RE: "I will ask you something Anoasis if the God that I believe in came to you and looked you smack in the face and said I am who I am......and gave you a message that you knew could only be from the The Lord God...Would you say nothing? and if so how would that look in his eyes if you ignored him like that. Do you think he would be fine with your silence?..."


I just realized I never answered this question... how careless of me... I was at the beach all day but my friends answered for me... Thanks Abra, Thanks Voil.

However, I would like to add something...

My god does speak to me. I hear the voice of the creator in the wind in the trees, in the roar of the ocean, in the bird song, frog croak, and cricket chirp.. and many other ways. God does speak to me and I to god. And no, I do not believe my god would mind silence... my god is silent at times as well.

But I don't mind that any of your beliefs are different from mine. Because I don't believe in a punishing/rewarding god, I don't worry that you or anyone else will come to later harm (e.g. go to hell) because your beliefs are "wrong". I can love all and disagree with them...

How nice for me.

eljay:
of course there's no such thing as a proof that animals don't praise your "God" (or any god) in their own way. Unfortunately, Christians like you tend to reverse the burden of proof, but i consider it fair game. Thus I'd say the following : if animals where in anyway connected to you God, they'd for sure be guided by the same message, right ?

Then now tell me why animals don't share with us the same relation to killing its own specie, stealing, infanticide, polygamy, etc.. to name a few ? Yes, why animals have a very different approach of what's right or wrong, according to judeo-christian ethics ?

I guess that answers your question.

Remember :
Dogs lick their balls because they can. I truly think humans believe in gods simply because they can.

Skidoo- As far as animals not worshipping... I also don't know how we would know that... many people praise god in silence and solitude or while going about their regular daily routine... perhaps animals are greatful for food and fear death... and create reasons why one or the other occurs...

When I was a child the book "Watership Down" certainly convinced me that animals might have gods...

Unfortunately Jess, some animals do slaughter their children... but this would only make them *equal* to humans not *less*...

Many species, including humans and other primates, cats, dogs, whales, rodents, insects and fish, at times kill their own young or the young of another of their same species. www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm gives the following reasons for infanticide:

"to gain food; to gain increased access to physical resources like food, nesting sites or space; to avoid caring for unrelated offspring; to bias the sex ratio of the litter. Adult males may kill a female's young to increase his chances of mating. Infanticide may also be due to aggression or to disturbances in the physical or social environment."
"make sacrifices"...

Sorry the previous post had a typo at the end... I usually just let my typos go, I mean this isn't for a grade or publication but this one left out half a sentence.

www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm gives the following reasons for infanticide:

"to gain food; to gain increased access to physical resources like food, nesting sites or space; to avoid caring for unrelated offspring; to bias the sex ratio of the litter. Adult males may kill a female's young to increase his chances of mating. Infanticide may also be due to aggression or to disturbances in the physical or social environment."

Or maybe their god asked them to make sacrifices of their children...

Skidoo wrote:
“But if there's a sure fact, it's that pantheism is a theistic philosophy.”

Unfortunately with all labels you’re going to find differnet people who define them differently. From my point of view pantheism itself is not a philosophy. However there are many religions and philosophies that hold a pantheistic view. Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism come to mind. Many of the American Indian religions were pantheistic in their nature.

In other words, I’m using the word generically and not trying to pin it down to a specific belief system.

Here’s a site that claims to be pantheistic yet it denounces what you’ve just claimed.

http://www.pantheism.net/paul/index.htm

Let me quote from that site:
“Scientific or natural pantheism is a modern form of pantheism that deeply reveres the universe and nature and joyfully accepts and embraces life, the body and earth, but does not believe in any supernatural deities, entities or powers.”

In this form of pantheism they are even denouncing supernatural powers. I can’t say whether I denounce supernatural powers or not because I have no clue what is meant by “supernatural”.

In any case, my point is that you seem to be jumping to conclusion way beyond what I had intended to convey. I’m almost sorry that I used the label “pantheism” now. In this case it seems to have cause more confusion than help.

So let’s not get hung up on a label. I’m not affiliated with any pantheistic organization or specific dogma. I thought the label might help to simplify, but in this case it seems to have backfired.

