The search...

The search...
I have recently felt a need to improve my spiritual life, but I have issues with the personalization of a "creator". Idolatry seems quite fanciful to me and I see it as a waste of much time. I tend to favor realism, but also have an affinity for happiness and contentment, which somewhat seem at odds with each other. After being a fervent detractor of the Abrahamic faiths for most of my life, and not truly concerning myself with any sort of redemption, I find myself missing something...not fully satisfied, nor understanding this need that seems to peek at me daily from behind some very hidden place. I have been doing research on any and all religious doctrines for some time now, and not much seems to satisfy the need and the preference for reality and non-faith based spirituality. If anyone thinks their experience is similar, or might be helpful, please share.

I am not sure if it is entirely the same, but yeah, I too have problems picturing a creator. And at the same time, I have been trying to find something ... religious for me to actually believe in, or even try! I've been doing a lot of searching etc, and I seem to have found Taoism to be a pretty well-suited way of belief for me. But the again, I should get to know more about it before I start getting more involved into it... There still might be some sides of it, which I do not find myself related to.

Anything I could tell you from my personal experience wouldn't lead to satisfaction, I think. At the moment I lean toward believing that the universe had, and probably has, a Creator. I have trouble swallowing what nearly anyone else says about Him/Her/It/Them, though. Sometimes I like thinking about what He/She/It/They is/are like, and what HSIT want(s); and it calms me down. Mostly, though, at the moment, my main thrust is that I feel all the Abrahamic religions are in fact evil. I was a fervent and devout Christian (of a Pro-*test*-('")ant kind -- and I suppose probably quasi-Evangelical and/or quasi-Fundamental as well) up until my late twenties -- about half of my life so far. Then had an experience which made me doubt. But it was 9/11/01 which made me think those beliefs are actually evil, instead of just "not for me". Sorry -- timing out.

I usually consider myself something of an Agnostic, but if I had to lean towards any belief that there was a "creator", I would lean towards Deism. So maybe there was a creator. But I don't think that humans have any way to contact or have a relationship with such a being. Prayer is good and all for those who believe in it, but to me it's just a placebo effect. When things go well after a prayer, people attribute it to their prayers being "answered". When things don't go well, they either say that the creator didn't listen, their prayers weren't strong enough, the creator had too many other things to do, etc. A permanent heaven or hell doesn't make much sense to me. I rather think that people are reincarnated when they die.

