The Ideal Religion

[Huzington]

The Ideal Religion is one in which Truth has all those devine properties ascribed to God, motivating man to seek Truth. No God, no gods: merely a worshiping of Truth, and this worship would be motivated by the devine properties which Truth, in this religion, would be claimed to possess.

The result of this Ideal Religion would thus be a refutation of itself. That is, if Truth is claimed to have such and such devine properties, the seeking of Truth (the God of this religion) would be a refutation of His own devineness.

This religion would be theological atheism, or atheological theism refuting itself.

Or, it can also be put this way, if Truth is worshiped, Truth is thought devine. At this moment it refutes itself. The act of knowing Truth, of knowing God, would be a refutation of His own being.

Thoughts?

[SFB]

Originally posted by Fraeybol
The Ideal Religion is one in which Truth has all those devine properties ascribed to God, motivating man to seek Truth. No God, no gods: merely a worshiping of Truth, and this worship would be motivated by the devine properties which Truth, in this religion, would be claimed to possess.

The result of this Ideal Religion would thus be a refutation of itself. That is, if Truth is claimed to have such and such devine properties, the seeking of Truth (the God of this religion) would be a refutation of His own devineness.

This religion would be theological atheism, or atheological theism refuting itself.

Or, it can also be put this way, if Truth is worshiped, Truth is thought devine. At this moment it refutes itself. The act of knowing Truth, of knowing God, would be a refutation of His own being.

Thoughts?

Ideally, there would be no religion, however you define it.

[Huzington]

Originally posted by SFB


Ideally, there would be no religion, however you define it.

I am talking about the Ideal Religion. Ideally there would be no religion, but the Ideal Religion - a self-refuting religion - is that about which I am talking, that with which I am here concerned.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Huzington


I am talking about the Ideal Religion. Ideally there would be no religion, but the Ideal Religion - a self-refuting religion - is that about which I am talking, that with which I am here concerned.

why bother?

[jimmygun]

Whose truth would you worship? As soon as you annoint someone to tabulate and translate truth from events you will have someone else step up with a different twist on the "truth".

As soon as you have two factions worshipping two interpretations of "truth" you will have people willing to kill someone else to uphold their "truth".

That's what we have today and it sure as hell doesn't do much good for the victims does it?

The perfect religion? Single person religion that holds no sway over anyone else. A mind your own fing business religion.

[Yahweh]

Christianity is defined as "The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus".

Nowhere in that definition is any mention of belief in God or the supernatural. Hell, Jesus never had to be a real character either. But in any case, a religion based on "love thy neighbor" and "do unto others what you would want done unto you" doesnt sound at all bad as long as you dont give "god" half a chance to muck things up.

[Dorian Gray]

A god by any other name still entices people to kill in its name.

[Earthborn]

why bother?I think he is one of those people who believes that 'Religion is The Opium of The People', and he wants to get high. :D

[Huzington]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


why bother?

Why bother? Because if men worship truth as a God, they will be fanatically motivated to seek it. I do not care of my doctrine is true or not. Observing how religion can create fanatics of Christ (or whatever), and observing that we need more critical thinkers - men who are concerned with truth - why not therefore create a religion whose Deity is truth, motivating men to become scientists, to become fanatics of reason?

[neutrino_cannon]

A religion that refutes itself upon complete knowlege of it's own deity?

This religion will self-destruct in ten... nine...

[calladus]

Originally posted by Huzington


Why bother? Because if men worship truth as a God, they will be fanatically motivated to seek it.

Who's truth are we going to worship? Mine? Yours? Aunt Millie's?

You could say that 'truth is in the eye of the beholder.'

I think you would have an easier time of nailing jello to a tree.

[Whomp]

(drags out the old joke)

The ideal (perfect) religion must be Satanism.

You screw up, you go to heaven.


Whomp!

[Suezoled]

I'm sorry. I don't "worship" truth. I utilize it.

[Franko]

The Ideal Religion is one in which Truth has all those devine properties ascribed to God, motivating man to seek Truth.

Perhaps You fail to comprehend the concept of “God” (or “Religion”)?

God = The source of the Truth.

Religion = One’s beliefs about God (one’s beliefs about the nature and origin of existence)

No God, no gods: merely a worshiping of Truth …

If Truth exist than Truth has a Source (an Origin). Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

The result of this Ideal Religion would thus be a refutation of itself.

That statement seems to be logically contradictory. Perhaps you could elaborate?

That is, if Truth is claimed to have such and such devine properties, the seeking of Truth (the God of this religion) would be a refutation of His own devineness.

So are you saying that you would use the “Truth” to prove that the “Truth” was actually “False”?

Once again, if I am understanding you correctly you sentence is logically contradictory.

This religion would be theological atheism, or atheological theism refuting itself.

I have no idea what that means. It sounds like you are simply talking yourself in circles.

Or, it can also be put this way, if Truth is worshiped, Truth is thought devine. At this moment it refutes itself. The act of knowing Truth, of knowing God, would be a refutation of His own being.

How is knowing something actually equivalent to NOT knowing something?

Truth is worshiped, Truth is thought divine. At this moment [Truth] refutes itself.

Perhaps you are already worshipping a False God?

---------------------------

jimmygun:
Whose truth would you worship?

Is there more than one “truth” jimmy? Which “truth” do you worship?

… and here I was thinking that there was only One Truth (Reality) and that’s why it is so Objective.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Franko.



Perhaps You fail to comprehend the concept of “God” (or “Religion”)?

God = The source of the Truth.

I respect you believe that but what would be your supporting proof of this.? Truth need not have a source is simply is truth.


Religion = One’s beliefs about God (one’s beliefs about the nature and origin of existence)

This first statement is too sweeping, many religions are or contain beliefs in a God or Gods, mine and several others have no beliefs in any Gods. The 2nd part is perhaps worded better as to my belief not so much as to the “origin” but as to nature of existence.


If Truth exist than Truth has a Source (an Origin).

Again I will say I respect you believe this but if stated as a statement of fact it of course can not be supported by facts and is logically contradictory. Truth need not a source. This is the self defeating position that devours ideas such as “intelligent design”.

Truth is truth, if no one can see it or believes it truth is still truth it needs no creation.


Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

Science can never be seen as the Origin of truth it can only be a finger pointing at truth.

If truth needs to be created then the same would need be true about what you see as its creator, God, TLOP etc. Let us say there is a God there would be truth surrounding this God having to exist before that God or at the very least at the very same time.

The truth is not dependent on the God but the God is dependent on the truth as it can not exist before the truth.

[Franko]

And a fine greeting to you, Mr. Pahansiri,

Franko said:
God = The source of the Truth.

If Truth exist than Truth has a Source (an Origin). Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

Pahansiri replied:
I respect you believe that but what would be your supporting proof of this.? Truth need not have a source it simply is truth.

I’m not sure what you mean?

Allow me to elaborate. Suppose you and I are having a discussion; if we can agree that some things are True (2 + 2 = 4), and other things are False (2 + 2 = 5), then I would say this implies that there is some objective measure of “Truth”.

However if you and I cannot mutually agree about anything at all (same really as saying that you and I cannot communicate at all), then I would concede that the Truth was probably completely relative and subjective (i.e. there was no objective Truth (at least not between the two of us)).

The question then becomes which type of reality do we exist in? My experience leads me to believe we are living in the former type of reality more so than the latter type.

Franko:
Religion = One’s beliefs about God (one’s beliefs about the nature and origin of existence)

Pahansiri:
This first statement is too sweeping …

I agree, and in fact that is not my general definition of religion, but I often simplify the things I post here because I have noticed that subtly has little effect on Atheists.

My general definition of Religion is:

Religion = One’s (metaphysical or philosophical) beliefs regarding the nature and origin of existence.

I think you could follow that definition to its logical conclusion and say that:

Religion = One’s beliefs regarding what is True in Reality

And since I have already said that I define “God” as the Source of Truth then you could see how I go from A to B to C.

Pahansiri continues …
… many religions are or contain beliefs in a God or Gods, mine and several others have no beliefs in any Gods. The 2nd part is perhaps worded better as to my belief not so much as to the “origin” but as to nature of existence.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Buddhism also deals with the origin of existence?

I should add is that my traditional definition of the term “God” is:

God = An entity (or force) capable of generating a universe (shared (objective) reality). = the primary source of “Truth” within that reality.

Which would mean that ANY belief system which speaks to the origin of the universe or existence would include the concept of “God” by my definition (although the adherents might not refer to it as “God” themselves).

Again I will say I respect you believe this but if stated as a statement of fact it of course can not be supported by facts and is logically contradictory. Truth need not a source. This is the self defeating position that devours ideas such as “intelligent design”.

Truth is truth, if no one can see it or believes it truth is still truth it needs no creation.

I disagree. I believe that the Truth does need to be “created”.

Pahansiri, wouldn’t you say that the Universe itself is the source for Truth about the Universe? Are the Laws of Physics Truth? I would say that so far as they conform to observation they are.

Perhaps I am not understanding you? What precisely do you mean that the Truth does not need (have) a source. If that is the case, then why aren’t we all born knowing the Truth about everything? Why does it appear that we have to learn (to acquire) the Truth over Time? And if we are indeed learning the Truth over Time, then where are we learning the Truth from (what is the Source)?

Franko:
Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

Pahansiri:
Science can never be seen as the Origin of truth it can only be a finger pointing at truth.

I agree, and I would add that the same could be said for other Religions. But once again, if the Truth does not have a source, then what is that finger pointing at?

If truth needs to be created then the same would need be true about what you see as its creator, God, TLOP etc.

But that is exactly what I believe. The entity which generates this universe (“God”) was created, just like You and I.

Let us say there is a God there would be truth surrounding this God having to exist before that God or at the very least at the very same time.