Skidoo wrote:
“I conclude that the second type of fear is probably what drives you into believing in pantheism.”

Why would you automatically conclude that anyone is driven by fear? Seems to me that you’re viewing life with some serious blinders on jumping to conclusions when you have no clue what a person’s motivations might actually be.

I mean, to me your just screaming “Hey look at me! I JUMP to conclusions!”

Is this how you approach your philosophy too?

Skidoo wrote:
“... Well, now you're becoming presumptuous too :-)

I think your error is to declare : conscious = spirit”

I don’t recall declaring that conscious = spirit? I certainly don’t feel that way.

The only point that I was making is that if you are an atheist and you believe that there is nothing but this universe then you must conclude that the universe is conscious because you are conscious and you are this universe. Period. This implies nothing about any spirit. I’m just making an observation here. If you are conscious and you are this universe (i.e. you’re an atheist there doesn’t seem to be any other choices for things to be at this point), then the universe obviously is conscious through you.

That’s all I’m saying. That doesn’t imply anything about any spirit. I don’t know where you got that from.

Skidoo wrote:
“I don't know if you like maths, but it's not because elements of a group have all separately a given characteristic that the group itself has necessarily the same characteristic.”

I’m a math professor, I know all about set theory. And I agree with you completely on this point, however that doesn’t help your case,….

Skidoo wrote:
“In other words, it's not because living creatures have each a conscious of their reality that the container (universe) has a conscious of its own.”

Again, I agree.

But here’s the catch,…

Show me where you leave off and the universe begins.

Skidoo wrote:
“Therefore, because your conscious is different than mine (because your reality is different than mine), you can't add them up to create a kind of "supra-conscious". But again, that's me, and i fully respect your point of view.”

Again, I don’t recall speaking about any “supra-consciousness”. However, don’t mistake that to mean that I rule one out either.

Earlier in one of your posts you had mentioned that we are pathetically ignorant about the true nature of the universe. (not your exact words, but I can go back and find the exact phrase if you like). Your point was that we don’t know very much. So if you really believe this then how can you know whether or not stars have a consciousness? Or perhaps galaxies? Or some other structures in the universe? Why would you limit consciousness to only animal brains, if by your own proclamation we have no clue what’s going down?

I just took a course in dark matter and dark energy. Are you familiar with these concepts in modern physics? It is believed that of all the matter we can actually detect in the visible universe (and this includes all galaxies, stars, black holes, gas, dust, etc) only represents 5% of the actual content of the universe.

It is believed that the other 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%). Moreover, scientist have no clue what these things are, but they are convinced that they necessarily must exist. So we can’t even see 95% of the universe that’s around us. How can you be so sure that somewhere in that hidden dark energy or dark matter there isn’t consciousness lurking? We don’t even know what it is yet. Maybe it’s the spirit of the universe? Who knows?

ya think?

As long as we’re all speaking our mind!!! I was looking for something today in the closet I have my old journals in. When I pushed it back, a page ripped. Pulling the journal out, to carefully replace my “valued” memoirs, (as valuable as pencil can be). Anyway thought I’d share what the page said.
The pencil is faded terribly, but I remember the mindset. I was a lone atheist, not something one admitted back then. So I wrote about it in my journal.

