What you've said here is not correctly expressing my view. And it is quite difficult to convey the actual picture, but I'll try.

First off, you say, "You see 'reincarnation' in these cases is meaningless if there is no INDIVIDUAL spirit."

But I'm claiming that there is an INDIVIDUAL spirit. Just one.



There is a bit of a problem here. And I'm not sure exactly how to even convey it. Moreover, it's just an idea, a concept, not based on any tangible evidence. All spiritual philosophies must boil down to a matter of belief. And I'm certainly not asking you to believe it. But I would like to convey how I view it and thus see it as believable.

But first,...



I don't have a hard-core blueprint. And I don't claim to have one. I agree that some of this does indeed requite a stretch of the imagination. However, I hold that the very existence the universe requires a stretch of the imagination. No one can explain how the universe can exist in the first place. Much less be organized well enough to contain entire ecosystems and sentient beings arguing about whether or not they actually exist.

A lot of people toss there hands in the air, and say, "Here! We found a book that claims that our creator is a jealous old male chauvinistic pig, and it has rules and everything! It says he'll reward us if we're good an punish us if we're bad. Let's go with this!"

People are desperate, they'll believe anything.

Another option is to just say, "Well, we don't see any real evidence for the jealous old man and his rules seem to be rather silly for such a supposedly wise creator. Maybe this whole thing is just an accident and we're just bags of atoms that accidentally came together and when we fall back apart that'll be that."

Either one of those two philosophies are 'possible' anything 'possible'. But they both have flaws.

Although you might argue that Atheism doesn't have a 'flaw'. It's only 'flaw' is that it can't explain what had an accident. Where did the accident come from, and why is it so well organized to have produced sentient being? To me, that's a huge 'flaw' with atheism.

Pantheism is no different from the other two views. It's also 'possible' (it could be our true nature), and it also contains 'flaws' (unexplained things). However I would argue that it does not contain logical contradictions. But then again, that may depend on what you accept as being 'logical'

On the Property of Individuality

This is a biggy. In fact there is a chapter in my math book that shares this same title. And the subject matter there isn't all that different from what I'm about to say here.

The very idea of individuality is an idea of boundaries. How can you claim to have ONE thing if you can't show precisely where it's boundaries are? The very notion of individuality requires the notion of being separate.

There are different ways that things can be separate. One way is physically. Another way is mentally (or consciously). Another way is spiritually. Are Siamese twins one being? Or two?

I'm saying that spiritually all is one.

In this world where we live (in this incarnation), we are physically separate (not really but close enough for practical purposes). Our consciousnesses are definitely separate. But our spirit is one. Our spirit is not our conscious. Our consciousness is not our spirit.

You are speaking in terms of one consciousness for God.



I never said that. Except perhaps during a rest stage (between incarnations). However at that time there isn't much 'consciousness' to worry about. Consciousness and the importance of consciousness fades away during a rest period. (we're talking between universes here). Not between human incarnations within the lifespan of a current universe.

I can't say how this work, but I can share a vision that I had in a dream. This dream was extremely lucid for me, like I was actually there. It was a dream of being in the spirit world (heaven if you will, but this was a pantheistic heaven, not a biblical heaven).

What was it like? It is very hard to describe because much of it was just 'knowing' with any need for description. But I'll try to describe it anyway.

First off, there is a central source of light. Almost like a star (or the Sun only not so overwhelming as the sun). This source of light is omnipresent (always in view). But not like "in your face". It's actually off to one side more like in your peripheral vision, although you can look directly at it if you wish to.

You know that this light source is 'god'. No one needs to tell you. You just know it. You not guessing or having faith that it's god or anything like that. You just know that this light source is what give rise to your being.

It's with you always. Always in view (but not obtrusive), it wants nothing from you, and expects nothing from you. You know that it is totally non-threatening. In fact, you know that it is your servant. Almost like you genie. It is there FOR you. It wants nothing FROM you.

It doesn't speak, or communicate to you in any way. And you don't feel any need to say anything to it. You don't 'worship' it, and it doesn't make you feel like it wants to be 'worshiped'. It's like a part of you. Like your own heart. You can trust it as well as you can trust yourself.

