Do we choose our beliefs? (yes and no)

[Nimos]

Not "outside", but beyond. And exactly. How can we? I say we can't. Not honestly. And so it's honesty that we should be aspiring to, not our limited and unverifiable pretenses of truth.

Just so I know what you mean, can you give an example of an existence beyond our reality? And if you can't and don't believe anyone else can either, then explain why we should bother with it?

Then let's stop calling our pretense, "truth". Let's stop pretending that have what we cannot have. And seek what we CAN have: honesty.

Definitions
- the quality or state of being true.
"he had to accept the truth of her accusation"

- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
noun: the truth
"tell me the truth"

- a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
plural noun: truths
"the emergence of scientific truths"

None of these definitions suits you in regards to truth? or what would you suggest it should be?

 

[Vichar]

Let's get real here. We can go around and around in circles and easily talk ourselves out of making any real spiritual progress, or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work. You can define truth as "partial" or "relative," but the fact of the matter is every single human being treats some bit of knowledge as true, even if only for the time being. The courage to act upon this possibly "partial" truth and the discipline to stick with it when the going gets hard is what separates out the enlightened from the masses of talkers who would like to believe being clever is sufficient to win glory in the eyes of the Lord. This principle, which some people refer to as "acting to know," is one of the first cornerstones of the true seeker. The universe does not reward a lack of effort, disingenuous philosophy, or projection of insecurity. ANY truly sincere effort to meet the divine will force the universe to respond in kind, and regardless of path, religion, belief, or circumstance, it WILL bring that day you can speak with God directly that much closer.

So yes, if you happen to be a little further along than another human being on their very long spiritual journey which spans lifetimes, you might smirk at them as recognize the problems they are struggling with as ones you have previously encountered. But that's like a college student looking down a grade schooler as they struggle with their multiplication tables--it only serve to stroke your ego, and does nothing to further your own spiritual progress. Far better would be to focus on the specific problems before you and make every effort to understand your own next steps.

 

[PureX]

Just so I know what you mean, can you give an example of an existence beyond our reality? And if you can't and don't believe anyone else can either, then explain why we should bother with it?

The example is everything that we don't know existing beyond our "reality". Do you believe that you know all there is to know? If not, then there must be reality beyond the reality you know. And you have no idea how that reality transcends the one you know.

 

[rstrats]

1213,
re: "I think all beliefs are chosen."

Perhaps you can help me. I have never been able to consciously CHOOSE any of the beliefs that I have and I would like to be able to do that. If you think that you can consciously CHOOSE to believe things, I wonder if you might explain how you do it. What do you do at the last moment to instantly change your one state of belief to another? What is it that you do that would allow you to say, "OK, at this moment I have a lack of belief that ‘x’ exists or is true, but I CHOOSE to believe that ‘x’ exists or is true and now instantly at this new moment I do believe that ‘x’ exists or is true?

Maybe you could use something like leprechauns to demonstrate your technique. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, a leprechaun is a fairy peculiar to Ireland, who appeared in the form of an old man of minute stature, wearing a cocked hat and a leather apron and who stores away his gold in a pot at the end of a rainbow, and if ever captured has to grant three wishes to the person who captures him.

So, assuming that you don’t already have a belief in them, how about right now, while you are reading this, CHOOSE to believe - be convinced without a doubt - that they exist. Now that you believe in leprechauns, my question is, how did you do it? How did you make the instantaneous transition from lack of belief to belief?

 

[Nimos]

The example is everything that we don't know existing beyond our "reality". Do you believe that you know all there is to know? If not, then there must be reality beyond the reality you know. And you have no idea how that reality transcends the one you know.

I see what you mean.

The difference between how we look at it, if I understand you correctly, is that I see no reason to assume that the things we do not yet know about, is of supernatural origin.

So until some sort of hypothesis can be verified showing that any form of supernatural exists, then I don't consider that to part of our reality or even beyond it.

I would put it in the same category as multiverse, simulation theory, ghosts, goblins and Gods. Meaning that these are merely ideas that can't be verified as being true. Yet we can't disproof that it might not be case either, just as we can't disproof a lot of other ideas.

But to me, it would be wrong, to say that any of these things are beyond our reality, and therefore seen as an obstacle for us, to be be able to refer to truth in regards to what we actually know.
The moment we allow one of these ideas to be part of the beyond our reality existence, then we would have to allow all them. At least, as a minimum, one would have to justify, why ghosts should be included, but not the simulation theory for instance.

So all these ideas, ought to be in the category of "Currently unknown", which means that we have no good reason to assume that they are part or beyond our reality, until evidence for them are presented.

And therefore I would still say, that the truth we are working with is not absolute, but is the current knowledge which are supported by the evidence we have. Which makes one thing more likely than something else.

The exception is, as I mentioned in one of the former posts, is that you personally might say "That you love a given song". You can't proof to me, that you do. Just as I can't disproof it either. But the claim itself is neither supernatural or remarkable anyway. So there is no reason for me to assume that you are lying about it. And even if you were, then it wouldn't really make any difference.

