Why doesn't God share His knowledge?

silentridge8 said:Haven't you heard that one yet? The whole "God can't exist because the universe is just too massive" argument. 🙂

So, you're actually interested in the whole afterlife thing? The whole "what happens when we die" debate?
Is there any actual evidence that an afterlife exists? That’s pretty much the core of what I’m asking here.What exactly defines something? It’s one of those questions that sounds simple until you actually try to pin it down."/

It all started with this one statement of mine:

Philosophically speaking, both paths require a foundation. Whether you're leaning into pure randomness or putting your faith in a Creator, neither one just happens in a vacuum—they both need a starting point to hold them up.

bluebison25 responded to that with something completely irrelevant—basically just claiming that "it isn't rational to believe." The afterlife., because..."

Let me rephrase: if one person believes in "coincidence" and another believes in a Creator, both sides need a solid philosophical foundation to back up their claims. It’s not enough to just state an opinion. For instance, if someone argues, "I believe in chance because God is a concept rather than a physical reality," they actually need to defend that logic. We really need to sit down and figure out where the line is between what’s actually happening and what's just playing tricks on our minds..

Please quote with understanding.

When it comes to the afterlife, I honestly don't have a clue. You see people who believe in all sorts of different gods but don't buy into anything after death, and then you see the exact opposite. Personally, I find the whole naturalism argument a bit laughable.

Perfect! Now we finally know the difference between imagination and reality. To me, reality is when I get in bed with a fertile woman, we have sex, and the result is a baby.
Most people won't agree with me; they'll claim I was just dreaming and that the real "reality" is that the Holy Spirit (who, according to them, was right there in bed with us) is the one who fertilized her.
In my book, you don't need fancy philosophy or scientific studies to prove that.

bluebison25 said:Let me break this down for you. We were debating your specific point: "It’s obvious; I’m just saying that isn't any more rational than believing in a creator." Basically, we're talking about whether a supreme being or pure randomness is the more logical choice.
In my view, we can't even have this debate because randomness is inherently rational—it’s a fact of life that affects every single living thing on this planet every single day. It's observable evidence.
As for a supreme being, it’s not a rational topic for me because it's a human invention. Believing in something like that is based entirely on faith, and you simply cannot claim faith is rational.

If you can't wrap your head around what constitutes reality in your own life, then let me tell you what reality is to me. To me, reality is NOW—it's everything I experience and everything my brain registers in this exact moment. Reality is life. Reality is a book in my hands.
On the flip side, things like an afterlife aren't real to me. Fairy tales and religious texts don't count as reality.

Look, I'm not trying to insult anyone, but if someone takes their entire life—everything they've actually lived and built—and credits it to some entity while living for a spiritual world that doesn't exist, then naturally, they won't be able to distinguish between rationality and irrationality, or between reality and fiction. Your posts prove exactly that.🙂

I wasn't actually trying to start a debate there. My point was simply this: believing everything happens by pure chance isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.

I don't think there's much point in us debating this. To me, it all just looks like a coincidence. I’m being rational when I say that coincidence is just something that happens to all of us. It’s not just us, either. If you look at the day-to-day lives of other living creatures on this planet, there’s plenty of evidence to back it up.
I’ll say it again: the idea of a supreme being isn't exactly a rational topic for me. It feels like a concept cooked up by people, where the whole existence of such a thing relies entirely on faith—and you just can't really bridge the gap between blind belief and actual logic.

So, at that point, your whole definition of reason—or what you consider to be rationality—just doesn't square with... The standard definitions for that term.
Rationality isn't about whether something is tangible, sensitive, or even moral. It’s strictly about whether a thing can be understood through logic and reason. If you claim something is irrational just because it doesn't fit your criteria, you're missing the point. Made up. So, on one hand, you're trying to prove a negative, and on the other, you're acting like logic somehow validates your specific point of view.

If you haven't quite figured out what reality actually means in your own life, then nothing else is going to make sense.

I noticed you have this habit of trying to psychoanalyze my character and my work—and honestly, this isn't even the first time. I’d appreciate it if you’d just drop it. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and frankly, it goes against the forum rules.

If you want my take on what reality actually is, here it is: for me, reality is right NOW. It’s everything I’m experiencing in this exact second—whatever my brain is capable of registering in the present moment. To me, reality is simply life.

