[John Casler]

  Go ahead – though, opine away. There is no escaping the end of it all, regardless. The grave awaits us all and then we'll know for sure. Might as well, all you have to loose is time.  

 ...

I might have a tendency to disagree that "The grave awaits us all and then we'll know for sure".

Knowing is only "possible" through awarness, or the ability to be aware and perceive.  

There is no logic or evidence, that awarness can be possible without a body, brain and senses.

So it is purely hopeful specualtion that "we'll know for sure".

While there are religious thinkers who speculate that we are travelling to the "all knowing", there are others who say we will not exist in a state awarness at all.

"Everything, is Nothing", and "Nothing is Everything".

No doubt, without the confines of a single brain, to receive, store and analytically process sensation, the concept of individual awareness, or individual existance is impossible. (from evidence we have here)

[Aether Audio]

While there are religious thinkers who speculate that we are travelling to the "all knowing", there are others who say we will not exist in a state awarness at all.

Well.. If we turn off like a light bulb - then we'll know that too.  Er, well, I guess not.  Hey! Maybe we won't even know we died so therefore, whatever bad there is in the process of dying we won't have any memory of so there's nothing to fear.

Wait a minute.  If that's the case we won't even remeber that we lived - 'cause we don't exist to remember.  Hmmm...If I won't exist after I'm dead, then what difference does it make what I do now?  P-A-R-T-Y!!!    

Better be damn glad I don't have my finger on the "Big Red Button."  Let's blow the whole damn thing up.  What difference does it make - nobody will remember.  "Black-hole sun, won't you come...and wash away the rain."  Non-existance - cool.  It's all a f**king nightmare anyway - let's just turn it off.  No more pain, misery, cancer, ex-wives, orphans, whores, pimps, child moleters, drug lords, corprate moguls controlling our lives. government puppets doing the same, religeous fanatics trying to make us miserable with their incessant preaching.  BAM!!! - all gone.  And nobody left to tell the story. HA!

Sounds like the best is yet to come.  Hey, let's all form a pact to commit suicide so we don't have to put up with any more lousy audio - or any of the rest for that matter.  Any takers?  C'mon...what's the matter?  It'll all be over in a few seconds after taking the little cyanide pill.  

What? You don't agree?  Well, what makes your opinion any more legitimate than mine?  You say the world has value and should therefore be permitted to continue existing.  Prove it.  If life is not eternal, then does it really exist at all?  In fact, does anything really exist?  When we're all dead and gone from the sun going nova, and there's not a single sentient being left to remember, will any of this have been?

I wonder what stops us from taking that little pill?  Doubt maybe? - nah!

-Bob

[John Casler]

Are you actually saying that "if" you didn't beleive in an afterlife, you could find no reaon to live this one?
 

[Aether Audio]

Are you actually saying that "if" you didn't beleive in an afterlife, you could find no reaon to live this one?

No John.  I'm simply taking the philosophy to it's theoretical limits to make a point.  In the twisted minds of many, I'm sure they do extrapolate to such extremes.  It's makes it a lot easier to sleep at night if you do decide to take up serial murder - I would suppose.

The theological/philosophical endpoint is just that though.  Reality is the perception of the observer.  Each perceives his own and for him it is real.  All reality only has meaning as as a consequence of perception.  If, by whatever process life and sentient awareness came into being, had not taken place and there was no observer, would there be a reality at all?  

To discuss (or define) a thing there must be a vocabulary and at least one observer/communicator.  Commonly we think it requires two, but consider "self-speak."  We do it all the time.  We observe and define even in the absence of others.  Any reality/universe cannot be discussed and/or defined without an observer at least speculating that it exists.  Even attempting to speculate is highly limited without the vocabulary that arises from some finite amount of information about that reality.

Case in point:  What lies beyond a black hole?  We can speculate forever but that is a futile effort.  We have no way of extracting any information from beyond the event horizon, so we can never know.  Without an observer (man-made probe would be an extension thereof) going beyond the event horizon and somehow sending information back, we have no vocabulary to define/discuss it.  All we know is that we don't know.