After being a fervent detractor of the Abrahamic faiths for most of my life, and not truly concerning myself with any sort of redemption, I find myself missing something...not fully satisfied, nor understanding this need that seems to peek at me daily from behind some very hidden place. I have been doing research on any and all religious doctrines for some time now, and not much seems to satisfy the need and the preference for reality and non-faith based spirituality. If anyone thinks their experience is similar, or might be helpful, please share. I guess my experience is similar. I haven't been "a detractor of the Abrahamic faiths" for "most of my life", but rather just half of it. And my "some time" may be a lot shorter than yours (the time we've been researching any and all religious doctrines. I usually consider myself something of an Agnostic, but if I had to lean towards any belief that there was a "creator", I would lean towards Deism. So maybe there was a creator. But I don't think that humans have any way to contact or have a relationship with such a being. Prayer is good and all for those who believe in it, but to me it's just a placebo effect. When things go well after a prayer, people attribute it to their prayers being "answered". When things don't go well, they either say that the creator didn't listen, their prayers weren't strong enough, the creator had too many other things to do, etc. A permanent heaven or hell doesn't make much sense to me. I rather think that people are reincarnated when they die. In spite of no longer believing in God (at least not the one I was taught), I never got out of the habit of prayer. Because I have almost given over the idea that these things are susceptible of proof, I have started evaluating them based on what sort of actions they would incline their believers towards, rather than on "how true" they are. I do not like certain combinations of a few ideas. That is, there is a "smallish" list of ideas, such that I don't like belief systems that incorporate "too many" of them. In essence I don't like anything that might lead to the conclusion "Kill them all; God can sort them out." So the list includes: (1) There is a God who is the Author of Morality (or Justice or Ethics or Right or Good) (2) There is a God who is the Judge of Morality (or Justice or Ethics or Right or Good), and can "see into the inward heart of a person" to distinguish the innocent from the guilty and/or the virtuous from the non-virtuous. (3) There is an afterlife -- a Heaven -- in which the virtuous can and will be rewarded for their life of virtue. (4) There is an afterlife -- a Hell -- in which the guilty can and will be punished for their life of sin. (5) Either Heaven or Hell or both are eternal. (6) God can and will make sure each person who should go to Heaven goes there and each person who should not go to Heaven does not go there; and/or God can and will make sure each person who should go to Hell goes there and each person who should not go to Hell does not go there. Clearly if there is no God and/or there is no afterlife, the unwanted combinations can't occur. But I've done a lot of thinking about what kind of belief in God, and/or what kind of belief in an Afterlife, I would find beneficial. I have heard rumors to the effect that certain kinds of Judaism would be, for instance. I gather they are all minor threads within Judaism, but that could be wrong; I'm afraid I don't know much specific about them. At any rate I don't think any form of Christianity or Islam would do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My favorite kind of afterlife is reincarnation. Here are the requirements: (1) One is reincarnated here on Earth as a mortal after one's death. (2) The circumstances of one's reincarnation are totally random; they have nothing to do with how one lived one's life, save that one may be subject to the earthly consequences of one's earlier earthly acts. In particular, there is no reward or punishment involved in determining who one gets re-incarnated as. (3) During the interval between the death of one reincarnation and the birth of the next, a soul cannot experience anything -- especially, not pleasure or pain, therefore not reward nor punishment -- and cannot communicate with, nor be communicated with by, any living mortal; nor affect the earth or any mortals in any way. (Note that neither (2) nor (3) fit with the Hindu or Buddhist conceptions of re-incarnation. In both, one spends the interval between lives in Heaven or in Hell, depending on how one lived the last life; and in Hinduism, one's next incarnation is either an improvement on, or not as good as, one's previous incarnation, depending on how one lived the last incarnation.) This would logically lead everyone -- or at least all selfish people who believe in this kind of reincarnation -- to try to make sure every person who will be born after one dies, has the best possible chance at a good life. No-one would want some of them to have a better chance if that came at the expense of someone else's chance. So fairness and justice would be common goals; as would improving the general welfare of everyone. There are some Jewish belief systems in which every person's duty is to make Earth as much like Heaven as possible. For some of them, "the end of the world" is when Earth turns into Heaven; they expect it to happen at some unspecified future time (perhaps a time that keeps getting put off and therefore can't be predicted?), and expect that it will come about partly because of human effort. This kind of reincarnation would support that part of those beliefs some Jews have. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've also given a lot of thought to what sort of belief in God I would find "healthy". I don't know if I can list them all here. But, here are several, at least. (By the way, like anyone else, if I had my "'druthers" I'd rather believe that God was "on our side" than against us.) (1) God, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, created the Universe, and Life, and Intelligence, for a purpose. However, He (or She or It, or even They) is not the Author nor Judge of morality. Since He has always been Supreme, He has no first-hand experience on which to form an ethics of how to relate to equals. He created intelligent life (possibly specifically the human race; maybe even specifically each individual) to be a laboratory in which such an ethics would be worked out. God doesn't want to tell us what's right and what's wrong; He wants us to tell Him. Since we'll make progress faster, on the questions He still doesn't have answers to, if we know the answers to the questions He has found answers to, maybe every now and again He incarnates Himself to teach us these answers. And/or maybe He incarnates Himself to -*test*-('") whether these answers are, in fact, correct. Either way His Incarnation will be an example of the best morality God knows how to be at that point. Maybe He incarnates only once or twice for each given intelligent species. (2) God, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, just doesn't care about morality or immorality, good or evil, justice or injustice, right or wrong, etc. Those are totally human concerns. (3) God, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, is now a competent and vigorous Deity; but at the time He created Humanity he was a tyro, a rookie, a newbie. The Universe incorporates a bunch of rookie mistakes that He, and we, struggle with every day. (4) God, the Creator, Sustainer, and Ruler of the Universe, was once (including the time of the Creation) a competent and vigorous Deity; but now He is going senile and/or feeble, and needs us to take over some of the work. (5) God, the Creator of the Universe, is not its Sustainer nor Ruler. We don't know what His purpose was in creating the Universe, but whatever it was, He's through with it now, and has moved on to other projects. We need to figure out what to do with the Universe. (6) Whatever God's purposes were in Creating, Sustaining, and Ruling the Universe, and Life, and Humanity, and us as individuals; has nothing to do with what we should do. He has His purposes, but we have no obligation to conform ourselves to them. (7) I know I had at least seven of these at one time! But now I can't think of any more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you can see, for the most part, these don't assume God had a purpose for any group smaller than "the Human Race"; actually, mostly, not for any group smaller than "intelligent life-forms". They are, however, mostly compatible with the notion that God has purposes, plans, goals, and desires for individuals. (And mostly compatible with the notion that He does not.) Some of them are about a God towards Whom we'd probably feel friendly -- and One Who would probably feel friendly toward us. But mostly they don't assume an individual can communicate with God. (However mostly they could possibly be compatible with such a notion.) These would be comforting beliefs. I don't actually lean towards most of them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I gather that there are certain scientific facts that some people believe are more easily compatible with the idea that the Universe (and/or the World and/or Life and/or Humanity) is(/are) artifact(s), than with the idea that there was no Creator. Just assuming there was a Creator, probably He had a purpose in Creation. What that was, however, is still wide open to pretty much any guess. And was Life deliberate or a side-effect? Same question for Intelligence. Same for Humanity. Finally, same question for each individual. Continuing in the assumption, but in another direction; What sort of evidence would indicate that the Creator is still around? In Calculating God, Robert J. Sawyer gives one answer. He says, if several (in his book, three) intelligent species all arrive at interstellar travel, and meet each other, at the same time, that makes it likely God is still around. The analogy he uses is this. Suppose a cook wants to cook a single dish. He or she might set everything up in the kitchen, turn on the stove to the right temperature, then walk away and come back at the right time and it would be ready. So the existence of one intelligent, star-faring species does not prove that God is still "in the kitchen". But suppose a cook wants to cook a complete multi-course dinner. Everything has to be ready at the same time; or the dishes have to become ready in a specific order with specific intervals between one dish's readiness and the next's. But each dish requires different cooking-times and different cooking-temperatures (and probably other differences as well). The cook pretty much has to stay in the kitchen. So the simultaneous existence of several star-faring species would prove that God is "still in the kitchen". (In that book God's purpose in Creation has little or nothing to do with Good or Evil; though we'd think of "Him"(?) as "good"-ish, since He saves species from the extinction other species have arranged for them. But He does nothing for individuals. The non-human species in that book believe that their lives will be better if they can figure out what God's purposes for them are, and accomplish those purposes; and many of them try to pray and/or meditate to find out what God wants them to do. But Sawyer doesn't include a convincing argument nor a convincing answer to the question "Why should we help God?".) (BTW in that book God is the sole survivor -- actually, was the sole sentient inhabitant -- of a previous "creation". He is, technically, not "alive" in the "biological sense" -- "Life" didn't occur in that previous Creation. "He" wants a child. For that purpose He needs several star-faring species to co-operate with each other. So He needs them to survive, and needs them to be at least minimally friendly to each other.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I hope this is not too much of an info-dump. Can anyone add anything? Does anyone want to expand on anything I've started? @Sano, does any of it come close to helping? @Ghadan, what do you think of the above?