I might add that this is my vision other people may not trust themselves! Perhaps they would have a differnet experience. Perhaps they would view this light as being something different form them. Maybe they don't fully know themselves yet.

In any case, I also knew that this vision was what I will experience between my incarnations. (not the big universe incarnation of the universe). Just my own "personal" incarnation.

There were many "individual" spirits in this vision. They appeared to me as nebuouls sphere of fuzzy light. Not like stars, or a source of light. More like 'light-clouds'. Iridescent spherical clouds of light. These were individual 'spirits'. Or maybe you'd want to call them "souls" to distinguish them from the single spirit of God.

There was only one point source of light. And that light gave rise to all that exists. I knew that. But at the same time that point source of light was also my own personal spirit. Many spirits (or souls if you like) all arise from the single point source of light that I knew as "god".

I could communicate with these 'individual' spirits. In fact, communication is entirely telepathic. I could read the thoughts of all the spirits, and they could all read my thought. There is no thought privacy in the spirit world. They all use the 'mind of God'. And it's not a problem. There are also no egos and no one cares what you think. But at the same time they were all very much interested in making me feel at home. They were all totally pleasant. In fact, I got a real feeling that they all knew that I was just visiting and that I didn't fully understand what was going on.

So there you have a multiplicity of spirits and only one 'consciousness'. One mind that everyone shares. Yet at the same time I still felt like an 'individual'. I also knew that all of this was just a temporary state of being and that I would soon be reincarnated into the physical world again. My vision didn't include that process but I did have a sense that I was going to be free to choose at least some aspects of what my next incarnation would be like.

No you can say that this was 'just a dream'. And I certainly don't claim otherwise. It may well have been just my own wild imagination having a heyday with my mind. But that's not the point.

The point is that I can imagine how there can be many in one.

And that's all I need to be able to do to know that it's possible. If I can imagine it, why can it not be possible?

You just want to take credit for what you see already happening.

Some matchmaker you are.

But then again, if you're buying the tickets to Hawaii I'm not complaining.

By the way, I don't go to Sunday school. Maybe, if I did I would be a better person. I really don't care where I go at this point.

I am a Christian. I do believe Jesus Christ is our Saviour. I never said that I practiced what I believe. I am a Christian who is going to burn in hell for eternity

Maybe they are, but not in the way you think.



I agree with this except for the part that they will remain individual spirits for as long as they wish.

When I talk about God resting between incarnations, I'm talking about between incarnations of the universe. Not between incarnations of human lifetimes.



No I don't believe that either. In fact in my previous post I tried to explain something of what it is like between human incarnations (although they don't need to be actual human forms)



Now I can't say I think like that. That wouldn't be 'pantheism'. That wouldn't be "all is one". In fact, that would require that everyone be more separate than anything I can imagine. You're basically saying that every human (and possible animals to) are each an entire universe of their own? A separate God in their own right?

That would be an idea of multiple Gods where everyone truly is an individual God. I don't see where the universe being one would even support that idea at all Jeannie.

Pantheism says all is one. And in the end (when the universe is over) we all return to become as one spirit. And we rest as one entity between incarnation of universes. Not between incarnations of human lives.

I don't see how having ever individual being a completely separate universe unto themselves could be called pantheism. How is that "all is one".

That would imply that 'all is separate' wouldn't it?

I see Ms Congeniality is back.

Aren’t personal insults supposed to be against the rules here? Or did they change that?

Not that I care. But most people usually at least try to address the topic whilst they hurl insults in disquise.

Now we have naked hecklers just slinging mud without even addressing the topics at all. It a whole new fad I guess.

You got it JB




And no JB not one way tickets....you got to bring him back at some point..

hey I will take matches anyway I can.....And I saw it long before you two even knew it was happening......I was just making it official and all.....keep all those men away from your woman....




Now I just have to beat ya to mike so I get paid for this one....lmao

I guess that would depend on what you define as a "universe."
Some say that there are universes within universes. Your physical body contains living cells with their own memories, and on the surface of your body, you have living creatures, too tiny to even see. Many parasites live on and inside your body which to them is their universe. Their are tiny microscopic bugs living in your eyelashes. I know it sounds creepy but that is what I saw on television. LOL.

Also, bacteria. Your entire body is made up of it. You could not live without these little creatures.... and yet, they are separate living things from you... or are they?