The above scenario requires a pre-existing observer already located in one reality, observing an apparent "doorway" to another beyond his own.  What if there was no observer in any reality/dimension/universe?  Answer: There would be no reality.  Calling anything a reality is from the "inside looking out."  If nobody is home to "look out the window," then whatever is outside it and even the window itself really has no meaning.

So, if the sun goes super nova and there isn't a single observer left, it will be as though our world never existed.  Of course, if there are aliens watching us, that changes everything, but you get my point.  If there is no afterlife and remembrance of this life, then whatever reality we say we are in is only temporal - at best.  And once that is gone what difference will any human (or non-human) action have made.  Killing will have been the same as loving, joy the same as sorrow, friends the same as enemies, good the same as evil.  And what difference does one man's opinion over that of another make concerning any of it?  Many justify all sorts of evil in their own minds.  How can we say they're wrong with any more validity than they possess?

If there is no absolute and final observer, no absolute truth, no absolute reality, there is nothing.  I submit that absolute "point-source" and reference is what is most commonly referred to as "GOD."  The Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.  The Great "I am."  To whatever degree an observation is made at some distance from "God's" point of reference and "opinion," the further that observation is from the absolute truth of the matter.  The further from the mind of God, the greater the insanity.  Hence:  "Why not push the Big Red Button."

A universe without God is without purpose.  Not just for me personally, but from a purely logical standpoint.  No eternal life, no remembrance, no observer, in the end, no nothing.  Existence and non-existence are equal when non-existence becomes the final chapter.  That's what I meant.

-Bob

[John Casler]

 A universe without God is without purpose. Not just for me personally, but from a purely logical standpoint. No eternal life, no remembrance, no observer, in the end, no nothing. Existence and non-existence are equal when non-existence becomes the final chapter. That's what I meant.
..

Bob, I certainly like and agree with some of what you state, but God "is not" purpose for all to live and exist, no matter what logic you apply.

God has no existance except in the imaginations of some.  Eternal life is not a goal, and cannot be substantiated, and if it were, it is not some moral goal post to be won, by "obeying" a parentally modeled diety, and blindly beleiving some ancient "tales".

As far as the "final chapter", in "your book" it is already written, but from the very vivid imaginations of some.

In my book, it is as your "black hole" example, and is not something that we, at this level, can begin to understand.

Acceptance of the facts of reality, will allow you to "not fear" the unknown, and search for specualtive comfort.

Death may be the end, it may be transition, or it might be a new beginning.  I derive no particular comfort in trying to guess the next chapter, but more enjoyment in living within the current one.

[Christof]

John

Please do not take offense to this comment.  I'm trying to understand why you continue to discuss this nothingness if you really feel strongly that in life and death and it's cycle there is nothing(ness).  This way of thinking seems very Buddhist in nature (I feel very much the same way) but in your writing you seem to say what is right and what is wrong, yet you believe that all is right and all is wrong?

Christof

[John Casler]

John

Please do not take offense to this comment.  I'm trying to understand why you continue to discuss this nothingness if you really feel strongly that in life and death and it's cycle there is nothing(ness).  This way of thinking seems very Buddhist in nature (I feel very much the same way) but in your writing you seem to say what is right and what is wrong, yet you believe that all is right and all is wrong?

Christof

Hi Christof,

Certainly don't take any offense to anything you ask.  

Firstly however, I didn't state that "life" is nothingness.  In fact, to us, it is all that is real.  It is, as far as we know, everything.

I think my question is that of natural curiosity, as to why and how persons of reasonable resolving power, can and do subscribe to certain beliefs beyond fact, logic, or evidence.

Much of what happens in the world today, is the result of religious teachings that have mutated into dogma that becomes dangerous.

Just look at the Robertson comments of a day or two ago.  Is he any better than Osama? and look at his flock?  Can they support this?  If so on what grounds?  Religious? Political? Societal?

I am under the impression that most if not all of the suicide bombers find comfort in ascending to heaven and their bevy of virgins.  I know many find that kind of thinking (the virgins that is) rather strange.  I find it no stranger than most of the teachings of the afterlife in many dometsic churches.