Look deep into you, look deep into your beliefs
My friend.
Imagine a final holocaust, Apocalypse NOW, the end.
The destruction of life.
Not science fiction, not the child’s idea of an end,
With mutants and monsters, roaming the world.
No my Friend.
The end – the earth destroyed.
Can you fathom its possibility?
Do see it as inevitable?
Are you a believer, the traditional, conditional God?
Will we all go to a splendid Garden of Eden?
Perhaps only those deserving enough?
Will your loved ones be deserving enough?
Will you be there alone?
Will any be deserving enough?
So you really want to be deserving?
The unemotional high of highs.
The unequivocal calm of calms.
Will there be a campfire, of never ending songs of praise.
Will that be your duty, or will you tend the fire?
Will you roam through yet another limited realm,
chained only to eternity?
Words without questions, or debate,
just peace brother, love to you sister until
You’re reduced to a single thought, and only
the same singular thoughts of others
To be your friends.
Is that worth striving for, to be only a single thought
in the vastness of all eternity?
Never to gain new insight, new knowledge,
no challenges, no decisions, no diversity.
If that is your peace, I hope you realize your desire,
but we will part company.
I go for adventure, new frontiers, new knowledge.
For me,
A new plane of existence to explore,and another and another
After that… is all I'll accept.
But somewhere, somehow, I will touch your
that single peaceful thought in space,
And I will drain all the use out of you and leave you behind
to be graced by the God
You will praise for eternity. And if I meet your God,
I’ll learn what he might have to teach
And then leave him to all his faithful followers,
captured in gratuitous calm.
And when you see His smile as I leave,
it will be a smile grateful,
at last,
He’ll have a friend to call on, somewhere in the vastness
Of all time, space and knowledge.

1972 I was 17 (could ya tell the era?) Where’s the emoticon with the peace sign anyway? Well this one will due.

abra said "I don’t recall declaring that conscious = spirit"

>>> here : "You have no choice but to share this view, especially in light of the fact that you claim that humans have no spiritual element. As an atheist you are this universe, and you are conscious. Therefore the universe has consciousness."

You are comparing the words spirit (spiritual element) and conscious, putting them at the same level.

_____________


you say "the universe obviously is conscious through you". once again, your view is to not separate the container from the contained. you consider we are the universe, while i consider being part of the universe. that's a huge difference.

i consider myself as being a separate entity from the universe, limited by my physical body. you consider the universe a 1 entity, a kinda a fusion of all elements it contains. I guess that's a point we won't agree upon.

________

"I don’t recall speaking about any “supra-consciousness”

isn't it what you meant by "the universe obviously is conscious through you" ?

On top of that, your definition of pantheism adds up to confusion because it's quite different from how the scholars define it.

The problem is that I still don't really know where you exactly stand. Sometimes you seem to believe in reincarnation, sometimes not. Sometimes you seem to believe in a god-like supra-conscious connected through every living (and nonliving) object constitutive of the universe, and sometimes I'm not so sure it's the case. I'm sorry but i have to say it's a bit confusing. where is it exactly you stand when it comes to pantheism then ?

_____________


dark matter

it's closer to 90% and it's very controversial since indeed it's a theory trying to explain the hidden mass of the universe. i'm pretty sure we'll find an explanation to this phenomenon one day, and it's a bit easy to jump on conclusions and immediately affect such an unknown elements to god-like theories. history is full of examples where we explained the unknown by irrational explanations, most of which fed religions.

Socrate said "the only thing that i know is that i know nothing" and I indeed share this wise thought. But that's not a reason to jump to irrational conclusions as soon as scientist step upon new enigmas.

And again, you must understand that from my atheistic standpoint, I consider that burden of proof should be on the one who makes assumptions. Thus when you say "Who knows if the universe's consciousness is not precisely hidden in dark matter", I'd say prove it. I could also say that dark matter is as inert as my first chewing gum ... these are pointless assertions as no one may prove them one way or another.

That's why I think it's wiser to follow Picasso's philosophy who spent his life trying to draw like a child, and eventually said he succeeded by the end of his life. That's where is stand. I'm gonna try the rest of my life to "think" like a mosquito and stay away from unanswerable questions. Life is too short.

anoasis :
it's funny, because you're precisely proving my point.

Let's suppose for a moment that indeed, animals do praise a god. Given the fundamental and drastic difference between their ethics and ours, it's ok to assume animals don't praise Feral's or Eljay's modern God, right ?

They would rather be praising other kind of gods, closer to aztecs', native americans' or polynesians' gods, that share in common sacrificial rituals. just trying to follow your theory

anyway, animals' gods wouldn't have less reasons to exist than christians' God, right ? Animals might even have had their own messiah, who knows ? After all, homo sapiens are on earth only for 130,000 years, thus who knows if animals didn't have their own messiah before then ?