To sounds like one of those empty clichés you'd find in a New Age paperback. 🤷

To me, reality feels like a book already written.
To me, the afterlife isn't exactly "reality." I don't buy into those supposed events written up in fairy tales or religious texts. To my mind, none of that is actually real.

The only takeaway I can get from this is that you view reality as something tangible—like a physical book you can hold in your hands. When it comes to religious texts, the level of textual criticism we have here in the Western World is honestly enviable. Most historians are in total agreement that figures like Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth, and others mentioned in these scriptures are grounded in historical reality.

Look, I’m not trying to be insulting here, but in my view, if someone credits their entire life and everything they’ve built to some external entity and lives solely for some supposed afterlife, they naturally lose the ability to distinguish rationality from irrationality—or reality from whatever isn't actually real. Your posts are a perfect example of that. 🙂

It’s not about whether you have value; it’s just that you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Using "the Creator" and "the afterlife" as synonyms doesn't work, and when you swap out standard definitions for your own personal ones while ignoring the fundamental rules of logic, you end up making it pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously as a conversationalist.

Paul Anderson2 said:Yeah, it's blind, sure, but it isn't exactly random. Maybe a better way to put it would be mechanical. It's kind of like having a sieve that only lets pebbles under a certain size pass through. In the end, you don't end up with just any random mess.

When people call natural selection blind, I think they mean it doesn't "care" about whether a species survives long-term or if things stay in harmony and balance.

I get the distinction, though a lot of people don't. You'll even find some folks who genuinely believe humans will eventually develop telekinetic or telepathic abilities just because of "evolution." 😵 Since the topic was heading elsewhere, I didn't want to get bogged down in the technicalities of "chance" versus "blindness," otherwise we'd be drifting off-topic and end up needing an entirely different white paper to explain it all.

silentridge8 said:I wasn't actually trying to start a debate there. My point was simply this: believing everything happens by pure chance isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.

I don't think there's much point in us debating this. To me, it all just looks like a coincidence. I’m being rational when I say that coincidence is just something that happens to all of us. It’s not just us, either. If you look at the day-to-day lives of other living creatures on this planet, there’s plenty of evidence to back it up.
I’ll say it again: the idea of a supreme being isn't exactly a rational topic for me. It feels like a concept cooked up by people, where the whole existence of such a thing relies entirely on faith—and you just can't really bridge the gap between blind belief and actual logic.

So, at that point, your whole definition of reason—or what you consider to be rationality—just doesn't square with... The standard definitions for that term.
Rationality isn't about whether something is tangible, sensitive, or even moral. It’s strictly about whether a thing can be understood through logic and reason. If you claim something is irrational just because it doesn't fit your criteria, you're missing the point. Made up. So, on one hand, you're trying to prove a negative, and on the other, you're acting like logic somehow validates your specific point of view.

If you haven't quite figured out what reality actually means in your own life, then nothing else is going to make sense.

I noticed you have this habit of trying to psychoanalyze my character and my work—and honestly, this isn't even the first time. I’d appreciate it if you’d just drop it. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and frankly, it goes against the forum rules.

If you want my take on what reality actually is, here it is: for me, reality is right NOW. It’s everything I’m experiencing in this exact second—whatever my brain is capable of registering in the present moment. To me, reality is simply life.

To sounds like one of those empty clichés you'd find in a New Age paperback. 🤷

To me, reality feels like a book already written.
To me, the afterlife isn't exactly "reality." I don't buy into those supposed events written up in fairy tales or religious texts. To my mind, none of that is actually real.

The only takeaway I can get from this is that you view reality as something tangible—like a physical book you can hold in your hands. When it comes to religious texts, the level of textual criticism we have here in the Western World is honestly enviable. Most historians are in total agreement that figures like Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth, and others mentioned in these scriptures are grounded in historical reality.

Look, I’m not trying to be insulting here, but in my view, if someone credits their entire life and everything they’ve built to some external entity and lives solely for some supposed afterlife, they naturally lose the ability to distinguish rationality from irrationality—or reality from whatever isn't actually real. Your posts are a perfect example of that. 🙂

It’s not about whether you have value; it’s just that you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Using "the Creator" and "the afterlife" as synonyms doesn't work, and when you swap out standard definitions for your own personal ones while ignoring the fundamental rules of logic, you end up making it pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously as a conversationalist.