I think by providing the questions, those who "haven't" gone that far, might see a more balanced view, and not be overwhelmed by non-contested thought.

Additionally, there may also be areas that "I" have not explored that need to have reasonable answers (if they can) to "fill in the blanks" as it were.

I have received an incredible amount of PM's regarding the posts and favorable comments about offering the stimulation to "think about it".

Your evaluation about my stating what is right and or wrong, is probably interpretation.  I certainly "DON"T" claim to know what is right or wrong, and further doubt if there really is such a thing outside of human society.

Humans live in groups (societies) where they seem to collectively arrive at moral intstruction to themselves.

Look at animals.  They kill and injure each other on a daily basis, and we don't judge them immoral for acting in this way.  

Then we condem certain societies (Taliban/Al Quida/etc) for their moral restrictions, and, or, regard for human life.

So right and wrong are moral and societal issues that we have tendency to "sort out" depending on the society we are in.

The tie in to the afterlife and behavoir while here, is another story.

I simply find the interwoven fabric interesting to "unravel" and observe.

[ScottMayo]

God has no existance except in the imaginations of some.  Eternal life is not a goal, and cannot be substantiated, and if it were, it is not some moral goal post to be won, by "obeying" a parentally modeled diety, and blindly beleiving some ancient "tales".

Hrm. I think I'd like to see this discussion moved somewhere else, like Fight Club or even the Sports Bar. Because while there's little I enjoy more than deconstructing people's uninformed views on religion, especially mine, I sure as heck decline to do it in some vendor's forum.

[John Casler]

God has no existance except in the imaginations of some.  Eternal life is not a goal, and cannot be substantiated, and if it were, it is not some moral goal post to be won, by "obeying" a parentally modeled diety, and blindly beleiving some ancient "tales".

Hrm. I think I'd like to see this discussion moved somewhere else, like Fight Club or even the Sports Bar. Because while there's little I enjoy more than deconstructing people's uninformed views on religion, especially mine, I sure as heck decline to do it in some vendor's forum.

Hey Scott,

You hafta go back to the begining of the thread.  Discussing politics and religion are forbidden, in the "open" forum.  

Bob, has "seeded" this discussion in his forum, since he has rather strong religious convictions and doesn't mind sharing them, and although some have "taken offense", I think for the most part it is participated in by gentlemen sharing ideas and stimulating the edges of their current thinking.

I hope my comments (as direct as they are on occasion) are taken in that context.

[ScottMayo]

Hey Scott,
Bob, has "seeded" this discussion in his forum, since he has rather strong religious convictions and doesn't mind sharing them, ...

Oh,well, if it's his forum and he allows/encourages it, that's a different matter.  

[ScottMayo]

I think my question is that of natural curiosity, as to why and how persons of reasonable resolving power, can and do subscribe to certain beliefs beyond fact, logic, or evidence.

You mean, like the assertion that, "first there was nothing - and then it exploded?"

The materialistic answers to the question "where did this come from" (where "this" is the material world) requires *fantastic* leaps of faith, having nothing to do with evidence and fact (it's rather hard to know the facts of the pre-reality state), and precious little to do with logic.

Given the choice between "nothing spontaneously exploded into something" and "Someone who knows a lot more than we do, is able to create things"... frankly, I'm not sure which one you or anyone would call "reasonable", but I know the second is at least slightly more plausable. We *know* intelligence can design and create, but we don't usually observe nothingness spitting up vast amounts of order.

And once you accept that, some of those "ancient tales" you refer to begin to take on some interesting possibilities.

[John Casler]

You mean, like the assertion that, "first there was nothing - and then it exploded?"

The materialistic answers to the question "where did this come from" (where "this" is the material world) requires *fantastic* leaps of faith, having nothing to do with evidence and fact (it's rather hard to know the facts of the pre-reality state), and precious little to do with logic.

Given the choice between "nothing spontaneously exploded into something" and "Someone who knows a lot more than we do, is able to cr ...