Once again, I am in complete agreement. That is exactly what I believe. This universe is a shell (fractal) inside another “universe” (bigger fractal).

The truth is not dependent on the God but the God is dependent on the truth as it can not exist before the truth.

I would say that the Truth cannot exist without someone (or “something”) to perceive it. “God” is simply the first thing that perceives Truth, and thereby becomes the source for Truth to all subsequent entities (awarenesses/consciousnesses).

[EdipisReks]

i repeat, why bother?

[Pahansiri]

Hello Franko I hope you are well.

quote:Franko said:
God = The source of the Truth.

If Truth exist than Truth has a Source (an Origin). Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

Pahansiri replied:
I respect you believe that but what would be your supporting proof of this.? Truth need not have a source it simply is truth.

Franko replied to Pahansiri

I’m not sure what you mean?

I am sorry I thought my response was complete and detailed in a short presentation, as I do tend to go on at times.

1- I respect you believe “God” is the source of truth.
2- Truth needs no source no creator.

Allow me to elaborate. Suppose you and I are having a discussion; if we can agree that some things are True (2 + 2 = 4), and other things are False (2 + 2 = 5), then I would say this implies that there is some objective measure of “Truth”.

Very true.

However if you and I cannot mutually agree about anything at all (same really as saying that you and I cannot communicate at all), then I would concede that the Truth was probably completely relative and subjective (i.e. there was no objective Truth (at least not between the two of us)).[quote]

In the case of say 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 there is truth 2 + 2 = 4. Now if you said 2 + 2 = 7 and I said 2 + 2 = 44 because we do not agree does not mean one is right and or there was no objective Truth.

As I had said truth is truth even if “no one” believes it.

[quote]The question then becomes which type of reality do we exist in? My experience leads me to believe we are living in the former type of reality more so than the latter type.

I respect you believe that. But let say as to existence here our reality here what is known in the hear and now, what is perceived that would be wrong.

Allow me this example.

You say if you stand on the train tracks and a train hits you nothing will happen as all things are a projection of the mind and only you exist and not I or the train. I say you are wrong and “ you” your body and current existence will end.

I will be right and you will be road kill. You as in your body. But as you know I do not believe your body is you or your what we call ordinary mind is you.

As your body is impermanent and comprised completely of non body elements and shared with many other life forms. Your ordinary mind is shaped by all the causes and conditions of your life and then not “you” not self. What is self or soul can be nothing other then just “self” or “soul”.

We believe there is a true clear nature of mind and like matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

Simply changing forms but unlike matter or energy can discover its true awaken nature and free “itself” from the cycle of rebirth and death. This true nature of mind is like all others and not a self. When “I” die Mark Pahansiri Bertrand will be no more.

You see we in part agree in that I also believe in reality all is an illusion there is no thing called tree it is comprised of completely non tree elements and all that is compound is like this.

Albert Einstein, said it well Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

Back to the train, I had offered you this test one that can prove your belief if you are right you can simply stand on the track and believe the train will pass right through you and you will be fine. This will not be the case.

I agree, and in fact that is not my general definition of religion, but I often simplify the things I post here because I have noticed that subtly has little effect on Atheists.

Prejudice is always silly and not part of a mature logical and respectful debate and I believe in reality it is below who you really are.’


I am a stickler for saying what one means and meaning what one says sweeping statements are worthless and can lead no where as they can not be based in fact.

My general definition of Religion is:

Religion = One’s (metaphysical or philosophical) beliefs regarding the nature and origin of existence.

I think you could follow that definition to its logical conclusion and say that:

Religion = One’s beliefs regarding what is True in Reality

And since I have already said that I define “God” as the Source of Truth then you could see how I go from A to B to C.

I respect your belief as I said and as to religion words can be so weak and easily used to mean many things.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Buddhism also deals with the origin of existence?

Yes. First what do you define as existence? Life here or the universe?

This is how the Buddha explained it 2600 years ago. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha described the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes.

This is what we know as the evolutionary model. Also what we know is truth as to decay of all that is compound. The coming together and then followed by death and decay and coming together again.

2 great quotes here are

Buddha's last words: "Decay is inherent in all compounded things. Strive unceasingly." Buddha stated the second law of thermodynamics. His inherent understanding still amazes me.
William A. Russell


It is interesting that a lot of physicists seem to follow Buddhist principles, which is perhaps, not so surprising after all...The Buddha had a remarkable ability to see what there is to see and to deal with what's there. That made his approach to the spiritual or to the human problem of existence very refreshing. This is very similar to what a scientist does. We try to drop all assumptions about the way things should be, and deal with things the way they are. Although that's not always possible to do, it nevertheless is the basis of Buddhist thought.
Fred Allen Wolf, PhD.

As to the nature of existence as to mind, energy, matter there is no origin simply rolling phenomena. As to the mind being included with matter and energy that is my belief and has not been proven fact as has been matter and energy as to not being created or destroyed.




I should add is that my traditional definition of the term “God” is:

God = An entity (or force) capable of generating a universe (shared (objective) reality). = the primary source of “Truth” within that reality.

I respect you believe that. But would need to see the facts to support it.

As I have said if all things need to be created than ALL things need to be created and that would mean such a belief is self defeating.

How can “An entity (or force)” exist and not need be created yet all other entities (or forces) need be?

What we know is matter and energy and what you and I perceive as you and I exist. To add a belief to how it came about is just that a belief. What is known is known what is believed is believed.

gain allow me to quote David Brooks who wrote: To seek to explain what is unknown using what is known is scientific and logical system. To seek to seek to prove what is known using what is unknown is theological lunacy.



Which would mean that ANY belief system which speaks to the origin of the universe or existence would include the concept of “God” by my definition (although the adherents might not refer to it as “God” themselves).

By your definition yes, that makes it your definition and one I respect but does not make it fact.

Buddhism speaks to the origin of the universe and shows no God is required.

I disagree. I believe that the Truth does need to be “created”.

I disagree as I had pointed out.

If truth needs to be created then the same would need be true about what you see as its creator, God, TLOP etc. Let us say there is a God there would be truth surrounding this God having to exist before that God or at the very least at the very same time.

The truth is not dependent on the God but the God is dependent on the truth as it can not exist before the truth.

Pahansiri, wouldn’t you say that the Universe itself is the source for Truth about the Universe?

The truths are about the Universe not a creating source as if it was and your position was that the universe created the truths about it the truths would have to exist at the same moment as the universe and such were not created by the universe but both were part of the same thing.

The rock is heavy. The rock and the fact/truth that it is heavy are one in the same. The rock did not create the fact/truth it was heavy.

Are the Laws of Physics Truth? I would say that so far as they conform to observation they are.

True in this reality and as I have pointed out in the past the Laws of Physics as we know them here are truth here but not in say a world with less or more gravity. They are greatly relative.

Perhaps I am not understanding you? What precisely do you mean that the Truth does not need (have) a source.

I believe I have explained that above.

If that is the case, then why aren’t we all born knowing the Truth about everything? Why does it appear that we have to learn (to acquire) the Truth over Time? [/.quote]

Not sure how this is at all relevant? Why would you be born with all knowledge? In your belief that only you exist and this is a projection of your mind, there I would ask why you did not know everything as the projection is all yours, but as to what I have said it is not relevant or logical to ask.

But as to knowing “all” we can look to 2 things, we as Buddhist see mind and brain as 2 distinctly different things. We seek to become fully awaken/enlightened realizing the true nature of mind breaking from the clutter of ordinary grasping mind.


[quote]And if we are indeed learning the Truth over Time, then where are we learning the Truth from (what is the Source)?

I see a rock, the rock is heavy I know this truth because I lifted the rock. That is how.

Franko:
Some people call that Origin “Science” (or more specifically “The laws of Physics”), others simply call it “God”.

Pahansiri:
Science can never be seen as the Origin of truth it can only be a finger pointing at truth.


I agree, and I would add that the same could be said for other Religions. But once again, if the Truth does not have a source, then what is that finger pointing at?

At the truth. Being something is truth does not mean it had to be created it is simply truth as I have demonstrated.


I wrote: If truth needs to be created then the same would need be true about what you see as its creator, God, TLOP etc.

But that is exactly what I believe. The entity which generates this universe (“God”) was created, just like You and I.

Again I respect your belief but you have given no facts to support this creation idea.

If your God was created it seems it would have to be by another God and that one created by another etc etc etc. That is illogical as there would be no beginning or first creator as it would too need a creator.

I wrote:
Let us say there is a God there would be truth surrounding this God having to exist before that God or at the very least at the very same time.


You wrote Once again, I am in complete agreement. That is exactly what I believe. This universe is a shell (fractal) inside another “universe” (bigger fractal).

This is not what you said, you said the creator or thing created its own truth or truth. I pointed out that that was not logical and both would have to be created at the same time. The “god” would not create these truth concerning it they would be one in the same and have to be at the same time for if there is no truths about this “god” there is no god.

As to This universe is a shell (fractal) inside another “universe” (bigger fractal). I respect you believe that. As to it being a fact I need to see the facts. This still falls into the self defeating creation belief as it requires endless layers in such contradicting needing creation.

Our belief as Buddhist is there was no beginning and is no end just rolling endlessly. Like energy and matter, can not be destroyed and is not created only changing forms.

I would say that the Truth cannot exist without someone (or “something”) to perceive it.


Not at all the case. There are truths of the universe that no one on earth knows and it is still the truth.

Say I was out walking tonight in the dark and I stepped on a dead ant. I did not know this due to it was dark no one saw it nor will ever but it still happened it is still truth.

“God” is simply the first thing that perceives Truth, and thereby becomes the source for Truth to all subsequent entities (awarenesses/consciousnesses).

The first man who found fire after a lightning strike touches it, burns his hand and sees it can be used to heat and cook.