We were just talking about this, and now you're straight-up lying. Fine, go ahead and lie—claiming I said your God is just a synonym for the afterlife (🤷 why would I?). Look, I can wrap my head around the fact that it feels more logical to you to believe in spirits than in pure coincidence, and I'll accept that. But if that's where you stand, then the cold, hard reality is that you and I will never be able to have a productive conversation on any subject whatsoever.👍

silentridge8 said:I wasn't actually trying to start a debate there. My point was simply this: believing everything happens by pure chance isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.

I don't think there's much point in us debating this. To me, it all just looks like a coincidence. I’m being rational when I say that coincidence is just something that happens to all of us. It’s not just us, either. If you look at the day-to-day lives of other living creatures on this planet, there’s plenty of evidence to back it up.
I’ll say it again: the idea of a supreme being isn't exactly a rational topic for me. It feels like a concept cooked up by people, where the whole existence of such a thing relies entirely on faith—and you just can't really bridge the gap between blind belief and actual logic.

So, at that point, your whole definition of reason—or what you consider to be rationality—just doesn't square with... The standard definitions for that term.
Rationality isn't about whether something is tangible, sensitive, or even moral. It’s strictly about whether a thing can be understood through logic and reason. If you claim something is irrational just because it doesn't fit your criteria, you're missing the point. Made up. So, on one hand, you're trying to prove a negative, and on the other, you're acting like logic somehow validates your specific point of view.

If you haven't quite figured out what reality actually means in your own life, then nothing else is going to make sense.

I noticed you have this habit of trying to psychoanalyze my character and my work—and honestly, this isn't even the first time. I’d appreciate it if you’d just drop it. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and frankly, it goes against the forum rules.

If you want my take on what reality actually is, here it is: for me, reality is right NOW. It’s everything I’m experiencing in this exact second—whatever my brain is capable of registering in the present moment. To me, reality is simply life.

To sounds like one of those empty clichés you'd find in a New Age paperback. 🤷

To me, reality feels like a book already written.
To me, the afterlife isn't exactly "reality." I don't buy into those supposed events written up in fairy tales or religious texts. To my mind, none of that is actually real.

The only takeaway I can get from this is that you view reality as something tangible—like a physical book you can hold in your hands. When it comes to religious texts, the level of textual criticism we have here in the Western World is honestly enviable. Most historians are in total agreement that figures like Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth, and others mentioned in these scriptures are grounded in historical reality.

Look, I’m not trying to be insulting here, but in my view, if someone credits their entire life and everything they’ve built to some external entity and lives solely for some supposed afterlife, they naturally lose the ability to distinguish rationality from irrationality—or reality from whatever isn't actually real. Your posts are a perfect example of that. 🙂

It’s not about whether you have value; it’s just that you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Using "the Creator" and "the afterlife" as synonyms doesn't work, and when you swap out standard definitions for your own personal ones while ignoring the fundamental rules of logic, you end up making it pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously as a conversationalist.

Total lie. Which historical scholar actually verified Jesus of Nazareth as a real person—you know, like Moses, Noah, Jesus, Solomon, Mary, the whole bunch of saints, Saint Peter and Paul, the serpent, Lucifer, Gabriel, or even Methuselah? What kind of evidence could possibly back that up?
I mean, you could probably shove a cat under Dante's seat if you really wanted to.

Anthony Perez9 said:And how was Adam supposed to know it was wrong when he couldn't even tell good from bad yet? Same goes for Eve. It turns out everything is just the fault of some talking snake (what even was that? Some god or powerful angel in Eden who actually knew right from wrong? WTF?).

Because of that talking snake, Jesus had to suffer on the cross...

It isn't about Adam needing to recognize good from bad—he only knew good—it's about him needing to honor his agreement with God, and the deal was he could have anything except "that" tree.
Of course, the tree in Eden wasn't just placed there for no reason, nor was God trying to test Adam; the tree was placed there intentionally to remind Adam of the agreement—since God knew Adam was a material being, it would be easier for him if he could actually "see" the contract, a daily reminder...

And he's at fault because he went to touch it, breaking his pact with God, since there was nothing special about that tree for Adam—nothing particularly nourishing or enjoyable... symbolically, the tree was the cornerstone between God and Adam.

When you make a deal with someone and tell them: Do everything except this one thing.
Wouldn't it offend you if they went and touched "that thing" just out of curiosity or for the thrill of it?
Adam used 100% of his brain (which seems incomprehensible to some people today), yet he didn't use his intellect, but rather his heart, which led him astray.