@Sano, does any of it come close to helping? If you mean does that give me plenty to think about, then yes. If you mean does that resolve the issues that have been on my mind, no, not really, but that's just fine.

@Sano, does any of it come close to helping?If you mean does that give me plenty to think about, then yes.Good! Thanks for saying so.If you mean does that resolve the issues that have been on my mind,BTW what are those, exactly? Or, at least, what are some of them, in a bit more detail than you've said so far?no, not really, but that's just fine.Again; thanks for saying so.

BTW what are those, exactly? Or, at least, what are some of them, in a bit more detail than you've said so far? As you may or may not have surmised by now, detail isn't something I am very talented at expressing, and in this case I'm not sure I want to. It's simply a few questions that float around in my mind on a fairly regular basis that I can't seem to answer no matter how much thought I put into it.

After being a fervent detractor of the Abrahamic faiths for most of my life, and not truly concerning myself with any sort of redemption, I find myself missing something...not fully satisfied, nor understanding this need that seems to peek at me daily from behind some very hidden place. I have been doing research on any and all religious doctrines for some time now, and not much seems to satisfy the need and the preference for reality and non-faith based spirituality. If anyone thinks their experience is similar, or might be helpful, please share. I guess my experience is similar. I haven't been "a detractor of the Abrahamic faiths" for "most of my life", but rather just half of it. And my "some time" may be a lot shorter than yours (the time we've been researching any and all religious doctrines.) Hmm... I've always felt a need for something religious in my life, but ever since I stopped being a fundamentalist Pro-*test*-('")ant around 15 (I'm now 21), I've begun a slow, discontinuous process of shedding specific religious beliefs. I've gotten into lots of different religious idea at various time, but I have a hard time really committing myself to anything definite. I usually consider myself something of an Agnostic, but if I had to lean towards any belief that there was a "creator", I would lean towards Deism. So maybe there was a creator. But I don't think that humans have any way to contact or have a relationship with such a being. Prayer is good and all for those who believe in it, but to me it's just a placebo effect. When things go well after a prayer, people attribute it to their prayers being "answered". When things don't go well, they either say that the creator didn't listen, their prayers weren't strong enough, the creator had too many other things to do, etc. I don't believe that there is/was a creator, but I do believe in a spirit/idea of divinity that operates in the realm of human life. This divinity, which is beyond any specification, may be specified as some deity, whether that deity be single or plural, immanent or transcendent, or anything else. A permanent heaven or hell doesn't make much sense to me. I rather think that people are reincarnated when they die. I think reincarnation makes more sense than the usual heaven-or-hell idea, but I no longer believe in an afterlife for individual personalities. I think individual human consciousness only endures within the frame of individual human lives, but that doesn't necessarily rule out non-individual consciousnesses. In spite of no longer believing in God (at least not the one I was taught), I never got out of the habit of prayer. Weird, me too. I still pray, as well, though I'm not sure what I'm doing when I pray. It seems most likely that prayer for me is a way of voicing a feeling of faith or confidence in myself/other people/human divinity, as well as a relinquishing any presumption of personal control over the future. Because I have almost given over the idea that these things are susceptible of proof, I have started evaluating them based on what sort of actions they would incline their believers towards, rather than on "how true" they are. Ditto for me. There's a long tradition in philosophy from Kant onwards that the question of the existence of God has no truth value, and is therefore meaningless. I agree with that, but also that belief in God is really more like a "speech act".

Very nice post kodé, good to see you around. For me, the idea of a personification of a Creator seems like a bit of human arrogance, especially with respect to the idea that HSIT would exist/think/act in any way that would be understandable to humans. Prayer is a word that always gives me the mental image of Catholics on there knees in a pew... I do speak aloud to myself, but never direct it in an ideological way, more of a self-actualization / self-realization kinda way (I hope that makes sense). I sometimes practice meditation, most often kinhin, but occasionally zazen. The issue I have with reincarnation is a crisp reflection of my skeptic nature. How can we know? Why does it matter whether or not you can back as someone else if the "soul" changes? The memories and ideas of the past life are lost, what is the point of reincarnation? I guess I can be somewhat dismissive of many theological ideas, but I've never felt comfortable taking anything at face value, or based on what other people tell me. Testimony IMO is nothing more than what that person believes at that moment. I guess Agnostic is the term for me, but somehow that feels weirdly inaccurate too...maybe I'll just have to keep learning, and searching.