Hi Scott,

Actually no.  I don't have any reason to subscribe to a "nothing to everything" theory.  However, I do find it interesting that some of the detractors claim that God is "everthing" and before him there was "nothing".

Which is more plausible?

Hmmmm.... maybe the groups are closer than it appears, and differences are primarily in explanitory architecture.

In even playing with the concept of what infinity is, we need to rememeber that it goes "both directions".  That is large, as in infinite, and small, as in infintesimal.  Both continue infinitely.

In fact, some say it is a circular or continually flowing (where did they get that?) system.  So if black holes are really universal/infinite "compactors", maybe the Universe did reach compacted critical mass (basically nothingness) and we had a BIG BANG.

Searching for "answers" armed with tools like facts, knowledge, awareness, logic, and even intuition, is like starting a journey of a million miles on a path of crushed glass, with only a pair of socks

Meaning...don't expect to get too far.

But trying to fill in the blanks by using ancient tales and stories of our fathers, is equally as unrewarding.

To even fathom a state of "heavenly perfection", we must realize that in such a place, individuality, and individual thought, could not exist since each of those things requires a "self", and self cannot exist as an awarness without making choices.  Choices lead to right and wrong, or even better or best, and this cannot exist in perfection.

Even speech, or for that matter thought, require choice.

Can attorneys get into heaven? or is that an FC (foregone conclusion)

Our world exists in a state of "balance" and "gradation", that cannot attain perfection.  In fact, perfection is much like infinity, in that it cannot ever be attained in an existance as we know it.  It can only be approached, and the closer we get, the farther away we are.

Much like knowledge.  The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

It seems that the "primary heavenly concept of perfection" cannot exist except in nothingness.  

Non-existance is nothingness....Nothingness is perfection.

So again, the non-beleiver says death is "nothingness" and the beleiver says death is heaven.  Seems they're the same thing.

So sometimes I wish I (we) had not eaten from the "tree of good and evil" or even the "tree of knowledge", since back when we were children, it was so simple to listen to adults, and simply accept their versions of how it works, with no questions.

Apples and Oranges and snakes,....Oh my!!

And who coined the term "Devil's advocate", anyhow?  Doesn't require too much thought.

No doubt the answers are not readily available for most of the real questions, but in some cases, many haven't even "thought" of the questions, much less "ask them".

I'm still waiting to see if we find Michael Valentine Smith on Mars.  Then I'll get serious

Grok?   Fullness?   Share Water?   Heinlien?   It is a stimulating, yet light, read for both the beleiver and the non-beleiver.

Too late to write more and probably most of this will not make sense in the morning  

[woodsyi]

Much like knowledge. The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

It seems that the "primary heavenly concept of perfection" cannot exist except in nothingness.

Non-existance is nothingness....Nothingness is perfection.

So again, the non-beleiver says death is "nothingness" and the beleiver says death is heaven. Seems they're the same thing.

My goodness,

Go get some sleep, John.  You are thinking too much.  According to Blaise Pascal, "It is the heart which experiences God, and not reason."  You should listen to a Frenchman when it comes to affairs of the heart.  You are suppose to feel the love not trying to know the love.

I don't know what I would feel after death but I know how I feel after le petit morte.  It feels like heaven (I hope), then you feel empty but content and then you fall asleep.

[Tyson]

I agree with woodsyi, you cannot "reason" your way to god or belief in god.  To my experience, people either already "have" faith or they do not.  Reason plays no role in this basic question of faith or no faith.

On the other hand, sometimes there are people that don't believe that are converted by an "epiphany", or by god "revealing himself" to them.  In those cases as well, reason plays no role.

So John, stop trying to reason about the existence god, it is a Sisyphean task.  One either flat accepts it, or one does not, that is the fundamental.  Without that, nothing else follows.  But WITH that, EVERYTHING follows.

Just as you will never be able to "prove" the non-existence of God, others of faith will never be able to "prove" his existence.  It's a question of faith, not logic.  And you either have faith, or you do not, period.