 

[Link]

Let's get real here. We can go around and around in circles and easily talk ourselves out of making any real spiritual progress, or we can roll up our sleeves and get to work. You can define truth as "partial" or "relative," but the fact of the matter is every single human being treats some bit of knowledge as true, even if only for the time being. The courage to act upon this possibly "partial" truth and the discipline to stick with it when the going gets hard is what separates out the enlightened from the masses of talkers who would like to believe being clever is sufficient to win glory in the eyes of the Lord. This principle, which some people refer to as "acting to know," is one of the first cornerstones of the true seeker. The universe does not reward a lack of effort, disingenuous philosophy, or projection of insecurity. ANY truly sincere effort to meet the divine will force the universe to respond in kind, and regardless of path, religion, belief, or circumstance, it WILL bring that day you can speak with God directly that much closer.

So yes, if you happen to be a little further along than another human being on their very long spiritual journey which spans lifetimes, you might smirk at them as recognize the problems they are struggling with as ones you have previously encountered. But that's like a college student looking down a grade schooler as they struggle with their multiplication tables--it only serve to stroke your ego, and does nothing to further your own spiritual progress. Far better would be to focus on the specific problems before you and make every effort to understand your own next steps.

The wisdom you said here is so important, may God reward you.

 

[Thief]

not only am I in charge of what I believe...

I carefully and deliberately make certain what I allow myself to nod my head to

it is my belief
your hand will do what you think you should
or do so because you felt like it

either way

make certain your OWN mind and heart......first

 

[PureX]

I see what you mean.

The difference between how we look at it, if I understand you correctly, is that I see no reason to assume that the things we do not yet know about, is of supernatural origin.

Neither do I. Yet I also see no reason to assume they aren't. So I have some choices available to me that I can't make based on anything I can know.

So until some sort of hypothesis can be verified showing that any form of supernatural exists, then I don't consider that to part of our reality or even beyond it.

You do realize, I hope, that this is an irrational bias (based on no information). You are choosing this position as your default based on the what you don't know.

I would put it in the same category as multiverse, simulation theory, ghosts, goblins and Gods. Meaning that these are merely ideas that can't be verified as being true. Yet we can't disproof that it might not be case either, just as we can't disproof a lot of other ideas.

But what you keep overlooking, here, is that by "true" you mean that 'it functions within your limited and preconceived understanding and experience of existence'. In other words, it fits your reality (bias).

But to me, it would be wrong, to say that any of these things are beyond our reality, and therefore seen as an obstacle for us, to be be able to refer to truth in regards to what we actually know.

The spherical Earth existed outside/beyond our collective human reality for a very long time. And an Earth of multiple physical manifestations in multiple universes exists (if it exists) beyond our reality, at present. That which exists beyond our reality is potentially infinite, and infinitely unknowable by us. Our reality is not what is. Our reality is only a very limited and biased presumption (opinion) of what is based on our very limited and biased experience and capacity for understanding what is. So for us to claim, or to pretend to ourselves that we know "the truth" of anything, is absurd. All we can know is whether or not one of our theories of what is functions within the parameters of our very limited experience and understanding of existence.

The moment we allow one of these ideas to be part of the beyond our reality existence, then we would have to allow all them.

No we don't. We can logically choose to presume that a God exists without presuming that all gods exist.

So all these ideas, ought to be in the category of "Currently unknown", which means that we have no good reason to assume that they are part or beyond our reality, until evidence for them are presented.

Again, this is your own chosen bias. I can choose to presume that my ideal God exists because doing so improves the quality of my life experiences, my thoughts, my actions, and my relations with others. And I don't need any evidence that my ideal God exists, at all, to gain these results. Nor is there any logical reason why I should presume that my God doesn't exist until someone proves to me that it does. Nor do I have to presume that all gods exist just because I presumed that my God exists. I don't even have to be consistent in how I idealize my God. As long as my presumption of God's existence 'works (functions) for me in my experience and understanding of existence', it's as "true" as anything any of us believe to be true. Including you.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are absolutely right. No one can tell you the truth, you must experience it for yourself. Didn't Morpheus say something like that to Neo about the Matrix? While the movie itself was a little heavy-handed, I think it did a pretty decent job of at least presenting the primary spiritual dilemma of seekers.

I'm going to let you in on a little secret (which obviously would not be a secret at all if it weren't for the "dark sorcery" Link referred to): The human experience is set up in such a way to make people unaware of spirituality until they take an active, conscious step towards it. Call it a leap of faith, conditional faith, what have you, but true spirituality requires genuine interest and dedication to discovering the truth. Without this, what would be the point?

I'm going to use an example. In eastern mystic traditions (say, Taoism for example), there is a master and a disciple. The disciple would have to prove their sincerity to the master before the master would take on the disciple. Why? Was it just to satisfy the ego of the master? Was it to mess with prospective disciples? No. It's because the spiritual path requires a person to gradually detach from what they think they currently know. This is not easy for most people, and requires sincerity, discipline, and consistent effort.

For everyone in the world who is waiting for "proof" of spirituality to fall into their laps, you will be waiting for a long, long time. The world is literally structured in such a way as to prevent this from happening. That's why seekers are called "seekers" and not "couch potatoes."

By the way, I have personally experienced such that would make a talking dog seem rather mundane. And I don't expect you to believe me just simply because I wrote it on the internet somewhere. But I think my telling you has value on the off chance it motivates you to consider there might be more to life than what can be "proved" via physical observations. Yes, your own experience should be king, but you might be surprised at what you can experience if you go looking for it; if you seek it out.