Eldin, here's what I have to say for the first part of your post. As mentioned before, I have a lot of problems with the whole notion of "heaven and hell", and God's ability to judge morality. First, even within Christianity, there is no particular denomination or sect that is more "correct" than others. That being said, they have different interpretations of God's word, and therefore different criteria for what denotes a "virtuous" life and a "sin-filled" life. I once had a conversation with a very religious Christian, and we were talking about how he tried his best to help his father become more faithful in his religion (his father is a Deist), but he wasn't able to. I then asked him if he believes that his father will go to hell, and he said that unfortunately, yes, he will. I'm also skeptical about God's ability to "make sure" that each person goes to the right place, whether that be heaven or hell. There are plenty of Christians who reject their faith and branch off elsewhere, and according to some people, these people would go to hell. But does God really have everyone's fate mapped out for them? If God has real power, he isn't making much use of it, when millions are taking the road that leads to hell and he isn't making any efforts to save them and put them on the road to heaven. The idea makes God seem somewhat biased, as if God looked at a newborn's fate, saw that he was destined for hell, and literally said, "to hell with it." As for the afterlife, I too think that reincarnation is the most logical. Just a random thought - when you say mortal, do you think that humans can be reincarnated as other animals as well? I've always been curious about that. For what you wrote on (2), I'm not sure yet if I agree or disagree. If there's a God out there, I'd probably disagree and say that you'd be reincarnated into a life based on how well you lived your previous life. If not, I'd say that it's a pretty much random selection - a virtuous, generous, selfless man may end up being reincarnated as a squirrel that gets run over by a truck. For (3), I never actually envisioned there being an interval. I always saw it as simply being death and then complete rebirth, with all previous memories and experiences forgotten. My view of the end of the world, or at least as far as the human race is concerned, is as followed. Right now, by living, humans are facing a challenge, simply to stay alive. I have a feeling that eventually the Earth will not be in a condition to sustain the pollutive effects that human life inevitably creates, and we'll eventually have to use terraforming to inhabit another planet (possibly Mars, but maybe another "solid" planet like Uranus). Hopefully, technology would be advanced enough to make space travel and "terraforming" something that would work. When the Sun expands and obliterates the earth in billions of years, humans will need a plan. That is, if they don't die out before then -- global warming, nuclear weapons, and other factors make this a difficult one. But this is just speculation. I rack my brain trying to figure out what would happen if the human race, and all other life forms on Earth, were wiped out. Would things start over on another planet, in another galaxy? But this is drifting away from the topic, so I'll end it right there. That's interesting about the idea of God using us as a laboratory experiment. By "incarnation" of God, you mean figures such as Jesus (as seen by the Christians) that have spread the teachings of God? For (3) under God, this part is hard for me to understand. God was a newbie compared to whom? Were there greater beings/deities out there, or do you mean in relation to the universe as a whole? (5) under God actually sounds like Deism completely, and as I mentioned earlier, if I lean towards any belief in a Creator, this is the one that makes the most sense to me. I agree with (6) as well. I didn't read the book that you linked to, but that would simply be cool if 3 interstellar species met each other. If a bold prediction/calculation like that is fulfilled, it might just bring me closer to believing. The idea that God is busy with many interstellar species, not simply the human race, could work as an explanation why God appears to many to be "absent" from human society. I don't personally believe Sawyer's analogy, but I haven't completely objected to it either. In your statement that "he" wants a child, does this imply that the child should be a mix of interstellar peoples? A lot of Christians see themselves as "God's children", and God as their "Father". One last question - what is your reason for the capitalization of nouns? It is simply a habit, stemming from the way the Bible writes, or is there another reason? Not that it is a bad thing, but I'm simply curious. @ kodé - Out of curiosity, do you attend church regularly? Lately, I've been attending a rather "modern" Christian fellowship with college students, and I've had a lot of exposure to prayer (whereas during most of my life, I hardly ever went to church). While I think the church is overall a good intention, I don't really understand it when people pray together, or when people stand and pray for one another. I've been prayed for multiple times and I don't feel anything spiritual, while for others they definitely feel something powerful that they are not faking. It confuses me a lot. @ Sano - I don't think that there is a point in reincarnation any more than there was a point in creating the universe - I think it's just something that happens "naturally". But I too, have trouble accepting anything at face value without having experienced/seen it, which makes me the oddball when I go to my church fellowship.