He is NOT the source of the fire or the truth that it is heat or can burn. That fact is fact if no human etc ever found it.

Be well and thank you for answering each of my points this is all I have ever asked you to do and this has been respectful and great fun to share and respond to .

Thank you and may you be well and happy

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
In the case of say 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 there is truth 2 + 2 = 4. Now if you said 2 + 2 = 7 and I said 2 + 2 = 44 because we do not agree does not mean one is right and or there was no objective Truth.

As far as You and I are concerned I would contend that is EXACTLY what it means.

As I had said truth is truth even if “no one” believes it.

So you are claiming that the Truth is the Truth independent of observation?

That sounds more like an unsupported and untestable assertion.

I respect you believe that. But let say as to existence here our reality here what is known in the hear and now, what is perceived that would be wrong.

Allow me this example.

You say if you stand on the train tracks and a train hits you nothing will happen as all things are a projection of the mind and only you exist and not I or the train. I say you are wrong and “ you” your body and current existence will end.

I will be right and you will be road kill. You as in your body. But as you know I do not believe your body is you or your what we call ordinary mind is you.

I’m agreeing with most of what you are saying up to this point.

As your body is impermanent and comprised completely of non body elements and shared with many other life forms. Your ordinary mind is shaped by all the causes and conditions of your life and then not “you” not self.

You lost me there. If “You” are not YOU then who is YOU?

What is self or soul can be nothing other then just “self” or “soul”.

I’d disagree with you there. Look, when I get into my CAR, I am still ME, it is just that now I have an ability I did not possess before getting in the CAR. Namely I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour. But the fact that I have this new ability as the result of being inside the “body” of my CAR doesn’t mean that I have been altered mentally in any fundamental way.

We believe there is a true clear nature of mind and like matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

I disagree, although I concede this point could come down to semantics. Souls are spawned (created/formed/defined) and then evolve over time. They do not remain in a constant state.

Simply changing forms but unlike matter or energy can discover its true awaken nature and free “itself” from the cycle of rebirth and death. This true nature of mind is like all others and not a self. When “I” die Mark Pahansiri Bertrand will be no more.

Well, then I would ask what was the point of this existence? If your Soul will possess no recollection of it, then of what possible benefit or purpose does this existence serve?

You see we in part agree in that I also believe in reality all is an illusion there is no thing called tree it is comprised of completely non tree elements and all that is compound is like this.

Albert Einstein, said it well Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

I am in complete agreement with You and Einstein on this point.

Back to the train, I had offered you this test one that can prove your belief if you are right you can simply stand on the track and believe the train will pass right through you and you will be fine. This will not be the case.

That’s because my mind (or soul) is not the Mind which is generating the train, or my own physical body. The entity which generates this universe generates all of the “matter”. So long as I remain here (in this universe), I am bound by the rules being generated by that entity.

as to “religion” words can be so weak and easily used to mean many things.

Only by those who don’t want to be coherent to begin with.

Franko:
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Buddhism also deals with the origin of existence?

Pahansiri:
Yes. First what do you define as existence? Life here or the universe?

It could mean the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, but I was referring to the metaphysical origin of everything. In other words, ALL Religions (or philosophies, or worldviews) are concerned with the origin of existence, and for me the origin of existence deals with the origin of Souls (consciousness/”Life”).

This is how the Buddha explained it 2600 years ago. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha described the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years.

I’d agree with that, and so would Godel.

The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes.

What exactly are “natural causes”?

I have a hunch what you call “natural causes” I would call “God”.

This is what we know as the evolutionary model. Also what we know is truth as to decay of all that is compound. The coming together and then followed by death and decay and coming together again.

New things are made from old things. That is precisely what Godel and Bayes said.

It is interesting that a lot of physicists seem to follow Buddhist principles.

A lot of physicist also lack-a-belief in the existence of “Souls” as well.

As to the nature of existence as to mind, energy, matter there is no origin simply rolling phenomena.

Some of my Brothers believe that there is no origin either, just infinite regression. In other words, if you go back in time, you find iteration after iteration, but no starting point – no origin. If Kurt Godel were around he would probably be arguing the same thing. It’s turtles all the way down.

That may be true for existence as a whole – what I call the Omniverse – all the previous and future universes across all Time, but as far as I know it is not True for individual Souls. A graviton is spawned, and it moves forward from there. If it happens to lose its momentum then it begins to fall backwards. If it reaches its point of origin its loop is closed, and it is annihilated from our perspective.

[on “God” …] As I have said if all things need to be created than ALL things need to be created and that would mean such a belief is self defeating.

No, because reality is an iterative process. I thought we agreed on that?

If universes are created and destroyed, then why not souls? Why do you believe that universes can be created and destroyed, but not the real entities who generate those universes (realities).

How can “An entity (or force)” exist and not need be created yet all other entities (or forces) need be?

That is why some of my Brothers believe there is an infinite regression.

For example take the entity that is generating this universe … the Logical Goddess. She was created by the same entity (or force) that created your Soul and mine – the Progenitor.

As to the Progenitor? Some individuals believe that he in turn was created by an even older preexisting entity, others (like myself) believe that he had always existed as a Solipsist, and that his destruction/annihilation created the universe of Individuals that you perceive now.

What we know is matter and energy and what you and I perceive as you and I exist. To add a belief to how it came about is just that a belief. What is known is known what is believed is believed.

Well my friend, all I can tell you is that I feel a lot more confident about the evidence and logic underlying my beliefs than I am about the evidence and logic, which appears to underlie Atheism and/or Materialism.

Your post is rather long, so I will have to get to the rest of it another Time.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Franko.



Pahansiri wrote
In the case of say 2 + 2 = 4 and 2 + 2 = 5 there is truth 2 + 2 = 4. Now if you said 2 + 2 = 7 and I said 2 + 2 = 44 because we do not agree does not mean one is right and or there was no objective Truth.

Franko responded As far as You and I are concerned I would contend that is EXACTLY what it means.

That is a rather incomplete statement. Would you please elaborate or explain why? I respect you believe that but of course will not believe it simply because you said it is true as it is clearly not logical.

But if you can demonstrate why you believe it is and prove it with facts and or a developed logical conclusion containing facts I would have to believe it.


I wrote As I had said truth is truth even if “no one” believes it.

You responded So you are claiming that the Truth is the Truth independent of observation? .

Absolutely as I pointed out using several examples.

Do you really believe because no human has seen a sun or planet that is too far to see yet that that sun or planet is not there?

This would mean being that we discover new planets every day as the technology improves that these newly discovered planets discovered today were not there yesterday? That is illogical.

The truth is there are many more planets we have yet to observe and the truth is they are there and exist.

There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs. There are countless examples disproving your position.


That sounds more like an unsupported and untestable assertion.

How so I gave many examples on the other hand you have given no supporting data or logic to support your position. Would not your saying As far as You and I are concerned I would contend that is EXACTLY what it means. in response to my first statement truly be an example of That sounds more like an unsupported and untestable assertion. :confused:

I supported my position.

Pahansiri wrote I respect you believe that. But let say as to existence here our reality here what is known in the hear and now, what is perceived that would be wrong.

Allow me this example.

You say if you stand on the train tracks and a train hits you nothing will happen as all things are a projection of the mind and only you exist and not I or the train. I say you are wrong and “ you” your body and current existence will end.

I will be right and you will be road kill. You as in your body. But as you know I do not believe your body is you or your what we call ordinary mind is you.

Franko responded I’m agreeing with most of what you are saying up to this point.

With great respect could you be a tad more specific?

For you to agree with what I said would mean you do not believe your past statements as to there being only you and all was a creation of your mind.


Pahansiri wrote; As your body is impermanent and comprised completely of non body elements and shared with many other life forms. Your ordinary mind is shaped by all the causes and conditions of your life and then not “you” not self.

Franko responded You lost me there. If “You” are not YOU then who is YOU?

I believe I was clear but perhaps not allow me to try to explain again.

First I have to ask you what is “ you, or I, me, self” etc?

There is no “you/me” as something that independently “you /me” . Nothing is in and of itself, self. There can be no “soul/self” as such a thing need be comprised of compliantly just that “self/soul”.

Look at a car. “car” is an illusion as it is comprised completely non “car” parts and each part comprised of smaller non part, parts and smaller and smaller we get.

Your body is not “you’ as it is impermanent ( self/soul “ could not be) and comprised of water, minerals on and on smaller and smaller elements.

You do not even solely live alone in your body as many life forms inhabit it.


If you were “Franko” a self/soul you would need to be unchanging and nothing other then “Franko” as you are right now. But you as in your thoughts are ever changing.

If you were “Franko” a self/soul you would need to be unchanging and nothing other then “Franko” and at birth be just what you are now. Were you? did you think the way you do now then? 15 years ago? 10? Last year or week? No.

You as your ordinary mind is ever grasping and changing and is greatly influenced by others and events, what you read and see, what others do and say etc so Franko as you know him is not in and of himself/ self.

I’d disagree with you there.

OK I respect that.



Look, when I get into my CAR, I am still ME, it is just that now I have an ability I did not possess before getting in the CAR.

1st from this example it sounds like you are saying you have free will? That would be a direct contradiction of your beliefs?

How did TLOP or the Goddess make you get into the car? If they did your example of self is nun and void.

But as to “self” did someone teach you to drive this car? Did you know at birth how to drive this car? No.

Something that was ‘self/soul” can be nothing other then just that thing and can not be shaped or formed or comprised by other non-self things or events.


Namely I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour.

There is that free will thing again, see you do believe in a form of free will.

But the fact that I have this new ability as the result of being inside the “body” of my CAR doesn’t mean that I have been altered mentally in any fundamental way.

Are you sure? Does this mean you could drive a car at 4? Or did you have to learn this from others?