Ok, i'm kidding. but my point is that if i follow you and eljay, one thing is sure, it proves at the same time that there's not only one god, but multiple ones, since ethics prove we can't be sharing the same

Thus one way or another, it either proves there might no god at all if animal don't praise any god, or that we live in a polytheistic universe.

Skidoo wrote:
“You are comparing the words spirit (spiritual element) and conscious, putting them at the same level.”

No, I wasn’t doing that at all. You misunderstood. Since you seem to know something of mathematics maybe I can explain what you are doing here.

I say that 3 is not the solution to 5 + 6

So then you come back with, “Oh, so your saying that every other number is a solution then”

No, that’s not what I said. I simply said that 3 is not a solution. Period.

No going back to the spirit thing, I said that since you are an atheist you can’t attribute consciousness to the spirit therefore there is nothing left to attribute it to but the universe.

Then you come back with, “Oh so your equating spirit with consciousness”

No, that NOT what I said. I said that because YOU are an atheist YOU CAN’T attribute consciousness to spirit.

That’s NOT the same as saying that I DO!

If you know anything about mathematical thinking you know that you can’t just reverse logic without paying very close attention to precisely what is being stated.

All I was trying to establish is that you are conscious and you are part of the universe. Your conscious MUST also be a part of the universe because you are part of the universe. Therefore at least PART of the universe is experience itself.

I’m really not interested in trying to converse with someone who is so difficult to communicate with. Especially not via typed conversations. We might be able to make some headway in person, but we’re not going to get anywhere if it takes three long posts to make one simple point.

Skidoo wrote:
“i consider myself as being a separate entity from the universe, limited by my physical body. you consider the universe a 1 entity, a kinda a fusion of all elements it contains. I guess that's a point we won't agree upon.”

Yes, we can definitely part company on that one. You’ve got a long way to go if you think there’s actually a definite distinct boundary between you and the rest of the universe. Try living without air for a while. Try living without food and water. Try living without air pressure! You’ll soon discover that your body is so connected to Mother Earth that you cannot exist without her! (or without some artificially made facsimile of her)

You are not as separate from the universe as you think Mr. Individual.

Skidoo wrote:
“On top of that, your definition of pantheism adds up to confusion because it's quite different from how the scholars define it.”

What’s the sound of one hand clapping grasshopper? Do you really think you can grasp pantheism by just reading a few web sites? You’re in a rush to go nowhere.

You seem to be searching for answers but you don’t seem to be willing to give them the depth of thought they deserve.

Skidoo wrote:
“And again, you must understand that from my atheistic standpoint, I consider that burden of proof should be on the one who makes assumptions.”

Ok that sounds good. You claim to be an atheist. Proof to me why there can be no spiritual element to the universe.

If you can’t prove it then by your own standards you’re really just an agnostic and not an atheist at all. If you have no proof that there can be no spiritual element, then your just making the assumption that there isn’t one. And you say that the burden of proof should be on the one who makes the assumption.

If you feel that you have a proof, I’m all eyes.

Otherwise you don’t know, and therefore you are agnostic and just fooling yourself into believing that you know something that you really don’t know.

This is just by your very own decree of standards.

Abra: I just thought it was funny that this came up here because I was thinking of this topic earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) when talking about the likelihood that there are other forms of life in the universe.

E.g. "It is believed that of all the matter we can actually detect in the visible universe (and this includes all galaxies, stars, black holes, gas, dust, etc) only represents 5% of the actual content of the universe. ...It is believed that the other 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%). Moreover, scientist have no clue what these things are, but they are convinced that they necessarily must exist. So we can’t even see 95% of the universe that’s around us. How can you be so sure that somewhere in that hidden dark energy or dark matter there isn’t consciousness lurking? We don’t even know what it is yet. Maybe it’s the spirit of the universe? Who knows?"

My thought on potential ET's was similar, "how could this be the only place where life that we can perceive exists? And what about life we can't perceive? ... there is so much we can't even perceive at the present... who knows what's out there?"

Abra: I just thought it was funny that this came up here because I was thinking of this topic earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) when talking about the likelihood that there are other forms of life in the universe.

