Do you believe in souls?

I still wonder this - because Frank has me REALLY thinking about this. (I have stated this position above)

Is the problem that Frank is describing - that evidence FOR or AGAINST God is ambigious - is because of the nature of experience.

Is it because experience, although not relative, is subjective.

Example - Imagine someone put a cigarette out on my arm - and then put a cigarette (with all the same properties and temperatures) out on Frank's arm. Would we feel the same pain?

It seems there is something very subjective about pain and all experience.

When we have cases that are inherantly non reproducable (the pain of suicide for instance) what can science objectively say about experience?

I bring this up because I wonder if experience for me - would always be ambigious for others. If Frank and I attempted to relate our cigarette burns - although they were similar - we could never base our beliefs on what cigarette burns are based on the account of another person.

Don't get me wrong - I think Frank is stating something stronger than this - he is stating that metaphysically there is something ambigious about this evidence. I get that - I am just tossing out related concepts for chum...

TTF

Asherman ~

Thanks for the reply. I liked your opening metaphor alot. I was aware of its meaning for a long time but I appreciate the originality you gave it. It wasn't my intent to go further into this thread but I thought of the following and I'm already half sorry for submitting it. I think I'll cease writing and go back to reading only.

All I can say is if the phenomenal world truly is an illusion how much more important it becomes to respect it especially by those who "dilute" its signifigance by preceding it with words like "mere or only" not having mastered it's meaning. If one were to accept your thesis it becomes as important to MASTER the illusion as it would a "reality" only with the added dimension of SOMETHING in our own psycholgy which so far had no reason to exist in our current state of thinking.

But I wonder, if one's personal consciousness were to survive forever would the connotations of non-existence, illusion, dreams have any resemblance to a life that exists for only as long as the momentary glow of a firefly in intergalactic space? If all we behold and experience - including abstractions or foundations not yet or barely discovered - is an illusion, a dream, then we to whatever distance in the cosmos must exist WITHIN the PSYCHOLOGY of the DREAMER and all philosophy, art, science etc. are our analysis of a minute subset of ITS dream(s). Dreams reflecting back to the dreamer. The REALITY of this situation is that we must monitor ourselves as DREAMS very carefully for the quality of our existence is now a function of "lucid dreaming".

I'll end my incomprehensible theorizing with the idea that God's demise occurs at the very moment of my own. There is in this a kind of psychological distortion that everything plays itself out in the BACKGROUND like a moment's mirage changing the very visage of truth into a kind of operatic landscape that simply returns to nothing with "illusion" itself as victim when the music's played out. In short, DEATH remains as that single preexisting reality which endorses illusion in all it's revisioning, retroactive and I would say, artistic power. But when I yield to my own finality the distortion ceases and in turn the future of any and all illusions ever held.

I will get back to you on your last post, Jason.

I've got 18 holes to play this morning and 18 this afternoon. Tough job...but someone's gotta do it.

I know I'll be composing a response while playing. I just hope nothing brilliant hits during mid-swing or during a putt.

Really. Keep that left arm straight Frank (if your a righty)!

Good luck - and beware of that 19th hole - THAT can get you!

Jason

p.s. Switch jobs with you... ANYTIME!!!

I disagree with point 3 as well, and I doubt very much that I said anything that would suggest I agreed with it. Furthermore, I don't think that Frank has argued that "no evidence counts," although he's in a better position to discuss his own assertions than am I. I'll just add that I certainly think that some evidence counts -- indeed, I'd contend that all evidence counts for something, although that "something" may, in many cases, be very minimal.


That depends on how you "see" Jesus.


I agree.


That may be true, although I would, I suppose, have a rather different view of the validity or reliability of the believer's belief.


I'm always glad to engage in a worthwhile discussion with someone who is calm and courteous. I also enjoy having discussions with Frank.

NTSwift,

I believe I follow your thought. Don't be sorry for speaking your thoughts. It is from a free and open exchange that learning is best accomplished. It is a rare day that I don't learn something new. My notions about Reality and Religion are the product of many years of serious study and thinking, but I'm still just "picking up pretty pebbles on an endless beach".

I believe that we should respect and do our best to master the illusory world. So far as I know, there is no "reason" that the Perceptual World exists. We have to accept it as it is, and deal with it as best we may. There certainly appears to be an underlying law that governs how the perceptual universe behaves. We can discover and know that law of which the sub-sets appear to be mathematics and physics. The sub-sets of these two "bibles" are already reasonably well known thanks to the efforts of scientists and their predecessors. The Unified Field Theory is the capstone to this approach of understanding the nature of perceptual reality. Understanding the dream and how it is structured has profound implications on whether Ultimate Reality is as I suppose, or not. So far, I think that Buddhist notions about the nature of Ultimate Reality are holding-up much better than the model on which the Abrahamic faiths rest.

For many years I resisted calling Ultimate Reality "God". The Abrahamic definition/model of God is so pervasive that we tend to accept that model and definition as if it were the only one. For the nonce at least, let us replace the terms Ultimate Reality, The Buddha Nature, Nirvana, Brahman, etc, with the term "God". after all, if Ultimate Reality is All, then what better term for it than "God".

