death other than what it is.

I never said that these limitations are a bad thing; I said that it is when we allow these limitations to have control over us that they lead to suffering. For example, if one identifies themselves with their ego, then anything that threatens that view of themselves will cause them suffering. But if one understands that the ego is not their essence and is only a tool used to interact within this world, then they will not suffer if it is attacked.

You say that when we push through one boundary we continue onwards. So why do you stop at death? By identifying oneself with their physical body, death appears to be the end of their existence. But if one identifies themselves with their true essence - Being in itself - then they will understand that death is but an illusion relative to their current state of existence.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

My mind exists because of the vast neural network that is my brain, not some concept such as a soul. If I receive enough damage to my brain, essentially, my consciousness and ability to think is altered. My brain effectively is my anchor to reality, so if anything were to happen to it, then the effectiveness of my mind is altered.

I am not talking about your physical brain, nor am I talking about the soul; I am talking about that which allows these things to exist. The physical sciences cannot explain why there is existence, it can only create models based on empirical evidence to explain how it works (and even then it only concerns itself with the physical world). I am not concerned here with how the physical world works (although that is very interesting), but rather what it is that allows it to exist.

I am talking about Being in itself.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

So, you want me to assume a form of confirmation bias by giving up rationality, despite what you said earlier? Is it me or is there some lack of consistency occurring here?

There is no inconsistency here. I am not suggesting that you to give up your rational faculty, I am suggesting that you apply it to things it is capable of understanding and giving up its control over knowledge of which it has no authority and can only distort by assuming its control. If you have a hammer every problem will look like a nail. If you have no interest in understanding atemporal phenomena then so be it, it is not for everyone, but I find it highly suspect that you would keep responding in a thread about exactly that.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

In other words, infinite passage of time. So I was correct to assume so at first.

You are still thinking of spiritual time as a physical time that does not end. This is to superimpose the physical onto the spiritual (see above).

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Going beyond my limitations is to further my knowledge and understanding to a point I feel I can actually achieve something important with my life. And of course I can't see beyond this reality, because trying to see anything beyond it is nothing but speculation, no matter how you feel about it. The destination is not important, it is the journey, therefore things like heaven are irrelevant.

It is only speculation to that which speculates (rational faculty). It is Reality to that which experiences (Being in itself). Heaven is not a place, it is not a destination, it is a part of the journey of knowing one's self!

Originally Posted by bluefinger

No, because heaven implies a separate destination after the one I'm implying, Death. There is no way to objectively quantify the existence of such a place/state/etc, and this is what my path has lead me to conclude. The path I have taken already has lead me to such conclusions, so it is fallacious to say I haven't put a great deal of thought into this already.

First of all I never said, nor do I believe, that you have not put great thought into this, but there is much confusion in the world today as to what spiritual phenomena actually is and so I ask that you reconsider these things in a new light - that of Being in itself. I agree most people think of Heaven as a destination, some kind of reward for doing good acts in this life, but if you want to understanding where I'm coming from you will completely disregard that popular misconception.

I cannot expect someone to understand what I'm talking about just by reading what I write. This is something that has to be experienced in order to be understood. For some this understanding comes suddenly, for others it takes years to understand, and for others still it may never come in this lifetime. If you have the interest and the will to 'Realize' these things within yourself, it will find you. If you don't have the interest, it will not come. This is not something you simply accpet as a belief; it takes years of exploring the essence of existence to come to any true understanding of it. I am only suggesting a path for those who are interested based on my own experience.