E.g. "It is believed that of all the matter we can actually detect in the visible universe (and this includes all galaxies, stars, black holes, gas, dust, etc) only represents 5% of the actual content of the universe. ...It is believed that the other 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%). Moreover, scientist have no clue what these things are, but they are convinced that they necessarily must exist. So we can’t even see 95% of the universe that’s around us. How can you be so sure that somewhere in that hidden dark energy or dark matter there isn’t consciousness lurking? We don’t even know what it is yet. Maybe it’s the spirit of the universe? Who knows?"

My thought on potential ET's was similar, "how could this be the only place where life that we can perceive exists? And what about life we can't perceive? ... there is so much we can't even perceive at the present... who knows what's out there?"

Abra: I just thought it was funny that this came up here because I was thinking of this topic earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) when talking about the likelihood that there are other forms of life in the universe.

E.g. "It is believed that of all the matter we can actually detect in the visible universe (and this includes all galaxies, stars, black holes, gas, dust, etc) only represents 5% of the actual content of the universe. ...It is believed that the other 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%). Moreover, scientist have no clue what these things are, but they are convinced that they necessarily must exist. So we can’t even see 95% of the universe that’s around us. How can you be so sure that somewhere in that hidden dark energy or dark matter there isn’t consciousness lurking? We don’t even know what it is yet. Maybe it’s the spirit of the universe? Who knows?"

My thought on potential ET's was similar, "how could this be the only place where life that we can perceive exists? And what about life we can't perceive? ... there is so much we can't even perceive at the present... who knows what's out there?"

Abra: I just thought it was funny that this came up here because I was thinking of this topic earlier today (or maybe it was yesterday) when talking about the likelihood that there are other forms of life in the universe.

E.g. "It is believed that of all the matter we can actually detect in the visible universe (and this includes all galaxies, stars, black holes, gas, dust, etc) only represents 5% of the actual content of the universe. ...It is believed that the other 95% of the universe is made up of dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%). Moreover, scientist have no clue what these things are, but they are convinced that they necessarily must exist. So we can’t even see 95% of the universe that’s around us. How can you be so sure that somewhere in that hidden dark energy or dark matter there isn’t consciousness lurking? We don’t even know what it is yet. Maybe it’s the spirit of the universe? Who knows?"

My thought on potential ET's was similar, "how could this be the only place where life that we can perceive exists? And what about life we can't perceive? ... there is so much we can't even perceive at the present... who knows what's out there?"

Apparently I thought it was *very* funny.... or the (#%^#$%) post topic button was STUCK.

I'm so sorry for the grossly excess posting of at best a minor side note...

Skidoo:

Re: "it proves at the same time that there's not only one god, but multiple ones, since ethics prove we can't be sharing the same"

Can't agree with the logic because it assumes that creatures who believe in the same god will all have the same ethics, this is generally true. However, the statement also assumes that the actual *behavior* of these believers will all match their god's ethics... not necessarily so... much behavior contradicts it's stated ethics, the ethics themselves may be contradictory- e.g. "thou shalt not kill" but many soldiers identify themselves as christians...

"Thus one way or another, it either proves there might no god at all if animal don't praise any god, or that we live in a polytheistic universe."

Oh, when I say "god" that's just the best word I know of ... i'm not at all sure what "god" looks like... god could well be a plurality imo... so animals could have a seperate god...

abra:
i'm really sorry if i get on your nerves, but most readers of your posts will agree with me that your sense of logic seems sometimes very poor for a "professor of mathematics", unless you teach in private schools ok, i'm going too far. accept my apologies for this joke, i couldn't resist

now let me explain to the 98% theists of this forum why they should bear the burden of proof ....

_______________________

First important question I've asked myself : isn't it impossible to prove the nonexistence of something?

There are many counter-examples to such a statement. For example, it is quite simple to prove that there does not exist a prime number larger than all other prime numbers. Of course, this deals with well-defined objects obeying well-defined rules. Whether Gods or universes are similarly well-defined is a matter for debate.

However, assuming for the moment that the existence of a God is not provably impossible, there are still subtle reasons for assuming the nonexistence of God. If we assume that something does not exist, it is always possible to show that this assumption is invalid by finding a single counter-example.