@ Sano - I don't think that there is a point in reincarnation any more than there was a point in creating the universe - I think it's just something that happens "naturally". Right, I understand the arbitrary nature of it, just as easily as I understand the futility of it. What bothers me is that the human mind has the ability to think of such things and yet doesn't seem to possess the capability of answering it in any sort of satisfactory way. I can't imagine the "Creator" choosing to have only humans reincarnate while the rest of his/her/its creation simply passes into the ether. This suggests a choice and thereby a human type of action, again lending to the arrogance of the entire Creator notion. Now, if there is no "Creator", and the simplest explanation is that we are made of energy, and that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, and that nature recycles that energy and we are at some level conscious of having been a part of some greater whole before being a part of our present selves, that would actually be much easier for me to accept, because it sounds wholly rational. I guess my biggest issue with subscribing to a particular theology is the sheepish nature of it. The religiously minded seem to be content with letting someone else give then the answers while I would truly like to know for myself. I can't imagine that we are all meant to be of one faith, as that would almost border on the boring, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is one truth that we are all subject to...and no, I don't think that it is an abstract morality, or an absolute ethical paradox, but more of a natural law that we may be incapable (at least for now) of fully understanding. I think I may be rambling here... If our actions here truly govern the "afterlife" then I'm screwed, but I can think of so many others that will be too, but that doesn't apply to anyone if I am correct in my thinking that morality is only a man made concept and that it holds no truth to it that we don't assign to it. Thanks for reading.