The human experience is set up in such a way to make people unaware of spirituality until they take an active, conscious step towards it. Call it a leap of faith, conditional faith, what have you,

Sorry, but 'faith' is NEVER a reliable means of determining the truth. People can have faith in absolutely anything. One person can have 100% faith that the Earth orbits the sun while someone else can also have 100% faith that the sun orbits around the Earth, yet only one claim comports with reality. Using faith to determine truth is as reliable as flipping a coin. About half the time you'll be right and about half the time you'll be wrong.

The problem is is that human beings are extremely susceptible to self-delusion. People are often desperate for answers and if they can't get answers using reliable evidence they often tend to make up answers. They convince themselves that god will send them signs if they just have faith and start searching for those signs. Yet, the instant we start looking for signs and patterns we tend to start seeing signs and patterns, even if they actually aren't there. That's why you can't come up with an answer and then start looking for evidence to back it up. You have to first gather your evidence and then see what answer the evidence leads to.

I have an older brother who has spent the majority of his life convincing himself that the aliens are coming in their space ships to save the 'believers' on Earth from self-destruction. He sees the 'signs' everywhere - most often in song lyrics - and used to terrorize his two young daughters by waking them up in the middle of the night and making them climb up onto the roof of their house to sit and wait for the space ships to beam them aboard.

If as you say it's impossible to have verifiable evidence of spirituality then it's reasonable to conclude that spirituality is nothing more than self-delusion.

 

[Vichar]

Sorry, but 'faith' is NEVER a reliable means of determining the truth. People can have faith in absolutely anything. One person can have 100% faith that the Earth orbits the sun while someone else can also have 100% faith that the sun orbits around the Earth, yet only one claim comports with reality. Using faith to determine truth is as reliable as flipping a coin. About half the time you'll be right and about half the time you'll be wrong.

...

If as you say it's impossible to have verifiable evidence of spirituality then it's reasonable to conclude that spirituality is nothing more than self-delusion.

I don't mean the kind of faith where you believe that thunder is controlled by a deity who wields a hammer. I mean, be willing to invest some personal effort into investigating various types of spiritual practices to see if any of them yield tangible results, like experiences in your own consciousness. So many people say "prove it to me" and when wisdom appears before them, they are deaf to it. They would never attempt to actually discipline themselves and try the spiritual exercises to see if they experience anything unusual or "supernatural" themselves. (By the way, I believe the set of supernatural things is empty. What people call supernatural is just scientific phenomena that our current scientists don't know about yet.) With regards to spirituality, the only one who is able to prove anything to you is you, because the true path lies within. I'm telling you, only a tiny bit of faith is required (at the start) and the rest is a scientific investigation which relies on clear thinking. Come on, even believing the teacher when she tells you that 1+1 = 2 requires a little bit of faith when you don't know what numbers are. Being willing to learn is a requirement of the true seeker.

Are you sure you're reading me correctly? I said that is it possible to have verifiable evidence of spirituality, and I've experienced it myself. Spirituality is the whole of existence (not a hobby), and everyone is on the spiritual path whether they realize it or not.

EDIT : In case you missed it: not only is it possible to have verifiable proof of spirituality, I have personally experienced it myself.

 

[Vichar]

The wisdom you said here is so important, may God reward you.

Thank you for your kind words. The dark sorcery is strong. One aspect of this dark sorcery is the lack of common terminology. I think a lot of people grew up in a western society and there aren't a lot of terms for spiritual concepts. Even worse, common bits of spiritual wisdom have been twisted by the popular culture into punch lines or misunderstood as ways to have supernatural powers. Actually finding someone who has both sincere intentions and willingness to learn is rare, rare, rare.

 

[Nimos]

Neither do I. Yet I also see no reason to assume they aren't. So I have some choices available to me that I can't make based on anything I can know.

Would that mean that you would have no issue with someone saying "God doesn't exists, but I believe in him?" Since a God is supernatural.

You do realize, I hope, that this is an irrational bias (based on no information). You are choosing this position as your default based on the what you don't know.

Yes, because its the most rational position to take. I would prefer to say that I take such position due to there being no evidence for such things. I neither claim or say that none exists, just that they have not been made available to me. But im open for them should anyone making these claim, choose to present them.

But what you keep overlooking, here, is that by "true" you mean that 'it functions within your limited and preconceived understanding and experience of existence'. In other words, it fits your reality (bias).

No im talking about something that, can either be proven or observed. (Again, not talking about personal truth) Things which doesn't fall in these categories, I see little reason to believe in.

A ghost can neither be seen or measured in any way which is commonly agree on as being a reasonable and objective study of ghosts, so they do not fit in what I would refer to as reality.

Definition
- the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

If you agree with this definition, then clearly ghosts as any other supernatural thing, would not be included as being part of reality.

All we can know is whether or not one of our theories of what is functions within the parameters of our very limited experience and understanding of existence.

Does that means that they are not true?
Even if our experience of everything that is going on in the Universe is limited, it does not mean that those things we know and can measure and see working is not true. The mere fact, that they work and we can make predictions using such theories. Seem to suggest that it is reasonable to assume that they are true and reflect reality. Even if it turns out that they contain errors or are incomplete, one can't deny that they time after time have shown to work and expand our knowledge. And that in itself seems to suggest that they do reflect reality and that reality can be measured and is fairly reliable when it comes to performing experiments and providing answers

No we don't. We can logically choose to presume that a God exists without presuming that all gods exist.