Pahansiri wrote: We believe there is a true clear nature of mind and like matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

Franko wrote I disagree, although I concede this point could come down to semantics. Souls are spawned (created/formed/defined) and then evolve over time. They do not remain in a constant state

May I ask you to prove that, again I respect you believe it but you offer no proof other then you saying it is the truth.??

1st prove “soul” which is a thing that unlike your personal definition can NOT be anything other then just that it can not change or evolve or it was not “self/soul” at this time of “creation”.
The change would have to be induced and come from other non soul/self events, causes and conditions etc. These non self/soul events, causes and conditions then become part of this ‘soul’ and such that ‘soul’ is comprised and or shaped by these outside things. That is NOT what a “soul” would be.

2nd Prove these things or anything is created. Again I respect you and your beliefs and do not fear being wrong or change but your just saying something is true is not good enough for something to become truth or fact.

Pahansiri wrote Simply changing forms but unlike matter or energy can discover its true awaken nature and free “itself” from the cycle of rebirth and death. This true nature of mind is like all others and not a self. When “I” die Mark Pahansiri Bertrand will be no more.

Franko writes Well, then I would ask what was the point of this existence? If your Soul will possess no recollection of it, then of what possible benefit or purpose does this existence serve?

No, soul to ask. Fear and grasping requires being special, unique. Fear is an illusion a self limiting prison.

For us as Buddhist enlightenment/awakening is total freedom from all suffering and its cause, grasping, fear cravings these things we believe cause us to be trapped in this cycle of rebirth and death.

The true nature of mind we believe is free from labels such as self and things that bind us our constant desires and grasping. “my” enlighten/awakening mind is no different then “yours” no more different then one drop of water is different then the ocean you just took it from.

What purpose does this existence serve, breaking free from the nature of the ordinary grasping mind. To know the joy of good actions of having for oneself and all living things loving kindness, respect and compassion. The joy of helping others and seeing their joy.

This is good enough for me. If I am wrong and after “I” die there is nothing else, that is cool I feel great joy from the good I did knowing I made many mistakes along the way.

If say the Christian or you are right and there is this judging God, Goddess and they are mad at me because I would not believe in them. Mad because I sought to help all I could help and be kind to what they created but did not massage their ego, well that is fine to, as I have no respect for them.


A loving parent does not place his desires and ego before that of their sweet child.


Pahansiri wrote:

Back to the train, I had offered you this test one that can prove your belief if you are right you can simply stand on the track and believe the train will pass right through you and you will be fine. This will not be the case.

Franko responded.

That’s because my mind (or soul) is not the Mind which is generating the train, or my own physical body. The entity which generates this universe generates all of the “matter”. So long as I remain here (in this universe), I am bound by the rules being generated by that entity.

Wrong as to your statements before. You said that no one else and no other thing but you really existed and you created this out of your boredom. You said that, you said you imagined this. You told others if they imagined they were high on drugs they would be.

If you imagined this and have come to realize you have ( if it were true) it would mean you then now would have full control over all events as it is your imagination generating everything.

You keep shifting your beliefs.

As to the above statement.
1- Prove the entity generates this universe.
2- Prove it does generate this universe.

As I have pointed out if the universe or all things need to be generated so would your Goddess, who generated her? Where did she exist who generated that as she could not generate it and herself at the same time as she would need to be in another real of existence while and before she generated the new one. This belief is self defeating.

Franko:
Wouldn’t it be fair to say that Buddhism also deals with the origin of existence?

Pahansiri:
Yes. First what do you define as existence? Life here or the universe?

Franko It could mean the origin of the universe, or the origin of life, but I was referring to the metaphysical origin of everything. In other words, ALL Religions (or philosophies, or worldviews) are concerned with the origin of existence, and for me the origin of existence deals with the origin of Souls (consciousness/”Life”).

No not ALL Religions (or philosophies, or worldviews) are concerned with the origin of existence, As I demonstrated we Buddhist could care less. Sweeping statements are almost always if not always wrong.

Pahansiri wrote This is how the Buddha explained it 2600 years ago. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha described the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years.

Franko I’d agree with that, and so would Godel.


Yes did just a few thousand + years later.

Pahansiri The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end, and are set in motion by natural causes.

Franko What exactly are “natural causes”?

I have a hunch what you call “natural causes” I would call “God”.

They are exactly what they are, what is it requires no thinking or planning being behind it for if it did that thinking planning being would need be created and that is an endless self defeating chain.

What I call “natural causes” I would not call “god” but respect you do but do not understand this need to personalize or add a thinking planning being to it. Well I do understand why people do it or have this desire.

Pahansiri wrote:
This is what we know as the evolutionary model. Also what we know is truth as to decay of all that is compound. The coming together and then followed by death and decay and coming together again.

Franko New things are made from old things. That is precisely what Godel and Bayes said.

Yes he did about 2500 years after the Buddha said it.

Pahansiri It is interesting that a lot of physicists seem to follow Buddhist principles.



Franko said A lot of physicist also lack-a-belief in the existence of “Souls” as well.

Because there is no evidence for that belief in souls.

Pahansiri As to the nature of existence as to mind, energy, matter there is no origin simply rolling phenomena.

Some of my Brothers believe that there is no origin either, just infinite regression. In other words, if you go back in time, you find iteration after iteration, but no starting point – no origin. If Kurt Godel were around he would probably be arguing the same thing. It’s turtles all the way down.

For me it does not seem logical that there as a “starting point” if so what was there before that? That to what ever it was would then also “require” a starting point.

If there was a being “in charge” of this “starting point” that being would have needed a place or realm of existence who created that and that being? Again a self defeating “logic”.



That may be true for existence as a whole – what I call the Omniverse – all the previous and future universes across all Time, but as far as I know it is not True for individual Souls.

I respect you belief that but the truth is you do not “know” it. If you do or did you could prove it to me with facts.

A graviton is spawned, and it moves forward from there.


You would have to prove that, we know matter is not formed.

If it happens to lose its momentum then it begins to fall backwards. If it reaches its point of origin its loop is closed, and it is annihilated from our perspective.

I respect you believe that and I respect you.

Pahansiri wrote [on “God” …] As I have said if all things need to be created than ALL things need to be created and that would mean such a belief is self defeating.

Franko No, because reality is an iterative process. I thought we agreed on that?

What does that have to do with a creator being and what I said above?



If universes are created and destroyed, then why not souls?


Because there are no “souls”.. Where have I said I believed in souls?

As to what we believe, the true nature of mind as I said we believe the true nature of mind like matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. You are talking about compound things. I.e. planets that are impermanent.



Why do you believe that universes can be created and destroyed, but not the real entities who generate those universes (realities).

?? This is not a question to ask me as I do NOT believe that beings entities create the universes. They are compound things.

Pahansiri How can “An entity (or force)” exist and not need be created yet all other entities (or forces) need be?

Franko That is why some of my Brothers believe there is an infinite regression.

You need listen to your brothers..lol just busting you.

For example take the entity that is generating this universe … the Logical Goddess. She was created by the same entity (or force) that created your Soul and mine – the Progenitor.

1- Prove this Goddess ( I will not ask again what makes it female, i.e. does it have a vagina, a endocrine system that has a higher ratio of estrogen to testosterone etc) .
2- Prove soul
3- Prove the Progenitor

If your Goddess and all other things needed to be created why does not your Progenitor “an ancestor in the direct line” need to be created?
How about where this Progenitor resides what came first him or the realm?

If him where was he before this real., if the real who created it?


As to the Progenitor? Some individuals believe that he in turn was created by an even older preexisting entity, others (like myself) believe that he had always existed as a Solipsist, and that his destruction/annihilation created the universe of Individuals that you perceive now.

If “he” ( I assume he has a penis and a higher testosterone to estrogen ratio) just always existed why would he suddenly fall into destruction/annihilation I guess he did not always exist then.

Why did he not need be created?
What proof do you have for all this?
Where did he reside or exists before his destruction/annihilation and the universe created because of his destruction/annihilation? Who created that?



Pahansiri wrote What we know is matter and energy and what you and I perceive as you and I exist. To add a belief to how it came about is just that a belief. What is known is known what is believed is believed.

Franko responded:
Well my friend, all I can tell you is that I feel a lot more confident about the evidence and logic underlying my beliefs than I am about the evidence and logic, which appears to underlie Atheism and/or Materialism.

Then why do you not offer this “evidence and logic’?

Be well my friend.

[Franko]

Hey Pahansiri,

[Objective Truth …] That is a rather incomplete statement. Would you please elaborate or explain why? I respect you believe that but of course will not believe it simply because you said it is true as it is clearly not logical.

Okay, suppose that your mind and my mind are all that exist.

If we can communicate between each other (if we can exchange information) then I would contend that an objective reality exist between us.

But if we cannot communicate, if we cannot exchange any meaningful information between each other, then there is no objective reality between us. About the only objective truth that you and I might be able to agree on is that the other objective existed.

Of course if you are unaware of my transmissions of information, and I am unaware of your transmissions of information, then neither of us objectively exist from the POV of the other.

Pahansiri:
The truth is truth even if “no one” believes it.

Franko:
So you are claiming that the Truth is the Truth independent of observation?

Pahansiri:
Absolutely as I pointed out using several examples.

Do you really believe because no human has seen a sun or planet that is too far to see yet that that sun or planet is not there?

I would say that I do not believe the planet you are referring to exist. There is no evidence to believe that you can “observe” this planet without actually observing it, and I do not believe that your imagined planet is the same as a planet which exist objectively in reality.

(Pahansiri’s previous example …)
I had offered you this test one that can prove your belief if you are right you can simply stand on the track and believe the train will pass right through you and you will be fine. This will not be the case.