As for the snake?
That’s just a character who decided before Adam how to be a god to himself and others.🙄
Adam did fall for a stupid trick, but he shouldn't have; he could have chosen differently, but curiosity was stronger.
"Curiosity killed the cat," as the old saying goes, and it's a living truth.

And Jesus?
He didn't "have to suffer" on the cross (as you put it).
He didn't have to do anything at all... everything he did was his own choice, because everyone has their own free will—angels in heaven and people on Earth alike.

Perhaps that level of depth is unfamiliar to you because you personally would never do something like that for others—since you love yourself too much, won't sacrifice for anyone else, and think everyone else is foolish while your own reach is magnificent?!

A person who has never had the chance to sacrifice for others, in any way, can only imagine they had opportunities but missed them due to selfishness—but when faced with the same situation again... is it possible they'll just follow the same pattern?

Now you'll ask, 'well, do I have to be crucified to please others?'
No, definitely not that! But you could, for instance, sweat through the effort of helping others.
And if you don't want to... well, then you can always stay exactly where you are, stuck at a standstill, thinking highly of yourself while spitting on everyone else's hard work.

This is just a general observation, nothing personal, so, no offense intended.🙂

Anthony Perez9 said:Total lie. Which historical scholar actually verified Jesus of Nazareth as a real person—you know, like Moses, Noah, Jesus, Solomon, Mary, the whole bunch of saints, Saint Peter and Paul, the serpent, Lucifer, Gabriel, or even Methuselah? What kind of evidence could possibly back that up?
I mean, you could probably shove a cat under Dante's seat if you really wanted to.

🤣

The same historians who argue that Medina isn't just some made-up city😍

Historical science isn't the same thing as this little project you've got going on here on the forum; it's like saying beer counts as food🎉

silentridge8 said:🤣

The same historians who argue that Medina isn't just some made-up city😍

Historical science isn't the same thing as this little project you've got going on here on the forum; it's like saying beer counts as food🎉

besides, if the Mediterranean Sea is a myth, then maybe Petra is just an imaginary town on the fringe 😕 for some people

beer isn't food, yet plenty of people live off it ☕

bluebison25 said:I’m telling you, believing in an afterlife or even in God just isn't rational. It’s nothing more than a product of human imagination and mental gymnastics, not actual reality.

And honestly? Reality itself is nothing more than a construct of our own imaginations and thoughts.
(We just convince ourselves that what we perceive as reality is actually real.)
Plato's cave

Harold Doyle3 said:And honestly? Reality itself is nothing more than a construct of our own imaginations and thoughts.
(We just convince ourselves that what we perceive as reality is actually real.)
Plato's cave

Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

silentridge8 said:Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

🙂
"In the beginning was the Word..." right?

But how do you actually express yourself through language?
( If you say "I"... well, everyone with even a shred of self-awareness says "I," yet every single "I" is unique... or is it?)
And what about people living with split personalities?

Are we expressing ourselves through others, while they express themselves through us?
Isn't that just one big circle?

Harold Doyle3 says:
Reality itself is just a construct born from human imagination and thought.
(we operate under the assumption that what we perceive as reality actually *is* reality)
Plato's cave

silentridge8 said:Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

Reality is a shadow. Reality is a cave. But honestly, none of that matters in this specific context:

I’ve always preferred expressing my own truth a bit differently—mostly by swearing like a drunken sailor. 😲

There was this Zen master named Hogen who lived a solitary life in a small temple out in the sticks. One day, four traveling monks show up at his doorstep asking to light a fire in his courtyard just to warm themselves up.
While they’re busy tending the flames, Hogen overhears them bickering about subjectivity versus objectivity. He decides to jump into the fray and asks, "Take this large stone here. In your estimation, does it reside within your mind or outside of it?"
One of the monks replies, "From a Buddhist perspective, everything is an objectification of the mind, so I would say that stone exists within my mind."
"Your head must be incredibly heavy," Hogen remarks, "if you're carrying a stone like that everywhere you go."
There's actually a second part to that story.
The master adds, "So, you believe everything is an illusion—an objectification of the mind—just like this brick I'm holding in my hand while you hold it in your mind?" Then, he drops the brick right on the student's foot, sending him hopping around and howling in pain.
"Why all the shouting and jumping," Hogen asks, "if this brick is nothing more than a figment of your own mind?"