Yes you could do that, but it would be extremely inconsistent in regards to rational thinking.

Me: "Adults can become ghosts, but its just ridiculous to believe that children can"
You: "I once saw a ghost that was a child"
Me: "Well, then you a clearly mistaken because that is not possible"
You: "But you said you believed in ghosts?"
Me: "Yes, but only the ones that are adults"

That is basically how such conversation would go right? You accept your own supernatural belief without any reason for doing so, while denying other peoples claims, because you don't agree with their reasoning. That to me is not to be consistent.

Again, this is your own chosen bias. I can choose to presume that my ideal God exists because doing so improves the quality of my life experiences, my thoughts, my actions, and my relations with others. And I don't need any evidence that my ideal God exists, at all, to gain these results. Nor is there any logical reason why I should presume that my God doesn't exist until someone proves to me that it does. Nor do I have to presume that all gods exist just because I presumed that my God exists. I don't even have to be consistent in how I idealize my God. As long as my presumption of God's existence 'works (functions) for me in my experience and understanding of existence', it's as "true" as anything any of us believe to be true. Including you.

Yes and it is your right to believe that. But it have nothing to do with reality, except yours and the fact that people believe in Gods. Everything else is wishful thinking or faith. There is nothing wrong in you feeling like that, but a God is just not part of reality, before it can be proven.

Believing in Gods are, Gods themselves are not.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't mean the kind of faith where you believe that thunder is controlled by a deity who wields a hammer. I mean, be willing to invest some personal effort into investigating various types of spiritual practices to see if any of them yield tangible results, like experiences in your own consciousness. So many people say "prove it to me" and when wisdom appears before them, they are deaf to it. They would never attempt to actually discipline themselves and try the spiritual exercises to see if they experience anything unusual or "supernatural" themselves. (By the way, I believe the set of supernatural things is empty. What people call supernatural is just scientific phenomena that our current scientists don't know about yet.) With regards to spirituality, the only one who is able to prove anything to you is you, because the true path lies within. I'm telling you, only a tiny bit of faith is required (at the start) and the rest is a scientific investigation which relies on clear thinking. Come on, even believing the teacher when she tells you that 1+1 = 2 requires a little bit of faith when you don't know what numbers are. Being willing to learn is a requirement of the true seeker.

Are you sure you're reading me correctly? I said that is it possible to have verifiable evidence of spirituality, and I've experienced it myself. Spirituality is the whole of existence (not a hobby), and everyone is on the spiritual path whether they realize it or not.

EDIT : In case you missed it: not only is it possible to have verifiable proof of spirituality, I have personally experienced it myself.

Actually from my perspective there is only one kind of faith, regardless if people use to to believe that thunder is the result of a hammer wielding god or if it's used to believe is some ill-defined 'spirituality'. In both cases it's putting the cart before the horse. It's deciding what the answer is and then searching for evidence to back up the claim, instead of simply gathering the evidence and determining the answer based on an unbiased analysis of the evidence. Any time that you start of deciding that you're going to accept that X, Y or Z is true, even without verifiable evidence, then you automatically set yourself up for self-delusion. No matter how fantastical or illogical X, Y or Z may be, if you start off assuming that it's true you will inevitably start 'finding' evidence that you think backs up the claim. That's why it's always best to withhold belief in fantastical claims until solid verifiable evidence is available.

I agree that it's POSSIBLE that SOME of the supernatural claims that people make will some day be explained by science. However, that's a far cry from assuming that every single supernatural claim that people have made will eventually be acknowledged as true by science. Clearly that can't be the case, since people can make supernatural claims that completely contradict one another. So again, the only logical thing to do if you want to avoid self-delusion is to withhold belief in any supernatural claim UNTIL science can determine its validity.

You're making a great deal of unfounded assumptions when you suggest that I haven't invested any personal effort into investigating various spiritual claims. I spent nearly two decades of my life - from 13 to my early thirties - exploring religious and spiritual claims in great detail. What I concluded that it was just so much mental masturbation. I could pick virtually any religion or spiritual path and just as long as I'm willing to abandon logic and rational thought and simply accept that what the religion teaches is true then I will end up finding all sorts of 'personal evidence' to support my beliefs. That for me is not a path to any kind of objective truth. Perhaps if everyone who claimed to be 'spiritual' defined the experience the same way, it would have more validity to me. Perhaps if I could see a genuine difference in the lives of people who claim to be spiritual that I haven't attained myself without having walked any kind of 'spiritual path' it would have some kind of relevance for me.

Finally, I definitely heard you when you said that YOU have had experiences that YOU define as verifiable evidence for YOU. I've ALSO heard my older brother tell me that HE has had experiences that HE defines as verifiable evidence for HIM that the space aliens will eventually come to beam him off the roof of his house and that they'll bean me up too, if I just believe. But of course HIS belief and HIS experiences are not enough to get me to join him up on the rooftop. Even him telling me that if I just have 'faith' I could have the same experiences too, isn't enough for me to turn off my rational brain and just 'believe'.

Personally, since I've had hallucinations that were indistinguishable from reality, I'm quite aware that chemical reactions in the brain can cause us to experience things that aren't real. So if I were to experience a talking dog - or even something more bizarre - my first reaction wouldn't be to take it on faith that it was real. I would try and analyze the evidence in an objective manner. First I would have to rule out the possibility that it was nothing more than an abnormal chemical reaction in my brain, before I jumped to the conclusion that it was some sort of supernatural occurrence.