My Soul would be fine, it is only my illusionary physical body that would be “damaged”. As I explained previously, I do not believe that it is my mind which generates the train, or my own physical body. The Mind which the Materialists refer to as TLOP, is the entity responsible for that. While I am here in this universe I am bound by the will (rules or laws) of that entity.

This would mean being that we discover new planets every day as the technology improves that these newly discovered planets discovered today were not there yesterday? That is illogical.

The planets don’t exist in our minds as real until we detect them (observe them). But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist in someone else’s mind … namely TLOP’s.

The truth is there are many more planets we have yet to observe and the truth is they are there and exist.

But only because they exist in the mind of TLOP.

Look, the entire universe could be a hologram for all you know – right? Now discovering those planets would still happen exactly as you predicted, but that doesn’t mean that those undiscovered planets exist as anything other than stored data at this moment.

There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

All life is conscious (self-aware), ergo all life is capable of perception.

This example is analogous to you and I being the only entities to exist, yet being unaware of the existence of the other. In other words, until you perceive reliable information for a unicorn for yourself you are unlikely to believe in the existence of unicorns.

No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs.

You mean the dinosaurs didn’t observe each other?

Like I said, if you want to get an idea what I believe it may help to think of this universe as a hologram. Now it doesn’t matter how evolved the Minds are that you insert into that hologram. You can insert the mind of a dinosaur, or you can insert the mind of a homo sapien. TLOP is the entity generating the hologram, ergo TLOP is making the rules of the hologram. You and me, and all of the other consciousnesses are simply “players” (or more accurately “characters”) in TLOP’s “game”.

Franko:
You lost me there. If “You” are not YOU then who is YOU?

Pahansiri:
I believe I was clear but perhaps not allow me to try to explain again.

First I have to ask you what is “ you, or I, me, self” etc?

Well, it depends on how much detail you want.

I would say that the Soul (or Mind, or Consciousness, or Personality) is made up of three basic parts – Perceptions (Inputs), Expressions (Outputs), and Cognition (Processing or Thought). Your Perceptions loosely correspond to your 5 senses. Your expressions correspond to you physical body. You cognition is pure thought (including memory, ego, intuition). The core of your Graviton (the fundamental part of your Soul) is your Cognition.

There is no “you/me” as something that independently “you /me” . Nothing is in and of itself, self. There can be no “soul/self” as such a thing need be comprised of compliantly just that “self/soul”.

I did not follow this paragraph.

If “You” (Pahansiri) don’t exist, and if I (Franko) don’t exist, then just who is having this conversation? Are you claiming this conversation is an illusion?

When everything becomes an illusion, then it is exactly the same as nothing is an illusion.

As for what our Souls are made of, I would say they are made of Information.

Look at a car. “car” is an illusion as it is comprised completely non “car” parts and each part comprised of smaller non part, parts and smaller and smaller we get.

I thought you didn’t believe in “the matter”? I would also say that the CAR is an illusion (relative to YOU), because the CAR is simply a projection of information from another consciousness, whereas you are a consciousness. There are no “smaller and smaller parts” per sae. The smaller and smaller bits are just the information which is being transmitted.

Your body is not “you’ as it is impermanent ( self/soul “ could not be) and comprised of water, minerals on and on smaller and smaller elements.

I would say that my physical body is very similar to the CAR, it consist of nothing more than information being projected by TLOP. My mind however is NOT being projected by TLOP. MY mind exists independently of TLOP; my physical body (like the CAR) does not.

You do not even solely live alone in your body as many life forms inhabit it.

Well, if I am following you, I would say that an ant crawling over my leg, or a bacteria in my stomach is a separate entity (separate Soul) from my own.

Of course if you are talking about the Individual cells which make up my physical body and appear to be “alive” then I would contend you are merely perceiving the information that is my physical body, and the interaction (transmit/receive) between my mind and TLOP’s.

If you were “Franko” a self/soul you would need to be unchanging and nothing other then “Franko” as you are right now. But you as in your thoughts are ever changing.

I agree, like all conscious entities I evolve (or de-evolve) over Time. A Graviton which ceases to move ceases to exist.

If you were “Franko” a self/soul you would need to be unchanging and nothing other then “Franko” and at birth be just what you are now. Were you? did you think the way you do now then? 15 years ago? 10? Last year or week? No.

That is true and in another 5 or 10 or 15 years I will undoubtedly think differently than I do today. Never-the-less, that does not change the fact that from then until now, and from now until then I will have maintained a continuity of experience (of consciousness), and in all cases the entity that I am today is dependent upon the entity that I was yesterday.

You as your ordinary mind is ever grasping and changing and is greatly influenced by others and events, what you read and see, what others do and say etc so Franko as you know him is not in and of himself/ self.

I agree with the first part, and perhaps it is only semantics, but I would say that I am a product of the Information I have experienced over Time. Or put another way, I am a product of Fate and Destiny.

Franko:
Look, when I get into my CAR, I am still ME, it is just that now I have an ability I did not possess before getting in the CAR. Namely I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour. But the fact that I have this new ability as the result of being inside the “body” of my CAR doesn’t mean that I have been altered mentally in any fundamental way.

Pahansiri:
1st from this example it sounds like you are saying you have free will? That would be a direct contradiction of your beliefs?

I’m not sure I follow you. Perhaps for the sack of clarity I should say I was destined to get into the Car?

How did TLOP or the Goddess make you get into the car? If they did your example of self is null and void.

If TLOP didn’t transmit that the CAR was there in front of me then I would not have been able to get into it. Or perhaps the CAR was there, and TLOP created some emergency that would require fast travel on my part, so I would have no other “choice” but to get into the CAR.

We are all products of the information we experience, because that is the only form of energy which exist to influence us.

But as to “self” did someone teach you to drive this car? Did you know at birth how to drive this car? No.

Something that was ‘self/soul” can be nothing other then just that thing and can not be shaped or formed or comprised by other non-self things or events.

I don’t follow you here. How is the fact that I had to acquire the information about “how to drive” from another entity proof that my Soul has not also acquired that information? If it wasn’t my Soul (or Self) that acquired the information, then where did it go?

Look, either your soul can perceive information, or it cannot. You seem to be saying that it cannot. If that is the case, then what is the point of even having a soul?

Franko:
[in a CAR …] I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour.

Pahansiri:
There is that free will thing again, see you do believe in a form of free will.

I’m not sure I see the connection between driving a car and “free will”?

I assure you my friend, I am a Fatalist. All of my actions are preordained.

Franko:
the fact that I have this new ability (moving at 60+ mph) as the result of being inside the “body” of my CAR doesn’t mean that I have been altered mentally in any fundamental way.

Pahansiri:
Are you sure? Does this mean you could drive a car at 4? Or did you have to learn this from others?

Pahansiri wrote: We believe there is a true clear nature of mind and like matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

I’m not sure what you are getting at?

What is the significance of the fact that I had to learn to drive the car? I also had to learn to multiply and divide, and that has given me a new ability. Are you saying that my Soul doesn’t know how to multiply and divide?

What are the abilities and attributes of the “Soul” according to your definition?

Franko: I concede this point could come down to semantics [but …]. Souls are spawned (created/formed/defined) and then evolve over time. They do not remain in a constant state

Pahansiri:
May I ask you to prove that, again I respect you believe it but you offer no proof other then you saying it is the truth.??

Recall, that I do not differentiate between Souls and Minds to the degree that you do. So for me to say that Souls evolve over time is the same as saying that Minds learn (evolve) over time.

1st prove “soul” which is a thing that unlike your personal definition can NOT be anything other then just that it can not change or evolve or it was not “self/soul” at this time of “creation”.
The change would have to be induced and come from other non soul/self events, causes and conditions etc. These non self/soul events, causes and conditions then become part of this ‘soul’ and such that ‘soul’ is comprised and or shaped by these outside things. That is NOT what a “soul” would be.

Keep in mind that according to what I believe Souls are the only thing that actually have material existence (in the True reality of the Omniverse). Therefore, according to my worldview only Souls modify other Souls.

2nd Prove these things or anything is created. Again I respect you and your beliefs and do not fear being wrong or change but your just saying something is true is not good enough for something to become truth or fact.

Would you agree that this universe was created at the moment of the Big Bang?

[The Soul …] Simply changing forms but unlike matter or energy can discover its true awaken nature and free “itself” from the cycle of rebirth and death. This true nature of mind is like all others and not a self. When “I” die Mark Pahansiri Bertrand will be no more.

So I would ask, if Pahansiri ceases to exist, and your Soul persists but learned or gained nothing in the process (life cycle) then what was the point of Pahansiri’s existence, and what was the point of having a Soul present during that existence?

Franko:
I would ask what was the point of this existence? If your Soul will possess no recollection of it, then of what possible benefit or purpose does this existence serve?

Pahansiri:
No, soul to ask. Fear and grasping requires being special, unique. Fear is an illusion a self limiting prison.

I would say that Individuality requires us to be special and unique, and personally I enjoy being an Individual. It is beneficial.

For us as Buddhist enlightenment/awakening is total freedom from all suffering and its cause, grasping, fear cravings these things we believe cause us to be trapped in this cycle of rebirth and death.

I’d say: All Fear is a fear of one’s Fate. All fear is a form of Pessimism. Pessimism is the notion that there exist a non-beneficial (i.e. harmful) Ultimate Truth.

The true nature of mind we believe is free from labels such as self and things that bind us our constant desires and grasping. “my” enlighten/awakening mind is no different then “yours” no more different then one drop of water is different then the ocean you just took it from.

In other words, utter conformity.

For a person who seems to dislike the notion of Fatalism, you seem awfully cozy with Fatalisms “evil twin”.

What purpose does this existence serve, breaking free from the nature of the ordinary grasping mind. To know the joy of good actions of having for oneself and all living things loving kindness, respect and compassion. The joy of helping others and seeing their joy.