BTW, I do not have faith, but have learned the futility of trying to argue or debate with people who do.  My world-view and their world-view are so vastly different as to be incommensurate even at the most basic level.  In the end you can only really state "this is what I think, and these are the reasons", and they can only state, "this is my belief, and this is what I base that on".

[ScottMayo]

I agree with woodsyi, you cannot "reason" your way to god or belief in god.  To my experience, people either already "have" faith or they do not.  Reason plays no role in this basic question of faith or no faith.

Whoopsie. No. There are people who believe in God the way other people believe in astrology, or the healing power of crystals, or whatever other baseless mythology you like. Belief like that a kind of mysticism, and I suppose it works for them. I generally leave mystics of all sorts alone; if someone wants to believe something fundamentally unbelievable, and simultaneously dismisses logic and inquiry, then hey, there is no reason to talk about it. (Talking, after all,  requires meaning, reason and understanding, otherwise words are just noises. Talking with someone who has already dismissed reason is entirely pointless.)

But then, there are also people who believe in God because of what they've observed, reasoned about and concluded. There are valid reasons *not* to dismiss God's existance, there are personal experiences that lead in certain directions, there are historical accounts to be considered and measured, and there are facts about humanity and how humanity operates thaty beg certain questions.

The better thinkers in this group become theologians, and some of them have written things that ought to be considered before dismissing all belief as "mysticism." Neither Schaeffer nor Lewis enagaged in any trace of sloppy irrationalism, for example.

I am a Christian; I am also very much NOT a mystic. I'm about as hard-headed (if not curmudgeonly) about most matters as can be. My beliefs are rooted in experiences - real events in the real world - and reason.

So watch who you call unreasoning, buddy.  

[Tyson]

Yes, I don't doubt that many people feel their belief in god is quite reasonable.  But that argument breaks down when you consider that one cannot extrapolate to the supernatural from the natural.  Just like the atheist cannot say "I see no evidence in the natural world for the existence of god, therefore I do not believe", so in that same sense, the believer cannot say "I do see evidence in the natural world for the existence of god, therefore I do believe".  One simply cannot point to "nature" and then use that to say anything about something "outside of nature (the supernatural or spiritual).

Unless of course you can point out to me something specific (and irrefutable) that directly ties and connects the natural to the supernatural.  But in all the arguments from all the theologens in all the world, I've never come across anything that meets this criteria.  At some point they inevitable ask you to make some sort of "leap of faith" in order to follow them, and that's a leap I cannot make, specifically because that "leap" is precisely the point that reason is abandoned.

[woodsyi]

I am a Christian; I am also very much NOT a mystic. I'm about as hard-headed (if not curmudgeonly) about most matters as can be. My beliefs are rooted in experiences - real events in the real world - and reason.

Scott,  belief rooted in experience is a wise and safe thing, but to "commune" with god, one has to abandon reason and take that leap of faith that bridges the ineffable and the person.  No amount of reasoning can bridge that last step. Anyone can be a follower of a religious tradition but it takes a person of faith --willingness to believe without logical proof --to be religious in that tradition. Mysticism without reasoned practice can lead you astray, but worship without an element of mysticism is only a social tradition.

[ScottMayo]

Scott,  belief rooted in experience is a wise and safe thing, but to "commune" with god, one has to abandon reason

Why? I don't have to abandon reason to talk to other rational being, even ones I can't touch or see (like you, for example). Why is this case different?

[John Casler]

My goodness,

Go get some sleep, John.  You are thinking too much.  According to Blaise Pascal, "It is the heart which experiences God, and not reason."  You should listen to a Frenchman when it comes to affairs of the heart.  You are suppose to feel the love not trying to know the love.

I don't know what I would feel after death but I know how I feel after le petit morte.  It feels like heaven (I hope), then you feel empty but content and then you fall asleep.

Hi Woodsyi,

Never been one to listen to emotion (heart) since they are not based on rational reason.  

Maybe thats why I haven't succumbed.  I should take that back, when I was a young teen, I did the whole "born again" epiphany, but as I gained an intellect, and developed unanswerable questions, the whole thing evaporated.