You keep mentioning this 'spiritual path', yet you haven't defined what that is. It suggests that it's a path that a person's 'spirit' is on, but what exactly are you claiming this 'spirit' is? What verifiable evidence do you have that any such 'spirit' actually exists? Another example of putting the cart before the horse. FIRST you need to verify that this 'spirit' exists and THEN you can propose what path this 'spirit' should take.

 

[Vichar]

...
You're making a great deal of unfounded assumptions when you suggest that I haven't invested any personal effort into investigating various spiritual claims. I spent nearly two decades of my life - from 13 to my early thirties - exploring religious and spiritual claims in great detail. What I concluded that it was just so much mental masturbation.
...
You keep mentioning this 'spiritual path', yet you haven't defined what that is. It suggests that it's a path that a person's 'spirit' is on, but what exactly are you claiming this 'spirit' is? What verifiable evidence do you have that any such 'spirit' actually exists? Another example of putting the cart before the horse. FIRST you need to verify that this 'spirit' exists and THEN you can propose what path this 'spirit' should take.

Please try to distinguish my universal statements (which apply to everyone) and not infer that I am specifically talking about you, even though I am responding to your posts. I have made no assumptions about your own personal experiences here. However, things you write do provide clues about what you believe and what you might have experienced to get there. I am not the least bit surprised that you have investigated a lot.

So let me elaborate a little on what I specifically believe about spirituality. I do believe in absolute truth, and I do believe in an objective reality, but I do not view the physical world in the same way that most people do. Most people think their consciousness is a by-product of their physical brain. The electric signals passing among the neurons are what generates the consciousness. To that I say, no, that really is putting the cart in front of the horse. What we are is the consciousness itself. The spiritual energy that enlivens all things is spirit, and what we refer to as the soul in a human being is merely a unit of awareness. Reality and causality proceed from soul (spirit) to the mind and then to the body, not in the reverse direction. We believe something to be the case, we imagine that it is so, then our articulatory loop in our brain puts words to it which the ordinary mind of most people interprets as their thoughts. Most people believe they are thinking things and then they act upon those thoughts. It's actuality it's quite the reverse. There is a universal entity (not the true God but the god of most religions) which creates the entirety of this mental world. What you think of as physical objects are just thought forms which are vibrating slowly enough to gain physical presence. Instead of states of matter, I would prefer to refer to everything as states of spirit. Thought forms are a state of spirit which is vibrating slower than spirit itself in this description.

What are some of the practical ramifications of these beliefs, and how do they give me predictive power over my future observations? Well, consider what people are like. From my perspective, the humans I have encountered represent a very large range of levels in consciousness. Some people are barely able to survive, and are focused on survival thoughts like securing enough food, having sex, and living off the approval of others (other people's attention energy). In fact, most everyone passes through this stage within a given lifetime (as children) on their way to resuming where they were in consciousness in their previous lifetime. After this survival stage is an emotional stage, and in this mode people are focused on things like romantic love, family, and faith-based religions where they define their spiritual experiences by emotional reveries (singing in church, "feeling the holy spirit", etc.) After this stage is a mental / intellectual stage. A lot of philosophers, religious scholars, and scientists occupy this band of consciousness. They believe in the scientific method, and try to keep an open mind about everything, not committing to any knowledge unless doing so confers some kind of predictive advantage over future observations. Then comes a spiritual stage when one becomes tired with the mundane reality of being a human being and they start asking things like, "Is that it? is there nothing beyond wealth, sex, fame, accomplishment, and philosophy? What is the point of life?" With me so far?

Survival > emotional > mental > spiritual. I could subdivide this into stages but this is already going to be a very long post.

I have observed people for a long time and I see people in all of these various stages I have mentioned. From what I can see, most people don't really move much very far forward upon reaching adulthood. They get jobs, maybe get married, have some kids, and perhaps when they get older they ponder some of the big questions but for the most part they just wait to die, not knowing what happens in the great beyond. Here is where I make a plug for the existence of reincarnation: if there were no such thing as reincarnation, it would be difficult to explain why there are people in all different stages of the spiritual journey, despite so little progress being generally made by an individual in any given lifetime.

OK, with regards to actual spiritual experiences, I too have investigated the major world religions and I am by profession a scientist. I have at least a university level of understanding of math, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and computer science. I have studied world history, and I have pored over various texts that seemed to have anything to do with spirituality. And after this study, I identified an underlying set of themes that all of the great masters seem to be saying. Let's just summarize so as not to put anyone to sleep:

1) A person is composed of several different parts. People think of themselves as a single human being, but actually they have several "bodies": physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. Each part demands different things of you at different times. Your physical body might be hungry if you tummy is empty. Your emotional body might be distraught if your lover leaves you. Your mental body might experience cognitive dissonance if a previously entrenched believe conflicts with new data. Each time something happens, most people think that is them. No. You are not your experiences. You are the consciousness that is having the experience.
2) This leads us to another common theme I have identified: The soul is the central reality of existence. Nothing else can be confirmed except that you are having an experience. The true nature of reality is not accurately reflected by the physical senses. What you think of as the world is nothing but shadows on the wall. Ancient texts refer to self-realization, and this is when the soul realizes that it is not the physical body, emotional body, or the mental body. It is not memory, sensations, feelings, thoughts, or any kind of experiences. It is the one having the experiences. Self-realization is the realization that one is the soul.
3) What is spirit? Spirit is the stuff everything is made out of, from couches to thoughts to concepts, emotions, and consciousness itself. Spiritual texts refer to the light and the sound, where light is the mental lattice that comprises the physical, emotional, and mental planes of existence. Sound is the vibration of the divine spirit, and this sound can actually be heard if a spiritual disciple carries out certain disciplines. Taoism refers to it as the Tao (or Dao, depending on your Chinese transliteration system). In Sanskrit it is refered to as the Shabda. Christians refer to it as the Holy Spirit. Certain other beliefs refer to it as the melody of the spheres. The Sound cannot be directly sensed by the mind. Only through contemplation / meditation when the mind is still can one hear the Sound.
4) What is God? God is the unifying conscious of all spirit. But unlike what most religions teach, human beings do not talk directly to god. An analogy helps here. I have a daughter, and before she could talk she could only cry and reach for things she wanted. She didn't really know who I was. Now she can talk and we can communicate, but there is still a lot she does not understand. It's like that between us and God. We can see a tiny portion of God's universal body, and being soul we are ourselves a part of spirit, but there is little to no direct communication. Why is it this way? I don't know exactly, but spiritual texts suggest that this is due to the immaturity of the soul. Quite frankly, we are too simple and too distracted to be worthy of speaking to God directly. So God sticks us into a sort of kindergarten for souls and this is what we know of as the human experience. God realization is when we graduate from this kindergarten, when we have become one with God (again). Just knowing or thinking about it is not enough.
5) The human experience is a grand cycle of reincarnation where we live many, many lifetimes. Each lifetime has a primary purpose, and that is merely to teach us cause and effect. Human ideas about good and bad are largely inaccurate. From a spiritual perspective, the highest good is focusing the attention energy at the third eye waiting for the spiritual master to open the door and let us in. Bad is all the distractions in life that prevent this from occurring. We could talk about anything in the human experience, it's all just pleasure and pain that distracts us from concentrating our attention at the third eye.

My point is, ancient spiritual texts like the tao te ching (dao de jing) are full of truth but hardly anyone understands them. They are at once much, much simpler than intellectual scholars think but at the same time completely out of the reach of the mind. The problem is not one of intelligence, but rather one of identity. Everyone who thinks they are a mind is doomed to continue reincarnating until one day one is tired of thinking about it and actually commits to a spiritual life.

This is the "faith" I have been referring to. It is not some irrational belief in an arbitrary concept like "the Earth is flat." My faith is my willingness to devote myself to my spiritual practice in order to see if it will yield the results I want. And it has. There are secondary effects as well. I find that I am much more patient now. I rarely get angry at anyone anymore. I am now usually stronger than my mind's obsessive desires for things like chocolate, sex, video games, gossip, other people's approval, etc. I feel a great deal of love and I now realize that the true core of all spirituality is simply Love. Not the co-dependent, needy, conditional love that most people think of when they see the word. Spiritual love, love of spirit and God and his creation.

I'm very sorry this is so long. Without explaining at least this minimal amount, the opportunity for misunderstanding will be quite large. TLDR: to achieve spiritual "enlightenment", one needs a true teaching, sincerity, willingness to learn, clear thinking, and devotion. Without all of these ingredients, one can spend as much time as one likes but direct communion with God will be forever out of reach.

 

[Nimos]

Most people think their consciousness is a by-product of their physical brain. The electric signals passing among the neurons are what generates the consciousness. To that I say, no, that really is putting the cart in front of the horse. What we are is the consciousness itself.

Just wondering. Why the need for a physical brain then?

Because if we are consciousness self and it send signals to the brain, it seems to work somewhat backwards, because unless there is some sort of reason for it requiring a brain or physical body, isn't it just in the way of consciousness?

What do you think is the reason for God to trap our soul in such inferior physical form? And why does it need to have to die with all the emotions etc that comes with it. Why would our consciousness express sadness or be afraid of our body being hurt or killed etc. Its just a vessel if I understand you correct, could you expand on that?

 

[Vichar]

Just wondering. Why the need for a physical brain then?

Because if we are consciousness self and it send signals to the brain, it seems to work somewhat backwards, because unless there is some sort of reason for it requiring a brain or physical body, isn't it just in the way of consciousness?

What do you think is the reason for God to trap our soul in such inferior physical form? And why does it need to have to die with all the emotions etc that comes with it. Why would our consciousness express sadness or be afraid of our body being hurt or killed etc. Its just a vessel if I understand you correct, could you expand on that?

Great question! I have pondered this myself a lot too. I have some guesses, but I don't know.

My main guess is something related to a feeling of accomplishment. I think if we just started out as God realized and never knew any deception, pain, suffering, hardship, or delay, then we would remain ignorant: pure, but like a white sheet of paper, lacking character, strength, and fortitude. So we are given a mind to provide a feeling of continuity, a way to record link cause and effect over time, and a way to reason about things.