You all seem a bit lost when it comes to distinguishing fact from fiction, but whatever. I’m currently reading a solid critique that dismisses Ivancic’s "book" about Jesus of Nazareth being a Historical figure as nothing more than a fairy tale, systematically tearing down every supposed "proof" and witness. Like Anthony Perez9 pointed out earlier, the only "historians" who would ever try to prove the existence of the supernatural are theologians—people who, much like yourselves, can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. 🙂

silentridge8 said:Given that perspective, Richard Rorty makes more sense. He argued that objective reality doesn't really exist—there's only "vocabulary." Essentially, things only exist insofar as they are expressed through language.

I don't know, I can't really get behind that idea.

It’s pretty common for people to resort to descriptive rambling when they can't find the actual word or specific name for something. Like, you know that thing—the part that sits on top and keeps everything from spilling out? Well, that thing broke, and that's why...

bluebison25 said:You all seem a bit lost when it comes to distinguishing fact from fiction, but whatever. I’m currently reading a solid critique that dismisses Ivancic’s "book" about Jesus of Nazareth being a Historical figure as nothing more than a fairy tale, systematically tearing down every supposed "proof" and witness. Like Anthony Perez9 pointed out earlier, the only "historians" who would ever try to prove the existence of the supernatural are theologians—people who, much like yourselves, can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. 🙂

So, you actually gave us a definition of reality (#441)
"to me, reality is when I finish up in bed with a fertile woman, we have sex, and as a result, we end up with a child."

Since that definition relies entirely on your own ego (bolded), we're talking about pure solipsism, or rather subjective idealism—which is nothing more than a construct of human imagination and fleeting thoughts.

What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?

You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.

edit: For the billionth time:

The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.

If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?

The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Harold Doyle3 says:
Reality itself is just a construct born from human imagination and thought.
(we operate under the assumption that what we perceive as reality actually *is* reality)
Plato's cave

Reality is a shadow. Reality is a cave. But honestly, none of that matters in this specific context:

I’ve always preferred expressing my own truth a bit differently—mostly by swearing like a drunken sailor. 😲

There was this Zen master named Hogen who lived a solitary life in a small temple out in the sticks. One day, four traveling monks show up at his doorstep asking to light a fire in his courtyard just to warm themselves up.
While they’re busy tending the flames, Hogen overhears them bickering about subjectivity versus objectivity. He decides to jump into the fray and asks, "Take this large stone here. In your estimation, does it reside within your mind or outside of it?"
One of the monks replies, "From a Buddhist perspective, everything is an objectification of the mind, so I would say that stone exists within my mind."
"Your head must be incredibly heavy," Hogen remarks, "if you're carrying a stone like that everywhere you go."
There's actually a second part to that story.
The master adds, "So, you believe everything is an illusion—an objectification of the mind—just like this brick I'm holding in my hand while you hold it in your mind?" Then, he drops the brick right on the student's foot, sending him hopping around and howling in pain.
"Why all the shouting and jumping," Hogen asks, "if this brick is nothing more than a figment of your own mind?"

Pain is a mental construct.
Think about phantom limb pain—you don't need a brick or a fish for that.
The reaction (the pain) is identical whether it's triggered by something physically there or something that isn't.

The real question is whether reality is even perceivable—meaning, can anything actually exist in space-time when time is relative and space is constantly expanding?

When someone looks up at the night sky and sees the faint, hazy glow of Andromeda, they have proof that the galaxy existed two million years ago. But does it exist *now*? Most likely, yes. We'll know for sure in less than two million years (as we approach the local deviation from global expansion). We see our own Sun as it was roughly eight minutes ago—does it still exist? We can only answer that question with an eight-minute delay. We see the Moon as it was about a second ago, and so on. The closer the object, the smaller the time lag, but the gap is always there. It never truly vanishes (well, maybe at Planck scales).

An objective "present" doesn't really exist; it's just an approximation. All we truly have is the past (and maybe the future, if information can somehow travel faster than light).
If the objective present is just an approximation, then objective reality itself falls within that same window of approximation.

I should point out that the processes happening at quantum scales are part of our "reality" and our daily lives—take laser rangefinders, cell phones, or computers. And we certainly can't rule out the possibility of quantum processes influencing the brain.

If we wanted to define reality, could we ever actually define it objectively using the concepts we have available?

bluebison25 said:What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?

You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.

edit: For the billionth time:

The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.