If on the other hand we assume that something does exist, and if the thing in question is not provably impossible, showing that the assumption is invalid may require an exhaustive search of all possible places where such a thing might be found, to show that it isn't there. Such an exhaustive search is often impractical or impossible. There is no such problem with largest primes, because we can prove that they don't exist.

Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do. Even theists follow this rule most of the time; they don't believe in unicorns, even though they can't conclusively prove that no unicorns exist anywhere.

To assume that God exists is to make an assumption which probably cannot be tested. We cannot make an exhaustive search of everywhere God might be to prove that he doesn't exist anywhere. So the skeptical atheist assumes by default that God does not exist, since that is an assumption we can test.

Those who profess strong atheism as I do usually do not claim that no sort of God exists. instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. so whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that say a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present day religion exists.

In practice, believing that no God described by any religion exists is very close to believing that no God exists. However, it is sufficiently different that counter-arguments based on the impossibility of disproving every kind of God are not really applicable.

__________

ok, now i see you coming and say : "but what if God is essentially non-detectable?"

I have an answer for you: if God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe must be in principle detectable.

If God is essentially non-detectable, it must therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way. I would then argue that if God does not interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or not. A thing which cannot even be detected in principle does not logically exist.

Of course, it could be that God is detectable in principle, and that we merely cannot detect him in practice. However, if the Bible is to be believed, God was easily detectable by the Israelites. Surely he should still be detectable today, right ? Or then why has the situation changed ?

Note that I am not demanding that God interact in a scientifically verifiable, physical way. I might potentially receive some revelation, some direct experience of God. An experience like that would be incommunicable, and not subject to scientific verification, but it would nevertheless be as compelling as any evidence can be to me.

But whether by direct revelation or by observation, it must surely be possible to perceive some effect caused by God's presence; otherwise, how can I distinguish him from all the other things that don't exist ?!!

__________________

I hope now you understand better what I mean by "burden of proof" and why it should logically be handled by those who make assumptions.

Anoasis:
i think you should date abra, go watch together "what the bleep do we know" movie (watch it and you'll understand why), move to california (if you're not already there), marry, found another of these fancy new-age sect, and be rich and happy everafter

Skidoo wrote:
“I hope now you understand better what I mean by "burden of proof" and why it should logically be handled by those who make assumptions.”

Ok, I’m in a fair amount agreement with most everything you’ve said, except perhaps the snide comment about my being a poor math professor.

I still think we are just having a lack of communication here.

Skidoo wrote:
“Therefore it is generally accepted that we must assume things do not exist unless we have evidence that they do.”

This is one thing that I disagree with. We don’t assume things do not exist that we have no evidence for. We simply acknowledged that we don’t know whether or not they exist. (i.e. the difference between being agnostic and atheist)

Earlier you stated that I’m a theist. I actually think of myself as an agnostic because ultimately if you ask me whether I actually KNOW that there is a spiritual element to the universe I must confess that I honestly don’t know. Thus in being perfectly honest with myself I must confess to being agnostic. However, I would also hold that everyone is ultimately an agnostic whether they care to admit to themselves or not.

However, having said that, I must also confess that I’m leaning toward the theist side of things to a very large degree. So far in fact, that one would be correct to say that I’m “falling” for theism. Although, I hold that my reasons are rational. I can’t give you one single compelling reason, but when I combine all of my knowledge that I have acquired throughout my life the cumulative evidence to support it is definitely weighted in favor of theism.

Let me continue,…

Skidoo wrote:
“Those who profess strong atheism as I do usually do not claim that no sort of God exists. instead, they generally restrict their claims so as to cover varieties of God described by followers of various religions. so whilst it may be impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, it may be possible to prove that say a God as described by a particular religious book does not exist. It may even be possible to prove that no God described by any present day religion exists.”

Again I agree with you. There are certain pictures of God that we can rule out. I have personally ruled out the God of Abraham as necessarily a myth. I could write a book as big as the Bible itself describing the contradictions and inconsistency with that picture. However, in the end, I finally came to one very simply and obvious proof. Stepping back and looking at the whole picture it became crystal clear to me that I am more compassionate, and more intelligent, than the deity being described by that doctrine. Therefore I must conclude that since it would be impossible for me to be more compassionate than God this picture can’t possibly be true. There’s no need for any further proof as far as I’m concerned.