Related to this, the other part of my guess is that there are many kinds of universes. I am a computer programmer, and computer programmers are always looking for reusable code. I think that the type of universe you are born into might have its own laws and principles and as such each universe requires a different kind of mind to provide the key lessons. Soul of course is constant, eternal, and unblemished, so we don't have to switch out that part just to try out a different kind of universe. We live in a universe with a physical component, so the physical body serves as a kind of protective sheath. It's like if you want to dive under the sea, you need a diving bell or a submarine. In the same way, for the type of universe we live in it's best to have this kind of physical body and mind.

Of course, this is just speculation on my part. Maybe the answer becomes clearer after we completely break free of identifying as the mind (transcend the mind).

 

[PureX]

Would that mean that you would have no issue with someone saying "God doesn't exists, but I believe in him?" Since a God is supernatural.

Yes, because its the most rational position to take. I would prefer to say that I take such position due to there being no evidence for such things. I neither claim or say that none exists, just that they have not been made available to me. But im open for them should anyone making these claim, choose to present them.

No im talking about something that, can either be proven or observed. (Again, not talking about personal truth) Things which doesn't fall in these categories, I see little reason to believe in.

You're demanding objective evidence for a non-objective ideal, guaranteeing in advance that you won't get it. This appears to be pure bias, to me.

A ghost can neither be seen or measured in any way which is commonly agree on as being a reasonable and objective study of ghosts, so they do not fit in what I would refer to as reality.

Again, it is not logical to assume that because you don't have the proper measuring device, that the thing you want measured doesn't exist.

Even if our experience of everything that is going on in the Universe is limited, it does not mean that those things we know and can measure and see working is not true.

What it means is that we can't know if what appears true to us is true or not. So that our presumptions of it being true just because it appears true to us are opinion, and not knowledge.

The mere fact, that they work and we can make predictions using such theories. Seem to suggest that it is reasonable to assume that they are true and reflect reality.

They reflect our (biased) limited experience and understanding of reality. Whether they reflect the truth of reality is not knowable to us.

Even if it turns out that they contain errors or are incomplete, one can't deny that they time after time have shown to work and expand our knowledge. And that in itself seems to suggest that they do reflect reality and that reality can be measured and is fairly reliable when it comes to performing experiments and providing answers

You are still conflating knowledge of functionality with knowledge of truth, and presuming that because you have the one, you must have the other. This is an illogical assumption resulting in a bias. A bias that is stifling your ability to understand or experience a theist's perspective.

That is basically how such conversation would go right? You accept your own supernatural belief without any reason for doing so, while denying other peoples claims, because you don't agree with their reasoning. That to me is not to be consistent.

By what logic are you presuming that we should all agree on what to believe about God? Please justify your demand for such consistency.

Yes and it is your right to believe that. But it have nothing to do with reality, except yours and the fact that people believe in Gods. Everything else is wishful thinking or faith. There is nothing wrong in you feeling like that, but a God is just not part of reality, before it can be proven.

Believing in Gods are, Gods themselves are not.

Because we humans do not have access to the truth, we are ALL living by faith. Pretending that your opinion of what is truth, is reality, and that anyone who disagrees with it must be wrong, is just an irrational bias that you have no evidence to support.

 

[Nimos]

I think if we just started out as God realized and never knew any deception, pain, suffering, hardship, or delay, then we would remain ignorant: pure, but like a white sheet of paper, lacking character, strength, and fortitude.

So why do you think God would not make our consciousness complete?
What I find strange is, that if God can create a consciousness outside a physical body and think that it is important for us to learn about pain, suffering etc. but didn't make that possible just as a consciousness. But adding a physical body, it then suddenly becomes possible?

If I understood you correct, it goes Consciousness -> Physical body. So consciousness being the top layer so to speak. If it is unable to understand pain and suffering on it own, how is a physical body which is just a vessel going to make it do that?

Related to this, the other part of my guess is that there are many kinds of universes. I am a computer programmer, and computer programmers are always looking for reusable code. I think that the type of universe you are born into might have its own laws and principles and as such each universe requires a different kind of mind to provide the key lessons.

So what part do you think is reused from one Universe to another? Because if the laws, assuming you are talking about the natural laws? are not the same and they are what governs our Universe, and the code is reused, shouldn't all the Universes be more or less identical?

We live in a universe with a physical component, so the physical body serves as a kind of protective sheath. It's like if you want to dive under the sea, you need a diving bell or a submarine. In the same way, for the type of universe we live in it's best to have this kind of physical body and mind.

But logically the consciousness is not inside the brain, because we start out without a brain, which according to our knowledge about human embryos, doesn't start to form before after 16 days. Which will eventually become our brain. So if the consciousness can't survive without the brain (diving helmet), then how does it get into the human?

Why do you think this "diving suit" needs two other diving suits to make it? Rather than just providing one as the consciousness have to enter a Universe, whether that is a physical one rather than one of the alternatives?

It seems to be a slightly weird constellation, sort of like a human jumping into water without any equipment and just keeps diving towards the bottom and eventually before drowning, they meet a couple of divers, which then makes them a new diving suit to wear?

 

[Nimos]

You're demanding objective evidence for a non-objective ideal, guaranteeing in advance that you won't get it. This appears to be pure bias, to me.

Lets try something different then.

Can you demonstrate to me that they are non-objective or why we would assume that they are?

Again, it is not logical to assume that because you don't have the proper measuring device, that the thing you want measured doesn't exist.

