Thaks, that's a good way of looking at it, and might imply we should try to lighten up a bit I guess... I try to but sometimes life experiences I could do without get in the way..

So do you think all our "souls" had their start in the beginning of time? Do you think our "souls" "grew" in some way through being embodied in different kinds of creature? What about before there was even any life? I mean for the firrst billion or so years the earth was barren, as I think current science has it.. and how come some creatures have stayed as "lower'lifeforms and we get to be human?


dave_a_mbs wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 4:04pm:

Dave:

My name is "Albert," not "Don."  Perhaps I should end my posts with Albert.

Albert.

Orlando:

I can see why you would be concerned. I've been very careful about communicating with spirits. I don't want to be led astray. Numerous things have shown me that I'm in contact with spirits who represent the light. I do have to keep an eye out for the pesty spirits.

I figure many people don't need to communicate with spirits. Different paths for different people. The main thing is to grow in love as much as we can.  

 



orlando123 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2007 at 4:35pm:

Thanks Seeker, I dare say you are right. I am reading parapsychologist Dean Radin's The Conscious Universe at the moment, which appears to give strong scientific backing for psi phenomena for example, and Prof Brian Josephson, a nobel physics laureate reccomends it and is also open to such things being real. I am also interested by some of the NDE experiences which appear to have happenned when there was no brain acxtivity, but clinching proof is very elusive. Doctors have treid to set up experiments putting pictures above hospital beds in case someone reports an OBE where they floated up, to see if they saw the design, but so far things like this have always failed.

About the time issue.

10. TIME AND PROPHECY. One unusual aspect of ESP, Remote Viewing and Psychokinesis is that "time" doesn't seem to matter. One can exert an influence or acquire information in the past and in the future, almost as easily as in the present. In conventional physics, the order of events is very important, but in the realm of psychic phenomena there seems to be a flexibility to move in time that defies current physics.

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/

Quote:


yes and that's disappointing.  but i do believe people such as bruce moen (he's hardly alone) are very trustworthy in describing their OOB experiences. 

and the book the afterlife experiments does seem to "prove" that (some) psychics are the real deal.

Hey there!

Quote:


Its the same thing with atheism, atheist also claim they have disproven a god, some see this disprove in scientific facts. Or even worse, like what we call "theodizee problem", if there is suffering in the world, and a god, but no divine intervention, could be also seen as if there is none, if there were, he would use divine intervention, and so on....a never solved philosophycally problem). But if you let's say can explain that thunder and lightning (pagan religions named their thundergod Donar, Thor or whatsoever), that does not automatically mean that the idea of divinity is disproven. Moslems do believe e.g., that science is a way to explain how gods world runs, why is it so hard to accept it like this? It is that ridiculous discussion, science contra religion (have you ever thought about that both of them try to answer the same questions, so the gap between cannot be that big).
Nowadays, scientists found, that there could have been a big bang that caused our universe (strange, where shall this molecules come from, if before the big bang was nothingness. Right, you could say "but who made the creator, who is worshipped by so many people?".
Many forget, that believing means having faith in something, if you don't have faith, you cannot provide it by so called proofs for the big question of our lives "What does it mean to be dead?". "Is there a god?" "Is there none?" There is NO relevance for any proofs, if you do not believe in it, you could leave it up to this (but since you are here on this board, you might not being anymore much into such easy giving up ) , I mean, it is kind of ridiculous, do you really think, that a god, that has an afterlife for us, would reveal everything about it? For what should we live here, if everyone would know everything about this, that, what Bruce calls the C1 reality, would be a pre-heaven. But a human is able to decide which path he wants to go, wether to be moral, couragous, open minded, or a liar, traitor, murderer, what ever, so if we are capable to think about this, why should god mind to take this decision away. The same with the afterlife, some say, it is just a nice idea, to nice to be true, only for the grieving and mourning, to please themselves with something like that. If that is a fact, and what religion with afterlife-ideas is about, than there would be no use to it.
The believers find their evidence in the bible, but if you look at the older parts, there is nothing like an idea of an afterlife, they focus on a life regarding to gods word, and that was all man could do.

If I get you right, you say, that if you believe in an afterlife, and there is none, you would be screwed, it is not really like this, if just the idea can help anyone to lead a better life, you would not life forever, but a better life in C1. Look at humanism, also some humanists were atheists, they believed in morality, and a life according to morals, rational decisions, to make things work during your time, to be helpful for others.
You see, it is also something to believe in, it is not religion, but agrees with the fact, that humanbeings need something to believe in, or to life for. So if you take the god away, there will be another god instead, maybe science, but that does not make the scientist godlike.
Science is the proof of what we see and think because of the ability of seing, measuring and touching it as reality, but no scientist could ever proof if everything here and now really happens, how can we know that this is our reality? Because of senses? Brainfunction? Consciousness, brainactivity in science can be shown through an eeg, brainwaves, but no thoughts were ever found in a brain (discussed it witch alysia and spooky), also read about some strange NDE's, with flatlined brain, and a status of the body, that makes no vital function work to keep the body going on (yes, they were after all, reanimated after this state), so where do we take that wisdom, that the brain contains our consciousness (it is only, that we are told so), if the brain is dead, there must be none of thinking or remembering any more, but how if is possible, that some nde-experiencers, had this kind of status (yes, nde might be not the right proof for afterlife existences, and not everyone during clinical death had this impressions) even without a brain, that could recipe dmt to hallucinate? Or how comes that, that some people during surgeries were able to retell details without being conscious.
That could make one think about if the brain is really the center of our life, it is more like our human cpu, it receives and makes conclusions, links new structures to make the new born thoughts for us available, if we want to re-think them. I see it as receptor, for me the consciousness seems to be the lifeforce, but at this point, I don't know it better, even if it is like I think, as body and brainfunktion work as a sort of dualism, the consciousness could also be hidden in some part (I only said it is not the brain, the brain provides the outcome of conscious decisions).