God, having no body, occupies no dimension. God is the true infinite without beginning, ending, or boundary. God has no "body" separate from the universe, because God IS the insubstantial universe. God's "dream" arises not from any physical place/time, but is, all that we can know of God. The God thought brings the illusory perceptual world into existence. The Perceptual World, being only a projection of God's thought is illusory, but all of it remains God because nothing exists outside of God. There is no independent existence of anything apart from God, but the illusion that there is multiplicity and apartness is the foundation for suffering, the feeling of loss, loneliness, and yearning for something better, more complete, and whole.

God Thought (ultimate Reality), being outside time, encompasses all times and dimensions simultaneously. The passage of time is a characteristic of perceptions. Multiplicity, though illusory, brings into existence all dimensions as a consequence. Time is different only in the sense that it is a descriptor of change. If all times are simultaneous and timeless then change doesn't really occur at all in Ultimate Reality, in God. Within this single God thought are all possible thoughts and alternate realities. All other gods are as illusory sub-sets of God's dream as we are, as the rocks, wind, waves and stars.

Like time (change) being a characteristic of the illusion of multiplicity, so suffering is a characteristic of Sentient-beings thinking themselves "real". Non-sentient beings (all of the constituents that make up the illusory world, less consciousness) never suffer for they never imagine themselves apart from God. They just are, as God IS. Conscious Sentient-beings are capable of "awaking" to their own insubstantial nature, and when that happens and understanding dawns suffering is mitigated, and conquered. Mitigated, in that the suffering of the dream fragment who awakens is lessened by understanding of the true nature of things, and the total of all suffering is diminished. Conquered, in that realization of the ultimate Reality can lead to the annihilation of a dream-fragment's separate existence and illusory-ego. In the first case, what is "created" by awakening is a Bhodisatva, and in the second, a Buddha.

It is futile trying to discover "why" God dreams, or if there is "meaning" to the illusion. Can the part ever even equal the whole. To know the "why" or what meaning there might be to the perceptual world would be to exceed God to rise to a higher level, yet since God is ALL that is an impossibility.

Now all this is nice intellectual stuff, but it doesn't do a whole lot toward achieving the goal set by Buddhism; a practical set of practices that can lead individuals to awakening, where suffering can be treated, mitigated and conquered. Even if we were to convince the whole world of the correctness of this idea, people would still suffer. We should not lose sight of the very practical purpose of making of this life, illusory though it is, less filled with suffering. Can Buddhism, the transcendent experience of awakening have a beneficial effect and reduce suffering? I think so, and there seems to be quite a bit of independent evidence to support the usefulness of Buddhist teachings.

Verryyy interrrresting!

Joe,

I asked Frank this question but I want to ask you - in light of your claim that some religious experience can count.

What counts as counting? Meaning - what would a religious experince have to have to count as inductive evidence for God? How would I need to 'see' Jesus - for it to count?

TTF

p.s. What I think is funniest about Frank - is that he types what I often say. I come across here very calm - but when I talk to others I exude the passion that Frank types - and many misconstrue as rudeness.

I often hear that I am rude - but I just think I am passionate.

This is one of the hardest questions for me, which may surprise some given I have faith in a creationist god and view we are a key part of his plans.

The trouble is my answer would be yes but we have no idea what a soul is or does and whether or not it has conciousness or any connection to life and existence in this plane / membrane. So as either a christian or a scientist I can't remotely define what it is that I profess to belief in - so how can I believe in it or dis-believe it? What is this it and what defines it?

Most of christian faith would say man understands god gave us a soul so when we die some part of use we can't detect or use today continues on but in another plane of existence - closer to god - obeying different rules of existence. Also your actions in this life have consequences to your soul in the next existence (heaven / hell). I believe this is the sum total of our knowledge.

This is effectively absolutely nothing beyond the vaguest concept. So how do we believe it? What is this belief and how does it shape our actions in this life?

Given no real knowledge of heaven or existence beyond our reality what are we believing in - something vague at best. Its almost a noddy for me - sure it exists but I have no f_cking idea what it is and I can't argue logically or credibly with anyone on that subject - nor can anyone else in my view.

It may also count as evidence of delusion...and mental instability. :wink:

If it happens, let's allow professionals to determine which it is.

You bring a couple of clergy...and I'll bring a couple of psychiatrists.




Okay, let us know when it happens.



Same response as above.




I don't think there is ANY reliable experiential evidence for the existence...or non-existence...of any gods. None. Zip. Nada. Zero.



Nor would I expect you to.





Agreed.





Hope I haven't disappointed you. :wink:



I not only enjoy this give and take...it helps keep my mind working. (Use it or lose it.)

I'm a golfer. Sarcasm is part of the sport...and in the non-professional game, an important part. Don't pay much attention to any I throw your way...it means I love ya.