About a week ago, I saw the Flamingo monster, A real mean looking thing, all pink and feathery. It told me that it was going to destroy the world in about 2 years, so we have to stop it. I know, that it looks like I just made it up, but I didn't, I have just been afraid of telling anyone about it. But now that it is finally out. We can deal with it. Because it is going to be a hell of a flamingo nightmare!!.

Do you have any suggestions to how we should fight it? Because its immune to bullets and fire. As far as I can see, we need to get all countries in the world to start developing anti-Flamingo monster weapons before its to late.

If you should follow your own logic, then we ought to take this seriously, right? Because you have to trust what im saying potentially true and we are talking about the destruction of Earth. But if you questioning it or even ask me to provide evidence, you would be illogical, based on your own statement.

What it means is that we can't know if what appears true to us is true or not. So that our presumptions of it being true just because it appears true to us are opinion, and not knowledge.

Again, if you are talking absolute truths, then no. But that doesn't mean that it is not true in our reality, based on the evidence and the definition of what reality is. I have no issue with you not agreeing to that definition of reality, but in that case I think you should make another one, so we at at least can see where we differ in our understanding.

They reflect our (biased) limited experience and understanding of reality. Whether they reflect the truth of reality is not knowable to us.

This is our method of determining what is part of reality and what isn't. If we can test it and it provide us with data and evidence that all points towards one conclusion then we do in fact consider that to be part of reality. It would be a complete waste of time, if no one believed it, to be the case. Even doing a scientific study to begin with, would be utterly pointless, if those doing the research, didn't even think that it was possible and wouldn't consider the results they got, to tell them anything useful.

A bias that is stifling your ability to understand or experience a theist's perspective.

It have nothing to do with religion, as I mention as examples in former posts, Multiverse, Simulation theory etc. The difference is, that those that came up with the multiverse and simulation theory, knows that they are nothing but theories. They don't try to tell people that these are actually real and that this is how everything works. And yes that is a difference between a theist perspective and that of a scientific perspective, that telling others what is truth and what is not truth, doesn't require anything but a firm believe that they are. There are no filters or requirements for these beliefs, except that you have to accept the truth of some old texts, which there are close to no evidence is what they claim to be.

But in regards to just making claims, I make no difference between that of a scientific claim and that of a religious one or any other supernatural claim, that being ghosts etc. I don't care who make the claim, if they want me to take it seriously, then they have to provide more than that.

Again, its not hard to make up claims, like the flamingo monster, if no one is allowed to question it

By what logic are you presuming that we should all agree on what to believe about God? Please justify your demand for such consistency.

Can you rephrase the question, I don't understand what you mean with it?

Because we humans do not have access to the truth, we are ALL living by faith. Pretending that your opinion of what is truth, is reality, and that anyone who disagrees with it must be wrong, is just an irrational bias that you have no evidence to support.

I don't know how much you know about flat earth believers?
.
So here is two presentations about gravity. Presummingly both are equally true or false, depending on how you phrase it. Based on these presentations and imagining that you were going to send a satelite in orbit "above" or around the earth. Which of these "truths" would you rely on, or wouldn't it matter, since both of them are equally plausible?

 

[PureX]

Lets try something different then.

Can you demonstrate to me that they are non-objective or why we would assume that they are?

A basic universally accepted definition of "God" would be, "the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists". Nothing in this definition suggests that "God" would manifest as any particular objective phenomenon.

If you should follow your own logic, then we ought to take this seriously, right? Because you have to trust what im saying potentially true and we are talking about the destruction of Earth. But if you questioning it or even ask me to provide evidence, you would be illogical, based on your own statement.

Please explain the reasoning by which you presume that we should agree in our opinions of truth? Or that in our disagreeing, only one opinion can be right?

Again, if you are talking absolute truths, then no. But that doesn't mean that it is not true in our reality, based on the evidence and the definition of what reality is. I have no issue with you not agreeing to that definition of reality, but in that case I think you should make another one, so we at at least can see where we differ in our understanding.

"Reality" is what we call our perceived experience and understanding of what is. It is not the 'truth' of what is, it is our opinion of what is. "Reality" is a working opinion.

This is our method of determining what is part of reality and what isn't. If we can test it and it provide us with data and evidence that all points towards one conclusion then we do in fact consider that to be part of reality.

Sure. But its relation to the truth of what is remains a mystery to us.

It would be a complete waste of time, if no one believed it, to be the case. Even doing a scientific study to begin with, would be utterly pointless, if those doing the research, didn't even think that it was possible and wouldn't consider the results they got, to tell them anything useful.

"Useful" does not equal "true". The idea of God is very useful to a great many humans, yet you do not accept it as being true. And if useful does not make something true, then use-less cannot make something untrue.

It have nothing to do with religion, as I mention as examples in former posts, Multiverse, Simulation theory etc. The difference is, that those that came up with the multiverse and simulation theory, knows that they are nothing but theories. They don't try to tell people that these are actually real and that this is how everything works. And yes that is a difference between a theist perspective and that of a scientific perspective, that telling others what is truth and what is not truth, doesn't require anything but a firm believe that they are. There are no filters or requirements for these beliefs, except that you have to accept the truth of some old texts, which there are close to no evidence is what they claim to be.

The vast majority of theists understand that their idea of God is theoretical (based on faith, and it's results, not on proof) and they do not propose otherwise to anyone else. You have allowed a small minority of irrational religious zealots to represent all theists, which would seem to be an irrational bias on your part.