If you want your (literally) consciousness to survive, your thoughts, and work, it is after all possible (yes, even this way you won't be anymore in the sense of the afterlife we talk about on this board), maybe you write a book, make an invention, do something for charity, so you won't be forgotten, because only the one, who is forgotten, is really dead (last part stolen from Kant ).

And now I think we are in the right area, the brain has something called "subconsciousness".
Dreaming was found (as sort of brain activity) there, and most of our vivid imaginations also happen there, at least the brain functions tell us so. It is well observed by science, but no evidence, that we fool ourselves with this kind of overromaticizing our surroundings, or if it comes from elsewhere. So science brings details, but has not yet found the world formula. Physicists, like you mentioned, look on the big picture, the universe, that is why I am personally interested in physics (also want to become an engineer), especially the astrophysical theories about our universe, also the delivered results, by measuring, etc. Call me dumb, but I like physics, because there is space for someone like a god (physicists see god at least as a possibility..)
But I really think, that with research on this scientific boundaries such as death, there could be also brought up more details, maybe their method is also wrong. So to your question, why it is so hard to prove, it is maybe that this subject was not taken serious, and the scientists, who dare to do research on this levels, are just at the beginning of discovery. There could be progress, but I claim, that we never come to a level of fact , that allows us more than visions to speculate, than we would have that sort of pre-heaven on earth, like I said before, and that is probably not, what a god would have had as an aim for humankind.

So it is up to you, whether it is science, that is right, or religion, or spiritualists, alternative thinking.

OOB, other world. And that is a big problem, since it would be senseless to travel to another world, an afterlife, would mean, that there is no other world, no one behind, it is a fluent thing, we may change at transition (death), leaving the physical thing behind, but go to another level, that includes our state of consciousness, that is I think the most possible kind of afterlife, I am not familiar with the idea of astral worlds, maybe we stuck in something like a big package of knowledge, and who knows, maybe the afterlife does take also place on this earth, or you are thrown out somewhere in space, being the little bit of stardust forming new planets.

Yes, you are right, experiences are bound to personality, but that must not mean, that a scientist has more right to see his theory more reasonable as your experience (a masters or doctors degree just means that he is specialized not allknowing) , because it is until today not proven, if this existence is really reality. So it is like a 50/50 chance for survival or not surving physical death, that does not shed to much hope to no matter whom of the two parties (to make it scientific...,just kidding.. ).
But why bothering with an afterlife? You could also look for maybe a life before birth (I don't think of the growth of the baby inside the womb) , if this is possible, the afterlife would be no question.

Bruce said, everyone should try to get access on his own, maybe you are not ready yet, but I do understand your point, or problem because I have the same. I see a possibility, but not a proof, even if I critizised since so much in my article, I am bound to this searching for fact thinking, I am not into creationism, god cannot be outstanding, or a creature somewhere around nothing, I think more that it is like a universal reality, in each and everything, otherwise I would have a problem with the picture of god.
Or else what to do with entities, that revealed, if they were real or a trick, I don't know anymore.

Do not only rely on what you get told, that is only the door, but you must open it by yourself.

http://skepdic.com/essays/schwartz.html

Sry for posting so much, hope you enjoy it a little bit,

Love,

pulsar

Good grief Pulsar, that was a long post and I don;t have time to answer all you points right now. Thanks anyway. The problem with having beliefs is that if you are a bit of a skeptic, by which I just mean you like to study things and look at whether they make rational sense, not that I enjoy being contradictory for the sake of it, it is hard to know if beliefs are just wishful thinking or not, and I certainly don;t see why, of there is an afterlife an agnostic or Humanist who was a decent human being should have to suffer in some way. I have regularly read comments by atheists and agnostics saying they would like the comfort of a belief in a benevolent god or an afterlife but they just can't convince themselves it is true. I guess it is a matter of temperament rather than any especial virtue.

I also can;t really see why God could not provide a bit more to go on in terms of proof of his/her existance and of a soul and afterlife and so on. I don't see what harm it would do. Maintream Christianity for centuries (and still in some churches) tried to scare people into belief and religious observance by saying it si a fact you will go to Hell if you don;t follow the rules. Even when that was widely belived it didn;t stop people misbehaving (although the Protestant doctrine of salvation by belief alone, not acts and the Catholic sacrement of confession and absolution might have helped - ie you can behave badly and still have a get-out clause). If it was know to be the case we all survived death and there was no eternal Hell but that God wanted us to grow in love and compassion and our afterlife (and this life hopefully) would generally be better if we did this, I don;t see this would take away any free will or anything. Also it would make everyone more relaxed and less materialistic if we knew we had more than or 3 score and 10 to look forward to and didn;t have to try and grab as much pleasure and possessions and experiences etc as soon as possible/or on the other hand fear losing chances of security and prosperity and love by doing something a bit unconventional or risky. As it is we have very little to go on, and in fact seem almost set up to become agnostic if we are of a questioning frame of mind, because our biggest western religion, in its classic versions, includes many logical problems once you start to study it and its texts, so you end up a bit anoyed and wary about any religious claims. He could have done better than provide us with the BIble... (not that I think he did) which kicks off with a plethora of dubious myths, bloody battles and stupid rules etc just for a start.

As for the method Bruce Moens puts forward - saying he has thoroughly explored the afterlife already and so on, well that's great for him, but I am not aware of what proof he offers for saying this is reality and not his imagination. i guess I need to read his books or do one of the courses he has done..