Yes, but if the Soul never ever changes then why was any of this necessary? Shouldn’t the Soul have started off as enlightened as it would ever be? You seem to be contradicting yourself here. You seem to be saying that a Soul needs to experience the cycles of life and rebirth until it evolves sufficiently to reach the point of Enlightenment. Yet at the same time you are asserting that Souls never evolve or learn anything new. How to you reconcile this?

This is good enough for me. If I am wrong and after “I” die there is nothing else, that is cool I feel great joy from the good I did knowing I made many mistakes along the way.

I think I mentioned to you long ago that I thought Buddhist had a far better chance making it to the next level of the Omniverse than Atheists, it was just that they arrived with less Individuality than Hindus, Shintos, Christians, Muslims and Jews tend to.

If say the Christian or you are right and there is this judging God, Goddess and they are mad at me because I would not believe in them. Mad because I sought to help all I could help and be kind to what they created but did not massage their ego, well that is fine to, as I have no respect for them.

The “God” that I worship does not really care about whether you worshipped her or even acknowledged Her. She is more concerned with how you interacted with the other entities (Souls) you encountered while here.

A loving parent does not place his desires and ego before that of their sweet child.

Very True. But consider what that means for your “free will”.

I would say that this universe is a test. It is a test to see how compatible your Soul is with other Souls. If you are a compatible entity then you will end up in a place with many, many other compatible entities. However if you were an incompatible entity then you will end up either isolated and utterly alone, or else you will go to the place where all of the other incompatible entities went and you can all be incompatible together for the rest of eternity.

[Pahansiri]

Hello Franko I hope you are having a good Friday…

Okay, suppose that your mind and my mind are all that exist.

That impossible for me to suppose because it is illogical.

But I will for the propose of your quiestion.

If we can communicate between each other (if we can exchange information) then I would contend that an objective reality exist between us.

But if we cannot communicate, if we cannot exchange any meaningful information between each other, then there is no objective reality between us.

I am not sure how this relates as the base of the “suppose” is not a reality. It would be as saying suppose I am 100 feet tall and then try to explain what is reality using something that is not reality.

I would say that I do not believe the planet you are referring to exist. There is no evidence to believe that you can “observe” this planet without actually observing it, and I do not believe that your imagined planet is the same as a planet which exist objectively in reality.

Again my friend you either do not understand what I said or are dancing a bit.

What I said was the following:

1. Do you really believe because no human has seen a sun or planet that is too far to see yet that that sun or planet is not there?

2. This would mean being that we discover new planets every day as the technology improves that these newly discovered planets discovered today were not there yesterday? That is illogical.

3. The truth is there are many more planets we have yet to observe and the truth is they are there and exist.

4. There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

5. No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs. There are countless examples disproving your position.



As I pointed out let us say if we go back 100 years we did not observe many many many of the planets we now know of to say they did not exist until we discovered or first observed them is ridicules.

I do not mean you are ridicules or your beliefs are on a whole but if you really believe that this one example out of countless I could give as to things not existing because we have yet to see them is well ridicules.

All these planets existed long before we first observed them as I must assume do many more.


My Soul would be fine, it is only my illusionary physical body that would be “damaged”.

I would not call anything soul I would say mind but I respect your belief and agree.

As I explained previously, I do not believe that it is my mind which generates the train, or my own physical body.

You have said that your mind through total boredom created this reality and no one exists but you in this reality.

The Mind which the Materialists refer to as TLOP,

That is your personal definition not the Materialists. I am not a Materialists so can not speak to it and you are not either so you simply saying what a Materialists calls mind does not make it so as you can not know the thoughts or all Materialists. You may be right some may, I do not know.


is the entity responsible for that. While I am here in this universe I am bound by the will (rules or laws) of that entity.

You are “bound” to work within them to a great extent but not completely as I have demonstrated in the past.

BUT it is not what you said a few days ago when you said you created this reality and only you through your imagine exist.

The planets don’t exist in our minds as real until we detect them (observe them). But that doesn’t mean that they didn’t exist in someone else’s mind … namely TLOP’s.


Not at all true. In my mind and yours we can assume from available data and what has been proven truth as to planets we discover all the time that there are other planets that are very real.

I have never seen most planets most not even in pictures yet they are real to me and don’t require me or you or anyone to be real.

TLOP is not a mind, not a thinking conscious being unless you can prove it. It is rules as to the nature of how things work here I have demonstrated that TLOP are controlled by the conditions of this planet and gravity of others. They do not control it.

There is not one universal TLOP, take gravity. On another planet that is much larger perhaps 2 suns closer etc TLOP as to gravity would be far different then they are here.

I respect you have beliefs but you make these statements as if fact and offer no facts.

Pahansiri wrote:

The truth is there are many more planets we have yet to observe and the truth is they are there and exist.

Franko responded :

But only because they exist in the mind of TLOP.

PROVE IT. When ever I ask you to prove something you say as a matter of fact you offer no fact. Prove what you just said.

Prove TLOP has a mind.

The fact is the planets are real as we can perceive how they come together the causes and conditions, the elements.

I return often to the quote David Brooks who wrote: To seek to explain what is unknown using what is known is scientific and logical system. To seek to seek to prove what is known using what is unknown is theological lunacy.


Look, the entire universe could be a hologram for all you know – right?

When a hologram is projected at you showing an apple. Can you pick up that hologram projected apple and eat it?

No

But what I will say what I know for sure is there sure is much I do not know and if you can prove to me you are right with facts I have to believe it, you offer no proof.


Now discovering those planets would still happen exactly as you predicted, but that doesn’t mean that those undiscovered planets exist as anything other than stored data at this moment.

Again you seek to use something not true to try to prove what you believe is true, that is illogical. It is self-serving and meaningless and I do not mean that to be rude.

Pahansiri wrote There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

Franko All life is conscious (self-aware), ergo all life is capable of perception.

You would have to prove that, I do not believe that a water Lilly or a single celled life form is self-aware in that form of birth.

But what you said has nothing to do with what I said. The perception if the life form has nothing to do with my discover or observation of it.

Please answer my question as asked.

There are new species of life still being discovered on this planet do you believe they only exist when we first discover them? That is illogical.

This example is analogous to you and I being the only entities to exist, yet being unaware of the existence of the other. [quote]


Not in any way is it the same. Your example of only you and I existing in not reality and is false, new life forms being still discovered on this rock is truth and is reality.

[quote]In other words, until you perceive reliable information for a unicorn for yourself you are unlikely to believe in the existence of unicorns.

Not at all what I had said. Could unicorns have lived, maybe but what we know seems to indicate they did not as no fossil record can prove it. Could such a thing live in some other world, very well could I do not know. BUT it is totally irrelevant to what I said above.

Again I will say if there are unicorns somewhere then they exist and they would exist if any or I ever observes them.

This is similar to the people who believe there is no life on other planets simply because we have not seen it/them..

This is pure ego driven blind silliness.

The fact is we can NOT know what is out there in all of space and as far as I believe it is logical to assume in the countless planets the causes and conditions are correct on at least one other planet for life.

Pahansiri wrote No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs.

Franko You mean the dinosaurs didn’t observe each other?

You are dancing. Please answer my question. (Grrr am I the only one who answers all questions asked of me?) lol

Pahansiri wrote
No humans were alive to observe the dinosaurs does this mean there were no dinosaurs.

franko
Like I said, if you want to get an idea what I believe it may help to think of this universe as a hologram.

Again I respect what you believe and have a grasp as to it. I respect when anyone makes a statement as a statement of belief and would like to see their logic to support it as that is good conversation.

When someone makes a statement of Fact and demands others are wrong for not believing as they do then they must provide supporting facts.

We as of late are having a great respectful conversation I wish you would answer all my question as I do for you but this is great fun. NOW answer my questions…lol


I would like to think of myself as 7 foot and playing in the NBA making 10 million a year but that is not reality no matter how I may like to think of it.


’t matter how evolved the Minds are that you insert into that hologram. You can insert the mind of a dinosaur, or you can insert the mind of a homo sapien. TLOP is the entity generating the hologram, ergo TLOP is making the rules of the hologram.

TLOP are not controlling my thoughts as I have demonstrated to you many times if TLOP were what contorted thoughts all thoughts would be the same. Just as if you throw up a ball it will always come down.

TLOP makes no rules TLOP are the effect not the cause.

Unless you can prove diffrently.


and me, and all of the other consciousnesses are simply “players” (or more accurately “characters”) in TLOP’s “game”.

Prove this with facts, hard clear facts. The fact is the fact that I do not believe you disproves your position.


Pahansiri:
I believe I was clear but perhaps not allow me to try to explain again.

First I have to ask you what is “ you, or I, me, self” etc?

Well, it depends on how much detail you want.

Just the facts.

I would say that the Soul (or Mind, or Consciousness, or Personality)


You have listed 3-4 things here not 3 that explain the first i.e. soul.

1- soul is an unproven belief and as I have demonstrated would be something that can be nothing other then just “soul”. It would have to be in and of itself just soul and nothing else in any form. Not comprised of or shaped or influenced by anything else.
2- Mind, or Consciousness. There is what we call ordinary mind which is strongly confused, clouded by grasping and desires, fear, hate ego etc and is greatly influenced by parents, what you see, feel, read, hear are thought etc etc etc. Great dependent on outside forces.

3- Personality is something that is GREATLY influenced by parents, what you see, feel, read, hear are thought etc etc etc. Great dependent on outside forces.

is made up of three basic parts – Perceptions (Inputs),

That disqualifies it as what a “soul” would be. Such a thing can be nothing other then just soul.

Expressions (Outputs), and Cognition (Processing or Thought).