Perhaps you are god to them. LOL



And that of course would depend on how you define what a "god" is. LOL

Perhaps we are all potential gods. An atom has enough energy and information stored inside of it to create worlds. Believe it, it is true.



Or maybe we cease to exist until we explode from the single remaining black hole that sucked it all back up again into the vacuum of the void.




All is still one. Universes within universes, all connected.

Did you know that a group of aspen trees in Colorado although they each appear to be separate trees, are actually now known to be one single organism?

We are all one but we are also individuals.

Jeanniebean

Well that's certainly true. When speaking in matters of philosophy, I typically mean "The Universe" to mean "all that exists".

As a physicists I can talk about 'multiple universes' with the definition of a universe simply being related to its physical laws (or other connectivity issues).

But when I speak of "The Universe" in a philosophical sense, I mean, 'all that exists'. By that definition even God cannot exist outside of my universe by definition. If God exists, he must at least be part of the universe, if not all of it - by definition.

Connectivity issues can also be brought into the picture. If multiple universe can be shown to exist and be completely independent of each other (unable to exchange information) then they could be said to be 'separate universe'. However, if they were unable to exchange information how could they be detected?

The idea that every person is a universe doesn't fit in with this kind of definition. I can see it as a metaphor. Meaning that each individual experiences their own existence. In that sense everyone is their own universe. But that's more of a perceptual thing than anything else.

The whole idea behind pantheism is that "all is one".

I'm not saying that pantheism has to be correct. I'm just saying that if everyone is their own universe (existentially) then I don't see how that could be a pantheistic picture.

It would be a whole different idea, I would think. Perhaps a valid idea, and possibly even the correct idea.

However, I would argue (debate) that there is evidence that everything is connected. Which you seem to be agreeing with. But I would suggest that this supports a pantheistic view that "all is one", not that everyone is a free spirit in their own right (eternally).

However, I will grant that it's possible that spirits can possibly meld together at time and be separate at other times. That doesn't fit in with my dream. But that doesn't mean diddly squat since my dream could be just that, a dream.

Ultimately I don't believe in pantheism. Not like a religion. It may or may not be true. I believe it has potential to be true. That's really all I can say. I never believe in anything firmly. Nor do I feel a need to.

Que Sara Sara.

I once defined a space-time universe as a place created or manifested for the purpose of the incubation of life forms.

But I think the incubation of life forms in a given universe could be just a natural process of growth.

I believe that each human body is like a universe and is surrounded by a field, shaped like an egg. Within this field this individual manifests itself as the body you see. This field has its very own space-time matrix which is not exactly the same as everyone else's.

I believe we are connected not by the outside of this field, but from the inside which is where we originate from. So the connection is not going from the outside egg shaped field, (which is what makes us separate from each other) but that the connection is from the inside of our being which is like a black hole that connects us with that which exists outside of space time of our and the surrounding universe we live in.

Jeanniebean.

Continued:

Think of it like a bush with lots of leaves and flowers on it. The leaves and flowers are all part of the bush but each flower and each leaf are separate and they are not connected to each other. They have a stem. This stem comes from the center of the flower and proceeds back to the core of the bush from whence it arises.

Jeannie

Ok, that's a good analogy for the pantheistic view (not to be taken too literally scientifically), but from a spiritual point of view I can agree with this.

But now what happens when a leaf or flower 'dies'. Of course this is were the analogy to a bush breaks down. It can't just whither up and fall off the bush.

I see it being reabsorbed back into the main body of the bush. And then remerging again as a brand new leaf, or flower, or whatever.

I see this process going on for the entire lifespan of "The universe" (the bush). There are many tiny individual 'incarnations' and 'reincarnations' of the flowers, leaves, and don't forget the thorns!

But then at the 'end' of the lifespan of "The Universe" (the bush). The entire bush re-collapses back into a single "seed" and rests. This is the state of perfection between universe incarnations.

After a rest period, the "seed" becomes a bush again and sprouts into a bunch of new leaves, flowers, and thorns again.

And that process just repeats ad infinitum. Every time, it comes back as a differnet kind of bush producing differnet kinds of leaves, flowers, and thorns.

And that's it.