So I’m totally with you on the idea that there are individual pictures of gods that can be disproved.

However, I cannot disprove the spirituality of pantheism (as I see it). Please keep in mind that the very word “pantheism” may be a bogus label. I’m only saying that I can find pantheistic interpretations that fit in with everything we know about our universe.

This of course, doesn’t prove my view of pantheism. However, as I continue to try to disprove pantheism (which I constantly work at). I discover that the more I try to disprove it the more convinced I am that it actually may have merit.

In fact, I’ve become so convinced that if I had to place my bets I’d bet that it’s true, including the idea of reincarnation. Don’t ask me how it works because I don’t have the full answers. If I did I would know the answer and wouldn’t need to surmise things from piecemeal data.

But the bottom line is that I can’t disprove it, and to me that’s a pretty powerful philosophy. I mean it’s not like trying to disprove the existence of a Unicorn. It’s much more profound than that. Here I have a philosophy about the possibly true nature of our essence and I can’t find a decent reason to reject it?

On the contrary, every time that I search for a reason to reject it I end up with yet another reason that supports it. I’m pretty convinced that it’s true. In fact, I’m such a pragmatic person that even though I keep claiming to be agnostic, I’m finding it harder and harder to convince myself that I really am. The “pantheistic” picture that I have in my mind thus far just makes so much sense that I can ‘smell’ reality.

Of course that doesn’t prove that it’s true. But then I never claimed that I could ‘prove’ it. All I ever claimed is that I have what I consider to be compelling evidence for it.

I think it’s important to realize that when we are talking something as subtle as a spiritual world we can’t be expecting to find hard core evidence (like fossil records for example). I mean, the very nature of a spiritual essence is ethereal.

Consider this,…

You believe that you are nothing but form.

You’re an atheist, you're nothing but a pile of atoms right? When those atoms disperse that’s the end of you.

Well, hey,… if you can have consciousness and existence for no other reason than your form, then why can’t other forms also have consciousness? Obvioulsy by your very own conclusions form is all that’s required for the existence of a sentient being.

All I’m doing is taking that very same idea and saying the following,…

All forms in the universe are indeed just that,… forms of the universe.

Therefore if you are a form of the universe and this gives rise to your sentience then you ARE the universe in that form.

Do you understand what I’m saying?

You think that you are your body. I’m saying that you are the universe in a form.

You think that if your body changes form you’ll necessarily cease to exist. I’m saying that you can’t cease to exist because you were never your body in the first place, you were always the universe just taking a form. And you’ll take another form, and another, and another, for as long as the universe exists.

That’s the essence of reincarnation.

So I guess the real philosophical question comes down to this,…

Are you just the form? Or are you the thing that’s taking a form?

You lean toward believing the former, I lean toward believing that latter.

And I guess this ends our discussion, unless you can offer proof why the latter can’t be true.

i know that profound words have been written here....from many perspectives....


i confess i have not read many ....

on purpose. even the ones i know would resonate with feelings i have as well.

it's like walking thru a garden and not needing to pick a flower...

and like walking thru a wasteland, knowing the whole field needs razing


what purely thrives , has no need of explanation

nature does what it does, we do what we do , tag it ,define it , give it intricate dogmas and profound mysteries, and roads to secrets ...revelations...it's rich...it's bizarre, it's obviously comforting to many. so be it.

but sheesh...c'mon


seriously..... with so much wisdom...look where it went, where it still goes... with so many brilliant minds

it appears humanity is constipated, over loaded , unable to absorb the whole and healthy nutrients any longer and clogged up...

time for some high colonics...empty

let go.

be quiet. quit eating.... clean out and eliminate and prepare the environment to receive healthy natural organically grown reality


ok i am rambling.... but for me ..i see this life in a very simple way
i arrived here...with tremendous advantages, my senses !

everything makes sense and nonsense

i just do the best i can with it.