All things influenced by outside forces to one degree and so not ‘self”

Your Perceptions loosely correspond to your 5 senses.

Something that is self/soul can not be influenced or shaped it would be self and nothing else. Self/soul would have to be unchanging and fixed.



Your expressions correspond to you physical body.

Your body is NOT self as I have explained. Self/soul would have to be unchanging and fixed. The body is never the same from one second to the next.

You cognition is pure thought (including memory, ego, intuition).

memory, ego, are the result of outside influenced and ever changing. Memory is 100% the result of outside forces or stimuli and not fixed.

Memory completely disproves self as if the self is shaped at all by memory it can not be self/soul.

The core of your Graviton (the fundamental part of your Soul) is your Cognition.


grav·i·ton Audio pronunciation of Graviton ( P ) Pronunciation Key (grv-tn)
n.

A hypothetical particle postulated to be the quantum of gravitational interaction and presumed to have an indefinitely long lifetime, zero electric charge, and zero rest mass. See table at subatomic particle.


May I ask for your proof of a Graviton and the proof is your “soul”?


Cognition is the mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.

All denote free will and control over the mind, you do not believe this and believe that TLOP control the mind and all actions i.e. perception, reasoning, and judgment.

I did not follow this paragraph.

If “You” (Pahansiri) don’t exist, and if I (Franko) don’t exist, then just who is having this conversation? Are you claiming this conversation is an illusion?

When everything becomes an illusion, then it is exactly the same as nothing is an illusion.

As for what our Souls are made of, I would say they are made of Information.

There is no Pahansiri or Franko that are in and of themselves /self. We are not self/soul as we are shaped, dependent to a great part on all the causes and condition in our lives, what we see, hear, are thoughts, events etc. i.e. you believe as you do and I believe as I do. I.e. shaped by causes and conditions.

In reality it is all an illusion, there is no rainbow. It is the result of causes and conditions.

No humidity, no rainbow, no light no rainbow.


Pahansiri wrote:
Look at a car. “car” is an illusion as it is comprised completely non “car” parts and each part comprised of smaller non part, parts and smaller and smaller we get.

Franko I thought you didn’t believe in “the matter”?

WHERE did I say I did not believe in matter?

I have said over and over we know matter and energy can not be created or destroyed and we as Buddhist believe this is the same for the true nature of mind.


I would also say that the CAR is an illusion (relative to YOU), because the CAR is simply a projection of information from another consciousness, whereas you are a consciousness.

The ‘car’ is a reality within this reality, if you were to jump into the road in front of a speeding one you would know this to be true.

The suffering and death would not be from a projection of anyone’s mind, your physical body would die for real.

There are no “smaller and smaller parts” per sae. The smaller and smaller bits are just the information which is being transmitted.

Prove that please.
The fact is there is matter and there are smaller and smaller ‘parts” my friend you are so often talking about atoms, they are real and they too are comprised of non atom elements.



I would say that my physical body is very similar to the CAR, it consist of nothing more than information being projected by TLOP.

Not true at all as to information being projected by TLOP. Unless you can prove this and prove that TLOP is a thinking being. It is simply how things greatly operate here due to the causes and conditions.

TLOP are the slave of causes and conditions not the other way around.

My mind however is NOT being projected by TLOP. MY mind exists independently of TLOP; my physical body (like the CAR) does not.

We agree there.

Well, if I am following you, I would say that an ant crawling over my leg, or a bacteria in my stomach is a separate entity (separate Soul) from my own.

You are projecting your beliefs on my statement.

The ant or bacteria in the stomach or the bug that lives in the eye lash, each of them is a separate living thing, not a “soul”. I do believe “they” not their body also contains the same Buddha nature ( enlightened mind) as you and I. This is my belief.

Of course if you are talking about the Individual cells which make up my physical body and appear to be “alive” then I would contend you are merely perceiving the information that is my physical body, and the interaction (transmit/receive) between my mind and TLOP’s.

Any facts to support this?

I agree, like all conscious entities I evolve (or de-evolve) over Time. A Graviton which ceases to move ceases to exist.

1- a “soul/self” would not evolve or de-evolve it could be nothing other then just what it was, never changing.
A Graviton which ceases to move ceases to exist.
2- If that is true it is then clearly not a “soul” or self or mind or matter or energy as none (matter or energy for sure and I believe mind in its true nature) can not cease to exist.

Pahasiri wrote: If you were “Franko” a self/soul you would need to be unchanging and nothing other then “Franko” and at birth be just what you are now. Were you? did you think the way you do now then? 15 years ago? 10? Last year or week? No.

Franko: That is true and in another 5 or 10 or 15 years I will undoubtedly think differently than I do today. Never-the-less, that does not change the fact that from then until now, and from now until then I will have maintained a continuity of experience (of consciousness), and in all cases the entity that I am today is dependent upon the entity that I was yesterday.

Yes you will be shaped by many experience, people you meet things you read events you hear and see and so on. This is the same from your birth to now.

For that reason you are not “self” not “soul” you as to ordinary mind, personality and body are changing from second to second.

I agree with the first part, and perhaps it is only semantics, but I would say that I am a product of the Information I have experienced over Time. Or put another way, I am a product of Fate and Destiny.

I would agree to a point but would call what you call “Fate and Destiny” karma, the effect of past actions. But it is clear nothing is set in stone and the choices are always ours we must only be mindful and not a slave to the ordinary mind, its emotions and grasping. Thinking not reacting due to emotions or ego.

Franko:
Look, when I get into my CAR, I am still ME, it is just that now I have an ability I did not possess before getting in the CAR. Namely I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour. But the fact that I have this new ability as the result of being inside the “body” of my CAR doesn’t mean that I have been altered mentally in any fundamental way.

Pahansiri:
1st from this example it sounds like you are saying you have free will? That would be a direct contradiction of your beliefs?

I’m not sure I follow you. Perhaps for the sack of clarity I should say I was destined to get into the Car?

I would ask you to prove that but you will not.

My friend you I believe are so intent on being right you will not open up and admit there is no black and white Fate and Destiny, no black and white free will.

There are no truth in extremes the truth lies in the middle there is a form of free will but it is not a total free will there is a form of Fate and Destiny but it is not totally controlling. Karma/cause and effect is the universal law and unlike TLOP is not dependent on conditions to the same degree at all.

We do believe that an effect can only arise when the conditions are right. We seek karma/actions/cause and effect as planting seeds. The seed is the action. Plant a hot pepper seed you will not grow sweet apples. But plant a hot pepper seed ( a harmful act say to another) then step up to it fix the mistake and seek to be always kind the conditions for that hot pepper seed way not occur or produce a mild pepper.

As I have said in the past if TLOP controlled all fate all fates would be the same.

The very fact you at times more so in the past so attack atheist for not believing as you do proves your belief is wrong and you don’t even believe it.

1-You believe that the Goddess controls all.
2 You worship “her” and get mad at anyone who does not believe in here or do what she wants.

BUT how can people NOT do what she wants or believe in here if they are being controlled by her?

Unless they have a form of free will maybe?

Perhaps if you are right in your belief of “ her” YOU are the one doing wrong by going against her will for others..

Pahansiri wrote How did TLOP or the Goddess make you get into the car? If they did your example of self is null and void.


If TLOP didn’t transmit that the CAR was there in front of me then I would not have been able to get into it. Or perhaps the CAR was there, and TLOP created some emergency that would require fast travel on my part, so I would have no other “choice” but to get into the CAR.

We are all products of the information we experience, because that is the only form of energy which exist to influence us.

Wrong, unless you offer some proof.

YOU bought the car through actions of yours, learning from others etc.

The car was made by people not TLOP, they discovered and learned to work within reality within what is, to work with TLOP.


I don’t follow you here. How is the fact that I had to acquire the information about “how to drive” from another entity proof that my Soul has not also acquired that information?

I have answered this many times.

A “soul” can be nothing other then just “your soul” it can not contain or be shaped by outside forces or influences or it is not “self”, not “soul” .

Nothing is in and of itself, self.



If it wasn’t my Soul (or Self) that acquired the information, then where did it go?

If it was, where will the information go when you die?
Were you born with this information? Look back to the questions I asked
But as to “self” did someone teach you to drive this car?
Did you know at birth how to drive this car? No.
When you die all this clutter attained or grasped to is gone as the brain dies.

Look, either your soul can perceive information, or it cannot. You seem to be saying that it cannot. If that is the case, then what is the point of even having a soul?

That is a very strange statement. Read what you wrote.

You said if you don’t have a soul what is the use of having a soul? Lol

You don’t have one that is the point.



Have you noticed you do not answer questions you only ask them? Why?


Franko:
[in a CAR …] I can now travel at 50, 60+ miles per hour.

Pahansiri:
There is that free will thing again, see you do believe in a form of free will.

I’m not sure I see the connection between driving a car and “free will”?

I believe you mean you do not want to see the connection between driving a car and “free will”.

What I said is clear, you choose most times to drive at 20 or at 120. You choose most times to run a stop sign.


I assure you my friend, I am a Fatalist. All of my actions are preordained.

I respect you believe that. I will ask you to prove it.




I’m not sure what you are getting at?

What is the significance of the fact that I had to learn to drive the car?

I have explained this over and over it is not that you do not understand it is you wish not to, but that is your free will.

The fact is you had to be influenced by another, shaped by another. The knowledge was attained by people who learned by experiment. NOT given by a God being.

If it was why did you not have it at birth?


I also had to learn to multiply and divide, and that has given me a new ability. Are you saying that my Soul doesn’t know how to multiply and divide?

I am saying you have no “soul” no set “self” you being shaped by others proves this. You are in a great way a product of others and or perceptions and for sure many causes and conditions.

A “self” would be nothing other then just “self”. If any part of that “self” has as part another outside part, it is not in and of itself, self.