(You too, Joe!)

anyways i dont like the buddhist view on reincarnation at all, they say nothing is passed on or reborn yet they want to call it reincarnation

so basically when i die, i die, there will be no more future, why call it rebirth? why is there a "re"?

Don't be upset, GB. What you REALLY are will continue. Your ego will cease to exist, but it never existed anyway, except as an illusion. I don't know, but I suspect the term, reincarnation, is misinterpreted by you as re-birth of YOU. New incarnations occur with every birth, but no ego (no you) is reborn. As I suggested before, the Cosmos will be reborn in flesh, as well as plant life and all forms of material organization.
I forget what I've said to you before, so I am probably becoming very boring with repetition.

NTSwift, you ask a question that "we mystics" have to deal with so long as we wish to grasp the matter under discussion INTELLECTUALLY. It's a valid philosophical question, but not one a zen master would answer.

You asked: "How would an "illusion" that lives within the illusion of time, space, and multiplicity know what an Ultimate Reality is?
"... if I could comprehend my own non-reality then what is REAL about me that can comprehend it or even attempt to understand it?"

I feel this question raises the question, implicitly, of the nature of meditation. Who meditates, if the goal is to 'transcend ego'? The great subtlty is to realize the contradiction and get past it, i.e., continue to meditate but without effort, without intention. That is to say, without ego. To comprehend one's own non-reality is not an intellectual achievement. Enlightenment really is not something the enlightened one is aware of, any more than consciousness is aware of consciousness (where IS Tywvel, by the way?).

JLN, you make some good points but not everything can be explained by a surfeit or deficit of ego. When the Buddha first strove to understand was it ego that compelled him? I don't think so. At least not the kind of ego that wishes to remain in control. The first prerequisite for those who truly strive TO KNOW is to "REALIZE" that the ego WILL BECOME its own auto-da-fay but it cannot do so without first being its own "port of departure". That's course #101 in enlightment - ANY KIND of enlightenment. Also, one must acknowledge the REALITY of a situation. When the Buddha utilized asceticism as the accepted path toward enlightment, he realized, being close to death, that he must feed the illusion with at least one good meal a day for his mind to master it's ultimate reality. He understood the difference between hallucination due to weakness and knowledge engendered by strength of mind which is the focus of meditation. You write "Who meditates, if the goal is to 'transcend ego'?" The "great subtley" is actually the ego yearning to annihilate itself knowing it is its own greatest obstacle. Everything that drove Sidhartha to become The Buddha was motivation engendered by ego in full disclosure it would become its own "Gotterdammerung". The ego has always been and shall not cease to be, as long as we are in our present form, the prime motivator for virtually every good and evil ever accomplished. Ego is not in itself something blind, stupid or mean. For some, as for Sidhartha, it becomes (as Aristotle would say) the Prime Mover into a revelation which ultimately annuls it. That's when Sidhartha BECAME the BUDDHA - the embodiment of an ego that has reached its own summit of non-existence.

I also think that consciousness is actually very much aware of itself when aware of its limitations and the means to overcome it. Something which is driven to expand has no other option than to be aware.

I must say this is the closest I have been in any discussion to sitting on the same side of the fence as Frank. I hold with his logic - we know nothing about the subject at hand - absolute nadar - so its a faith vs logic call with no evidence to make a ruling on.

What if I told you you had not one soul but two or many or an infinite number that grow and die each day. No one could prove I was right or wrong.

I don't think you can lend a soul any property that exists in this reality - such as vague terms like a life essence or divine energy or life force. Simply say we don't know, other than its totally not of this world / universe. It probably has 101 properties that are not of our universe whose use we can't even relate to in this existence. We just don't know!

I could say doing good gives you spirit money and doing bad gives you spirit debt (like Karma) but again no proof - just idle spectulation that can't be proved.

So the most we can say is what do you believe and why - there is no proof in this domain, only reasoned guesses of varying incredibility.

g__day ~

The only thing we know for sure, even if many do not want to admit it, is that when your dead absolutely nothing will matter. As a Klingon would put it "you are nothing more than an empty shell". You won't even be able to sue anybody for broken promses or breach of contract which is the reason why anybody will promise you anything after your dead. Pity the poor suicide bombers who expect compensation for all their "good deeds". In the mean time don't complain, enjoy the luxury of confusion. It's our heritage.

Good post, G.

We don't know...and the evidence available for us to use in making a guess is so little and so ambiguous...it probably is best to stop after acknowledging "I do not know."

But Christians guess; atheists guess; Buddhists guess...and most will argue until blue in the face that their guesses are more than guesses.

Too bad for all of humanity...because humanity is the lesser for that.

Is it me or did this thread have 21 pages just a minute ago?

it got erased?

here is the deleted part i asked if it was possible to be reborn on other planets

JLNobody said "yes why not"

Asherman said "yes, because no matter how far or near doesnt matter because it is all an illusion"

and i agree'd with them, i said "i dont see a reason why not, it is possible, maybe probable"

let me add to my response, i actually think rebirth on other planets is inevitable, because where were "we" being reborn before the earth was created?, had to be some other planet right? and had to be some other planet before that

hahaha