I guess Agnostic is the term for me, but somehow that feels weirdly inaccurate too...maybe I'll just have to keep learning, and searching.Perhaps it would help to distinguish between "agnostic" and "Agnostic". I'd suggest using "Agnostic" to mean someone who firmly believes no-one ever could know; while an "agnostic" is someone who currently doesn't know, and doesn't know of anyone else who knows. An "Agnostic" would not see a reason "to just keep learning and searching"; an "agnostic" would. Another possibility is; what is it you are "agnostic" (or maybe "Agnostic") about? Perhaps you have a firmer idea, or feel less ignorant, about some things than others. Perhaps there are some questions you think might be solved some day by somebody, and other questions you think no-one could ever learn the answer to. All-in-all it's more important for you to know your own state of mind than for you to know the "correct" label for it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @kode: Of all the many similar threads I've gotten into since 2004, this one contains the most people who actually more-or-less feel like I do! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @Ghadan; The attempts to answer the question "If God is eternal and omnipresent and omnipotent and omniscient, and He's also just and good, why does He allow evil?" constitute the branch of theology called "Theodicy"; it means "justifying God". (The questions "How could a loving God send anyone to Hell?" are also part of it.) (Obviously not all religions need theodicy. But the Abrahamic ones -- and others too, possibly -- do.) You and I both have problems swallowing the theodicies of the established religions. Many of my speculations about God were ways of getting around those problems; obviously I had to go afield from established religions to get anything I thought might be a good candidate. It's interesting that people besides me have brought up the ideas that morality is a purely human attribute, and that people are better able to judge God's morality than the other way 'round. I've thought that for the second half of my life so far. This is the first time I've heard someone else say it to me before I said it to them. But does God really have everyone's fate mapped out for them?Calvinists think "yes"; some others think "no". Just a random thought - when you say mortal, do you think that humans can be reincarnated as other animals as well? I've always been curious about that.I don't know. I was in fact thinking about that question when I wrote my previous post, but I didn't have an answer. I just want it to be possible to be re-incarnated as a person; and necessary that when one is re-incarnated one is born as a living thing which will die. For what you wrote on (2), I'm not sure yet if I agree or disagree. If there's a God out there, I'd probably disagree and say that you'd be reincarnated into a life based on how well you lived your previous life. If not, I'd say that it's a pretty much random selection - a virtuous, generous, selfless man may end up being reincarnated as a squirrel that gets run over by a truck.I was considering the afterlife question(s) separately from the God question(s) at that writing. And my requirement that reincarnation not be a reward or punishment was based on my dislike of the idea of supernatural, afterlife reward or punishment (since that's one of the cluster of ideas, too many of which can lead to thinking "Kill them all; God will sort them out"); and my requirement that the circumstances of reincarnation be beyond an individual's control in the previous life, was based on the consequence that everyone would try to make life better for everyone. For (3), I never actually envisioned there being an interval. I always saw it as simply being death and then complete rebirth, with all previous memories and experiences forgotten.In essence (3) is designed to make it appear that way to the soul in question. I put (3) in because some Hindu and Buddhist and related notions of metempsychosis have a Heaven and a Hell (but not "permanent" ones, like you were talking about) in which souls are rewarded or punished between incarnations. I wanted to rule out any such possibility. If a soul in a body is like a program running in a CPU, then a soul between incarnations is like a program recorded on a disk which is not currently in a disk-reader, is what I was saying. Perhaps there will be some time before it's reloaded; or perhaps it will be reloaded pretty much right away; but at any rate, until then, it will not be inputting or outputting any data. I have a feeling that eventually the Earth will not be in a condition to sustain the pollutive effects that human life inevitably creates, and we'll eventually have to use terraforming to inhabit another planet (possibly Mars, but maybe another "solid" planet like Uranus). Hopefully, technology would be advanced enough to make space travel and "terraforming" something that would work.Perhaps we'll compromise, and partly Mars-form or Titan-form or whatever the human immigrants to those worlds, instead of totally relying on terraforming those worlds. Indeed; if you look at Earth, the longer any people has been in its current location, the more their adaptations are inborn rather than technological. When the Sun expands and obliterates the earth in billions of years, humans will need a plan.Humans we would call completely modern physically, have existed only about 45,000 years. Our subspecies of humans have existed only about 100,000 years (they were distinctly "archaic" up til about 50 kya, though). Neandertals -- same species but different subspecies -- came into existence about 300 kya; although Wikipedia puts the differentiation of species H. sapiens from other species in genus Homo at about 250 kya. Genus Homo differentiated from other Hominina 2.5 mya. Subtribe Hominina differentiated from other Hominini 2.6 mya. Tribe Hominini differentiated from other Homininae 5.4-6.3 mya. Subfamily Homininae differentiated from other Hominidae at an unknown time; though probably 6.3-6.7 mya and surely 5.4-7.4 mya, I should think. Family Hominidae differentiated from other Hominoidea 6.7-7.4 mya. Superfamily Hominoidea differentiated from other Catarrhini 25 mya. The Earth and the entire Solar system are only about 4,500 million years old. Life is about 3,700 million years old. But it will be 8,000 to 10,000 milliion years before the Sun burns out. It would be beyond astonishing if humans, qua humans, still exist even 1,000 million years from now; surely the odds are at least 40 to 1 that, by then, "our" descendants will be recognizably a different species from us, and probably from each other as well. I rack my brain trying to figure out what would happen if the human race, and all other life forms on Earth, were wiped out.Odds are no such disaster would wipe out all life. A nuclear war might not even wipe out civilization; even likelier it wouldn't wipe out humanity; and it probably wouldn't wipe out life. The same is true of global warming. At present we can't hurt the Earth as much as it has been hurt in the past by Nature, and life survived those times (although several times 90% of existing species were extinguished). Would things start over on another planet, in another galaxy?Odds are they'd start over here on Earth -- but without us. That's interesting about the idea of God using us as a laboratory experiment.I like that one too. We'd be both His laboratory assistants and His guinea pigs, if that were true. By "incarnation" of God, you mean figures such as Jesus (as seen by the Christians) that have spread the teachings of God?Exactly. BTW is that sort-of what's meant by the Hindu term "avatar"? For (3) under God, this part is hard for me to understand. God was a newbie compared to whom? Were there greater beings/deities out there, or do you mean in relation to the universe as a whole?I meant, a newbie compared to Himself now; a newbie compared to the competence required to create a perfect Universe. (5) under God actually sounds like Deism completely, and as I mentioned earlier, if I lean towards any belief in a Creator, this is the one that makes the most sense to me.Assuming I understand everyone correctly, this is the one that Sano and Kode and I and you all think likeliest; though not necessarily most appealing. I agree with (6) as well.I don't happen to like thinking that one; but unfortunately I regard it as quite plausible. (Assuming there's a Creator at all, of course.) ... the book that you linked to ... cool if 3 interstellar species met each other. If a bold prediction/calculation like that is fulfilled, it might just bring me closer to believing.Me, too. In your statement that "He" wants a child,Sawyer's statement, not mine; and it was intended as fiction, not as his actual belief. does this imply that the child should be a mix of interstellar peoples?Well, I'm not sure that the one implied the other, but in fact, in his book, Sawyer does make God's child such a mix. Of course the mix wouldn't be possible without God's direct intervention; but neither would it have come about if the species hadn't co-operated to prepare for it. One last question - what is your reason for the capitalization of nouns? It is simply a habit, stemming from the way the Bible writes, or is there another reason?There's a difference between what I've intended and what I've actually done. I intended to capitalize all Divine Names and all pronouns referring to Divine-Named entities, because lots of English-language Bibles do that. What I actually ended up doing was randomly capitalizing a bunch of things, occasionally capitalizing something I didn't have a "reason" to capitalize, or failing to capitalize something I did have a "reason" to capitalize, more out of habit than out of reason.