If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?

The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.

My advice to you is to stop giving any weight to what people tell you; frankly, they haven't a clue, unfortunately. Instead of wasting your time wrestling with their nonsense, you should be pursuing actual knowledge and meaningful pursuits in life.

The "soul," as believers and "spiritualists" call it, is quite simply Consciousness. I won't get bogged down in a debate over its exact definition, its origin, or where it wanders after death. But make no mistake: it is entirely real.

I once had this "mystical" experience while in a sort of profound trance. In that state, I was immersed for three full hours without interruption, yet I had absolutely no perception of time passing. I wasn't aware of any physical space either; there was only a deep silence and peace. I simply existed. There was no one else but myself, not even a single stray thought—one might call it "Nothingness." THAT is consciousness. It is that which lies "behind" the mind, the quiet awareness that constitutes our very core. I experienced it in a way few people ever do, though that isn't the point. Believers would say I was looking my "soul" in the eye. And no, it isn't some white spark as they imagine; that is purely an abstraction.

"Soul," or Consciousness, is absolute silence, a "void," pure existence. It is everything that people fear, much like a cat fears a dog. 😁

And while I said I wouldn't dwell on it, if one experiences death, they return to the field that permeates everything. That field is undeniably real—I know this from experience, and science recognizes it too; they call it the unified field. It is similar to a drop of water returning to the ocean, but it isn't about seeing light or some other imagery believers conjure up. Rather, it is very much like the experience I am attempting to describe, difficult as it may be to articulate. I mentioned we are all this at our core; if so, what is the actual difference between ME, you, or anyone else? Read what I've described again—there truly is no difference. We are one.

"Theoretical and empirical investigation reveals that the unified field is fundamentally a field of consciousness. The fundamental qualities of the unified field—intelligence, dynamism, and self-awareness (i.e., “self-referral,” the non-Abelian property of self-interaction)—are the defining characteristics of consciousness.

Scientific research on consciousness further demonstrates that human consciousness can directly access and experience The unified field in The most expanded state of human awareness. This experience of the unified field—pure consciousness—constitutes a fourth major state of human consciousness, physiologically and subjectively distinct from waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. This experience is marked by the onset of global EEG coherence and increased alpha power, indicating maximum orderliness of brain functioning and utilization of the total brain."

You can find the details here: http://www.spiritwatch.ca/cehsc/ipure.htm
Here is my take on what the "soul" actually is.

That’s the essence of it—I’ve attempted to clarify the concept through this lens, so take it or leave it. 😁

bluebison25 said:What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?

You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.

edit: For the billionth time:

The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.

If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?

The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.

🤷
Where exactly did I claim that a soul (or ghosts) exists?

@orah: Let's not get bogged down in endless arguments that just go in circles. Most people can probably agree with my point without us needing to start a massive brawl 🙂.

@Nancy Wilson2: Yeah, I'm basically just killing time right now—either handling private business or working out in the field. Unfortunately, this economic crisis is hitting every single sector. Based on my gut feeling, this year is going to be about 20% worse, which means we'll see roughly two months' worth of lost customers in the hospitality industry. As for the topic at hand: I don't know exactly what you experienced. I don't want to sound arrogant, but for people who have had near-death experiences (like my grandmother did), describing butterflies, pure joy, or flying over a meadow of flowers (that’s exactly how she put it), scientists gave us an answer a long time ago. It's just the brain hallucinating due to lack of oxygen, creating those vivid images. To me, it looks like the brain's desperate struggle to stay online as long as possible before it completely shuts down and wipes all our memories and knowledge
.
Here is how I see it: scientists already understand which part of the brain handles which function. We know the mind is essentially just a series of chemical reactions. If you damage one specific area of the brain, you lose certain mental faculties. It is simply not true that people with brain damage possess an intact "soul" while just being unable to communicate with us. Everything regarding a person's mind and personality can be stripped away if the brain is compromised: you might lose the ability to recognize faces, forget animal names while remembering everything else, or someone's entire personality could shift until they become totally antisocial, and so on.

Damage one part of the brain, lose one skill; damage another, lose another.

If you damage—or rather, shut down—the entire brain, what happens? Go ahead, answer that yourself; I’ve already found my own answer.

What religion tells us is that if the whole brain is destroyed, then upon death, our mind somehow magically ascends to heaven where we speak American and can finally recognize our grandma again.