And I can tell you what you'll feel like in heaven....nothing.  

The general concept of individual spirit, is one based on personal awarness and even mobility.  Once you become part of infinity, there is no place to go.

There is also nothing to "sense" especially since you will have no senses, which are connected to the brain, which too will be absent.

[Aether Audio]

John – et. al.,
I think you seem to have missed the entire point of this thread.  It was never my intent to start a debate with those that already have their minds made up.  It was for the express purpose of stimulating the curiosity of and dialogue with those that don’t.  As I’ve said before, having raised three sons, you can’t prove water is wet to someone that already “knows” otherwise.  There were times I could have dropped all three into the middle of Lake Michigan and they would have come out dripping wet and in denial thereof.

So…while I appreciate your interest and participation on a certain level, as you’ve stated,

“God has no existance except in the imaginations of some.”

so there remains nothing on my part to be said.  You have determined this for yourself and that’s it.  

Time and again I have stated in our forum that faith is a system established by God that, in order to function as intended, CANNOT be based on a set of naturally and scientifically provable evidences of his existence.  If it were, His greatest gift to us, OUR FREE WILL to choose to follow him or not, would be violated and made null.  

Who could stand against and resist a truly “Almighty God that can be seen or at least proven to exist?”  Yet, to follow and obey transforms the individual into a puppet.  This is the very problem Lucifer had a long time ago.  God gave us something he never gave the angels – a true choice.  That being a result of His aparent "absence." And that’s why at “the end of days,” those who CHOSE to follow and serve this “ridiculous” path and obey an “invisible God,” will be esteemed greater than the angels.  We will have never had the “luxury” of knowing for sure – as they had.  Yet, we followed and believed.  It’s sort of like a son believing and following the guidance of his dad without ever totally understanding.  It’s a “trust” based system.

But you don’t accept any of that so what’s my point?  Never mind.  I don’t have one.  Apparently not for you anyway.  But as Christ said, “for those that have eyes to see and ears to hear,”  let the “foolishness of preaching,” as the bible teaches, ring out as a “voice crying in the wilderness,” whether it be by me or others.

And as far as spreading the fables and teachings of some ancient text or system promoted by established systems of belief construed by men – forget it.  I would never advocate believing in something so life altering and directing, simply based on an intellectual understanding of its teachings.  

There is no greater truth than the one EXPERIENCED.  Had I not experienced God personally, I would be in the dark as much as anybody.  In fact, I was.  You see, I was once a pretty devout atheist as a young man myself.  Then while I was alone and in despair, a voice spoke to me.  Not outwardly, but in my mind.  Thinking I was going insane, I challenged that voice.  Have you ever heard a voice that echoes with the authority of THUNDER?  I have, and it shook me to the very core of my soul.  31 years later my life is still affected by that same Voice on a daily basis.  It completely re-directed the course of my life and by ITS grace I avoided the prison or the grave I was destined for.

Am I nuts?  That’s for everybody else to decide.  I speak to this Voice and it speaks back to me.  I only know about the teachings of the bible because that Voice TOLD me to study it and learn from it.  That Voice told me the bible is ITS WORD and that I should put forth effort to “study to show myself approved, a workman that need not be ashamed (of my otherwise ignorance thereof), rightly dividing (discerning) the WORD OF TRUTH.”  Had this “voice” not told me to do so; I never would have picked up a bible.

Yes, I may be nuts, but I have plenty of company.  People the world over by the millions are claiming to have experienced God directly through the process of faith in Jesus Christ and becoming “born-again.”  The word is so over used though.  It simply means having an “epiphany” or “REVELATION” from God – a spiritual “awakening” – so to speak.  Are we all nuts?  Well of course we are… as “the things of God are foolishness to this world.”

Call me a fool and write me off – I’m out’a here.  And I’m done debating the un-provable and will respond no further as that Voice teaches me to “avoid vain disputations that profitith nothing.”  I have more fruitful things to do with my time.

See ya (I hope) on the other side of tomorrow.

-Bob