Some people often say this would be 'boring'. But these are the same people who seem to think that it wouldn't be boring to live for all of eternity under the rule of a jealous male-chauvinistic Godhead. Personally I think that sounds a lot more boring.

Perhaps you might imagine the flowers eventually breaking off and becoming 'bushes' in their own right. But what would they do? The same thing? So where's the advantage in that?

What would a new bush do that the old bush couldn't do?

(God this almost sounds like we're talking about presidents. )

Maybe George Bush is God.

Well your idea of the universe at rest I have actually heard of that before, and I think there is truth in that.

Even the Bible says that the heaven and the earth shall both pass away.
That shoots a hole in the idea that Heaven (or hell) is eternal.

JB

Something I found rather interesting is that according to General Relativity, if you jump into a black hole, you will reach the end of the universe at the same time you reach the bottom of the black hole. This is because of the effects of time dilation in warped space.

To an outside observer you would appear to be falling into the black hole for 'eternity' (until the end of the universe). But you (as the person falling into the black hole will only experience maybe an hour pass (if that).

So if you want to get to the end of the universe (time wise), in a real big rush. Just jump into a black hole. You can cheat yourself out of millions of reincarnations.

That's an interesting philosophical thought right there.

The difference between human intelligence and artificial intelligence is clear.

So, I am not sure why this strawman concept was even brought up by another. Even more intriguing to me, is the fact that it has somehow been attributed to me...

I have never equated the two... I know better!

Here is what I think about that notion. Just so there is no mistaking the difference between what has been claimed by another and attributed to me, and what is actually of me, I will voice my beliefs on that matter.


The input process of a human and a computer is similar, because both depend on external influences. However for a computer, this would be the input of information which is absolute. Whereas for the human, it would be the exposure to that(information) which can be assessed. Humans can reason, albeit some more effectively than others. Humans can believe that they know.

Computers cannot reason, which is necessary in order to believe that they can determine the difference between true and false information. To a computer, all of that which has been input is true.



So then, I have not claimed that we as humans think like computers, or that a computer can think.

Those were your and JB's translations of my claims, not the true nature of them.



Computers have no perceptual faculty, no ability to reason, no self-awareness, and no personal needs, wants, nor desires.

Without our ability to perceive, humans would have less than that, as a result of having no ability to receive and process information.



Why is it, do you suppose, that humans cannot choose better, unless they know of better? The same reason, James, that you call the Bible regional folklore. It is what you determine to be the truth, based upon that which you believe you know about that which you have perceived. Take away the perceptual faculty(the ability to collect and assess information), and then determine how you could have the ability to think that you know anything?


Thought travels along physiological lines, via the necessary sensory organs and components of a living organism which is capable of such a thing. It is one product resulting from the ability to perceive, recognize, and/or assimilate that information based upon the fulfillment(or not) of individual needs, wants, and/or desires.

Can you think of a thought which does not fit into this set of criteria?





The difference between humans and most other animals on earth which have a brain, is our ability to believe that we, ourselves, know something.

Self awareness.


One last rhetorical question, if interested...

If awareness comes before perception, then what is the awareness of, if there is no perceptual capability?

Self awareness requires the ability to perceive self.

Therefore, it is impossible for awareness to exist without perception.

It would only follow then that perception facilitates the capability of awareness, not the other way around.

Plenty of animals perceive but do not have self awareness.

There are none which I can think of that have self awareness without perception.

UH! YEAH!!!! How high is the divorce rate? Do you really expect us to believe that people are not pushing their sexuality over the limits set for our good? What about kiddie porn & the sex slave trade going on today...being perpetrated on innocent women & children being stolen from their parents for sex???? Female mutilation in some countries & slavery in the sudan!!!! Right under our noses yet you all want to turn a blind eye to that...just keep blaming God for man's sin nature thats out of control!!!!

Uh... with rampant divorce, out of wedlock children & sexual disease going on please spare us the silly remarks. That's being in denial about the consequences.

I did not personally insult you. YOU said that I was a " zoo keeper", then you must be a goat. You said it not me.
Think sharp.

You have an awesome profile! You sound like a load of fun and a bit feisty I must say. No matter what your religion, I wish I had a friend like you to hang out with. I bet there is some interesting talk at lunch.