Sorry for the two posts in a row; technical difficulties. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ooh, I almost just edited what I meant to quote! What bothers me is that the human mind has the ability to think of such things and yet doesn't seem to possess the capability of answering it in any sort of satisfactory way.Have you read Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works"? It has some worthwhile ideas, regardless of the fact that there have been some objections to some of the (other?) ideas in the book. Pinker says that the human mind can solve some types of problems and probably can't solve other types. He distinguishes between "problems" and "mysteries". "Problems" are questions we don't (yet) know the answer to, but we have ideas how to attack the problems and (eventually) find the answers; the ways we usually find solutions might also work for these problems. "Mysteries" are questions we not only don't know the answer to, but we have absolutly no ideas how to attack the problems and find the answers. The ways we usually find solutions probably won't also work for these mysteries; a stroke of luck or "divine inspiration" will be required. ... the simplest explanation is that we are made of energy, and that there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, and that nature recycles that energy and we are at some level conscious of having been a part of some greater whole before being a part of our present selves, that would actually be much easier for me to accept, because it sounds wholly rational.Emphasis added by me. I personally don't have confidence that it actually is "wholly rational". Nor that it isn't. If our actions here truly govern the "afterlife" then I'm screwed,Are you? Why, I can't help wondering (though I imagine you might not want to give a complete answer on a public forum)? ... morality is ... a man made concept ...This seems to be something that, remarkably, all responders to this thread so far agree on! As for me; although I think morality is man-made, I wouldn't say "only", and I wouldn't say "it holds no truth we don't assign to it". I think humans -- in particular, me -- are quite justified in judging whether other entities (for instance, God) are good or evil. For me to judge God is, I think, less arrogant of me, than for God to judge me is arrogant for Him. Clearly not the whole world agrees with me.

All-in-all it's more important for you to know your own state of mind than for you to know the "correct" label for it. Well, knowing a "correct label" for my state of mind, which I am quite cognoscente of, would seem to be the trump suit, right? Have you read Steven Pinker's "How the Mind Works"? It has some worthwhile ideas, regardless of the fact that there have been some objections to some of the (other?) ideas in the book. Um, no. This my sound wholly ignorant of me, but I tend not be much of a reader. Not that don't enjoy others' ideas, but I prefer to digest the spoken word rather than a manifesto type 'thing'. Introspective and examination books tend to read like stereo instructions and that doesn't interest me. Also, they often times only give me insight into that particular authors perspective, with little to no help in understanding my own. Maybe I'm reading the wrong books. For me to judge God is, I think, less arrogant of me, than for God to judge me is arrogant for Him. I find this difficult to respond to without acknowledging your "God", but what the hell is the difference who judges whom when no one has ever given you concrete evidence of the consequences?

View Full Version: The search...