What are the abilities and attributes of the “Soul” according to your definition?

Franko that is a silly question. How can I give you the abilities and attributes of something I believe and have demonstrated does NOT exist?


Recall, that I do not differentiate between Souls and Minds to the degree that you do. So for me to say that Souls evolve over time is the same as saying that Minds learn (evolve) over time.

I respect that you believe as you do.
A mind , the true nature of mind as we believe does NOT learn, a brain learns and is impermanent, it dies and rots.

Brain is not mind. If it was why were you not born with full knowledge?

If a “soul evolve over time” it is being shaped by outside non soul forces and is then not in and of itself , self.

Pahansiri: 1st prove “soul” which is a thing that unlike your personal definition can NOT be anything other then just that it can not change or evolve or it was not “self/soul” at this time of “creation”.
The change would have to be induced and come from other non soul/self events, causes and conditions etc. These non self/soul events, causes and conditions then become part of this ‘soul’ and such that ‘soul’ is comprised and or shaped by these outside things. That is NOT what a “soul” would be.

Franko Keep in mind that according to what I believe Souls are the only thing that actually have material existence (in the True reality of the Omniverse). Therefore, according to my worldview only Souls modify other Souls.

Can you see that you NEVER prove or give facts of your belief when asked. I say 1st prove “soul” and you simply make no attempt.

If you want others to believe you, prove what you say is truth.

You say Keep in mind that according to what I believe Souls are the only thing that actually have material existence

Try standing in front of a fast moving train and you will find you are wrong.

The train is in this reality very real.

The fact is the true nature of mind is not material. If is it, draw a picture of mind for me. Not brain, draw mind.

Pahansiri wrote 2nd Prove these things or anything is created. Again I respect you and your beliefs and do not fear being wrong or change but your just saying something is true is not good enough for something to become truth or fact.

Franko responded Would you agree that this universe was created at the moment of the Big Bang?

Do you ever answer a question?
I have answered every single question you ask me, you simply will not return the respect.

Again I will answer as I have nothing to hide. This universe I believe was formed by the big bang if you as the big bang was the death of an another. Matter and energy never are created or destroyed they only change form.


So I would ask,

Sure and you know I will answer, why my friend will you not do the same?

if Pahansiri ceases to exist, and your Soul persists but learned or gained nothing in the process (life cycle) then what was the point of Pahansiri’s existence, and what was the point of having a Soul present during that existence?

My very great friend stop and take a deep breath.

I do NOT believe in a soul and have demonstrated why, the above question is irrelevant.

You keep asking “ Pahansiri If you don’t have a soul what good is your soul?”

I do not believe in a soul/self ,
I do not believe in a soul/self ,
I do not believe in a soul/self .

The “point” of existence is to ( In our belief) to realize the true nature of mind and get off this bus or birth old age and death.

When Pahansiri dies trivial things like what color my car was or that I was a professional athlete or what I ate last night will die with my body.

What will follow my true nature of mind is my actions. The true nature of mind is right there for us all to see we must only get rid of the clouds that obscure it.

What obscures it is the belief in self/soul, grasping, desires, ego, hate fear.

Loving kindness for oneself and all living things clears ego, fear, hate anger, we start to see more clearly.

I would say that Individuality requires us to be special and unique, and personally I enjoy being an Individual. It is beneficial.

How is it beneficial? Why do you believe you are so different then another? Why the need to be?

The fact is we do have some special and unique that are different from some in a small way. The need to grasp to it causes suffering and separation from others, walls.

The fact is it is this us and them mentality that is the cause of all wars all hate all greed. The belief that “ I am special and better”.

Our body contains all the same elements as all living and non living things on earth. We are all interconnected and all interdependent.

Your special and unique personality, beliefs are not unique at all. They are the result of many causes and conditions from outside non “self” sources, people, places, events, books, words actions.

I’d say: All Fear is a fear of one’s Fate. All fear is a form of Pessimism. Pessimism is the notion that there exist a non-beneficial (i.e. harmful) Ultimate Truth.

There is great truth there. I would not say all fear. I say a great deal of fear is ego fearing you are not ‘special”.

Fear of death is YES huge and very silly and a waste of time.
Watch the HBO movie called “Jockey” this winter. It is a documentary on the life of Jockeys. I am in it a great deal training a client, Shane Sellers. You will see how I train athletes both physically and more importantly emotionally.

I help them tear down the walls of fear that self-limit.

Why fear death?



Pahansiri wrote: The true nature of mind we believe is free from labels such as self and things that bind us our constant desires and grasping. “my” enlighten/awakening mind is no different then “yours” no more different then one drop of water is different then the ocean you just took it from.

In other words, utter conformity.

For a person who seems to dislike the notion of Fatalism, you seem awfully cozy with Fatalisms “evil twin”

I do not fear that I do not have a self that I am the very same as all, that is wonderful to me. Why do you fear this?

Yes, but if the Soul never ever changes then why was any of this necessary?

I do NOT believe in a soul or self, why are you not getting this my friend? You are extremely intelligent why are you not hearing what I am saying?


Let us call the true nature of mind “soul” if you like. Yes the true nature of mind never changes and is always there but only blinded to us by our ego and desires and cravings.

Let us say your Goddess has as I am sure you believe a perfect all knowing mind, she knows everything. Is she capable of thinking? Can she have thoughts?

The answer is NO. What is all knowing would not be capable of thought as there is nothing to think about nothing to ponder. The truth is what we consider her knowledge is great here but useless clutter in reality.


Shouldn’t the Soul have started off as enlightened as it would ever be? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.



Yes it is always clear and in a state of perfection. It becomes clouded obstructed by as I have said desires, cravings anger, hate, the illusion of self.

How did it become this way, the truth is you do have me here for now as I have not gotten to this, the Buddhist explanation of why or how.


You seem to be saying that a Soul needs to experience the cycles of life and rebirth until it evolves sufficiently to reach the point of Enlightenment.


I am not saying that about a soul, I am saying that about the true nature of mind.

There is no real evolving as a list of things to learn that is not Buddhism that is other beliefs. It is said Enlightenment can and does happen in a second once one realizes the true nature of mind. There is no list to learn nor just purifying karma/actions. As one could have perfect actions yet still be blind to the true nature of mind and be bound to rebirth, in our beliefs it would be to realms/births of less suffering, long happy for the most part lives. But ones that still end and roll on. This is our belief I do not make this as a statement of fact because I can not prove it.

Yet at the same time you are asserting that Souls never evolve or learn anything new. How to you reconcile this?

I do not have to, I keep saying there is no soul/self you keep saying I say there is. Why do you not get what I say? I go on and on so long …lol

I think I mentioned to you long ago that I thought Buddhist had a far better chance making it to the next level of the Omniverse than Atheists,

Buddhist are atheist as I have explained.

it was just that they arrived with less Individuality than Hindus, Shintos, Christians, Muslims and Jews tend to.

Because we see or strive to see the truth that there is no self and “Individuality” is an illusion.


The “God” that I worship does not really care about whether you worshipped her or even acknowledged Her. She is more concerned with how you interacted with the other entities (Souls) you encountered while here.

There is 2 problems with your statement above both are contradictions to your earlier statements.

1- You have said in the past “she” DID become upset that people did not believe in her and would punish them. Perhaps my explaining to you that the flaw in that belief was you believe we have no free will and she controls us completely and if we did not believe in her it would have to be what she wanted.. See I do help you.
2- In addition for you to believe what you said as to her “concerns”/desires means that some do not do as she wishes i.e. treating other “souls” well, means you DO believe in some form of free will..
You see if that was her desire and concern and she controlled all things and all things were fate if some “souls” did not treat other “souls” well it would be her fault. So if it were her desire that all treat others well she better fix it not us. Right?

Franko you make this too easy, please stop and thing about what you say.
You said She is more concerned with how you interacted with the other entities (Souls) you encountered while here.

1-If there is no free will
2 and the Goddess controls all things
3- How can she want people to do what she makes them not do?

Franko..THINK!!!

Oh yes one last thing you AGAIN did not explain how you know and why this being is female and what makes “her” female? Does she have an endocrine system, breast, vagina?

OK one last thing in the past you were very unkind to people who did not believe as you do ( strange they/we can do that without a free will) you called them many names etc.

Did the Goddess consider that treating other “souls” well as to your actions?

Pahansiri A loving parent does not place his desires and ego before that of their sweet child.

Franko.
Very True. But consider what that means for your “free will”.

:confused: That statement was concerning a God… But treating someone well as I pointed out above has a great deal to do with free will. By your belief if a parents harms a child it is because your God makes them do it. That is not kind.

I would say that this universe is a test. It is a test to see how compatible your Soul is with other Souls.

I respect you believe that.

BUT if there is no free will then if soul A does not treat other souls well it is the fault of YOUR Goddess not “soul” A. Frank think about what you say.

If you are a compatible entity then you will end up in a place with many, many other compatible entities. However if you were an incompatible entity then you will end up either isolated and utterly alone, or else you will go to the place where all of the other incompatible entities went and you can all be incompatible together for the rest of eternity.

Great, a very loving Goddess you have there. She makes you do bad things and then she punishes you for doing what she makes you do.

Franko you are a very intelligent guy but you clearly do not think out what you say and believe when it comes to this.


This is like a baker that makes a cake using all chocolate ingredients, 100% chocolate ingredients then when the cake is done and is a chocolate cake. The baker becomes angry at the cake because it is not Vanilla.

100% illogical belief.

Be well my friend.

[Bikewer]

The best religion is of my own invention, Nuemanism.

The worship of Alfred has one sterling advantage, brevity.

The entire utterances of our deity can be summed up in his only known statement, "What, me worry?"

This succinct, but wide-ranging philosophy covers pretty much everything.