Need Help Finding Heaven - Seriously

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


But you're still missing the fact that science can't tell you what you want to know, which I pointed out to you on the first page. This leads you to make statements like this:


Religion does not reject science entirely, but science does reject religion entirely.


Science does not "reject religion", in part or in toto -- it has, by definition, nothing to say on the matter. Science is constrained to the observable and measurable natural world, while the core aspects of religion are supernatural, and thus beyond the scope of science.

Depending on which one you're talking about, religions go along with science in varying degrees, but there are some, like Catholicism, which don't reject science (in itself, not considering what people do with science) in any way. Most religious views see religion and science as two paths to the same destination -- truth.

But whenever things spill out of the natural world, as the afterlife or heaven does, science has absolutely nothing to say on the matter, because it is not an observable and measurable part of the natural world.

When Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (whom I referenced earlier) started her career as a nurse, she was appalled by the way that people who were dying were treated at that time (basically medicated and ignored) and began the medical revolution that is now known as hospice. The other thing that she noted was that no one was studying death, the state that all of us will eventually find ourselves, so it seems a sensible thing to research. But there, she ran into that limitation of science -- when one dies, there is nothing observable or measurable, there is nothing but an unresponsive body, and so, like heaven, science doesn't have anything to say about it (apart from it being the state of not being alive.)

If you wish to use science as a tool in your explorations, it is best to begin by understanding what the limitations of that tool are, and once you do, you may well conclude that some of the philosophical responses to your query have more merit than it appears.




posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by schuyler
 

Science does not "reject religion", in part or in toto -- it has, by definition, nothing to say on the matter. Science is constrained to the observable and measurable natural world, while the core aspects of religion are supernatural, and thus beyond the scope of science.


That's where I part company. It's an assumption. I believe that if it is a part of Reality, it can be explained, and explained by science. The dichotomy between "natural" and "supernatural" is artificial. It wasn't too long ago that Quantum Mechanics would have been considered supernatural. You mean Schrodinger's cat is neither alive nor dead until you look? How completely absurd! That's sounds very religious and super-natural to anyone who grew up in a Classical Mechanics world. Yest, as Hugh Everett said, "Take the math seriously!" (in relation to his Many Worlds Theory.)

In other words, the "Other Side" is as natural a part of Reality as "This Side" is. And "This Side" has some extraordinarily "super-natural" qualities. I'm looking at an oak table right now that is composed of atoms that are composed of quarks that are composed of itty bitty strinmgs that, depending on how they vibrate, create different stuff. It's mostly space, yet I'm having this illusion that it is solid. And then there's the problem of just how much of this table I'm creating myself with my mind, and how limited my view is because of the narrowness of the spectrum of my vision.

It's my belief that there is only one Reality. It may be a whole lot more complex than we have yet envisioned, but there's still one Reality that can be explained by science. It's not a matter of looking up in the sky and experiencing God at a personal level. On the one hand we have people who believe there is no connection, and on the other we have scientists who don't believe a connection can exist to nothing.

The task here is to get both groups on the same path to finding the one Reality that is there. As we can see, that's terribly difficult because it's difficult to get either side to actually engage the issue.

Thanks for your posts here. We may not be quite on the same wavelength, but at least I understand what you are saying!
edit on 11/2/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
if you are looking for a
'safe' house to weather-the-storm in the practical sense... our 'Intentional House' here in S Carolina might be the answer

if your lookig for a 'idealistic' place with all the 'bells-&-whistles' allready in place to massage your holy ass --- then this ain't the place


Go to a church sancturary or a Monestary for Monks,,, cause thats what your OP plea sounds like

this place is a self sustaining place (almost) which will not be subject to Banker Repro/Foreclosure that will double & redouble in the nest 5 years among many properties in the USA (i suggest that S.C. will be the place for the start of the next Civil-War (between the States) that is bound to happen in this decade...


Let me read more of where you might be comming from...........



posted on Nov, 3 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
reply to post by Kashai
 


Interesting concept. It would suggest that we are multi-dimensional beings "as we sit" and do not travel discretely from one realm to the next. It also suggests the part of the realm we don't see is very close, indeed. On the whole this would seem a positive idea. It's not as if our "other half" is in another galaxy far, far away, but right here, and that goes along with some of the other stuff we have been hearing.

It also makes sense that in a place made of finer stuff emotions would be given a bigger role because they could not be as easily suppressed. The whole emotion thing, including "love" is kind of elusive to me and I admot to not getting it.



If God is love then, love is a substance.

The story is an example of love, in the case the man was prepared to be without water for the same of the dog. On the question of love it is caring about someone so much, one accepts and loves the faults that person has as an imperfect being. In this case I am referring to the idea that nothing in the universe that exists can be destroyed, only broken down or differentiated.

Heaven having existed before creation, its structure is consciousness (in this concept). The idea being that what we acknowledge here as taking up space (A car, house, our bodies...), is what is subjective in heaven.

Open a door on Earth and more than likely it is made of wood, but open a door in heaven and it is made of feelings.

Any thoughts?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai

If God is love then, love is a substance.


I fear language is beginning to take its toll here. Logically the sentence should read, "If God is substance and God is love, then love is substance." OK, but "if" is the biggest word here. It makes little sense to me, so I'll treat it metaphorically in context with what is below.


The story is an example of love, in the case the man was prepared to be without water for the same of the dog.


Good story, but I didn't take it quite that way. First I took it as a matter of loyalty and responsibility. The man felt both for the dog and was unwilling to abandon him. The man's reaction was also to the unfairness of the City refusing the dog. There seemed no good reason to condemn the dog under the circumstances. I didn't see the dog as having any faults. At least he did not demonstrate any. IMO a good dog doesn't have faults. There's an old saying, "I aspire to be as good a person as my dog thinks I am."


Heaven having existed before creation, its structure is consciousness (in this concept). The idea being that what we acknowledge here as taking up space (A car, house, our bodies...), is what is subjective in heaven.

Open a door on Earth and more than likely it is made of wood, but open a door in heaven and it is made of feelings.


Seems to me the basic idea is on track. If Heaven is made of finer stuff, then stuff as fine as feelings could take form. The same is true of thought. Can you measure a thought? I suppose you may be able to measure the synapses firing in the brain, but what, exactly, is the structure of thought? Except in a very abstract and philosophical sense, we don't know and we haven't paid much attention the same way we haven't paid much attention to the structure of a soul. Reductionists claim it doesn't exist anyway. They "see no evidence," so all we have left is religious interpretation.

I'm looking for a scientific interpretation. I maintain that if we eventually dump our physical bodies and "graduate" to the next level, then we are as conscious there as we are here, probably more so. Neither on this side nor the other are we stupid, i.e.: We are perfectly capable of understanding the truth right here and right now. I also maintain that there must be people who have made the transition who are as interested in that as we are here. That it hasn't happened is cause for concern. They may be as stymied as we are, and that has implications.

I think we need a portal. This is for our own advancement. I made a couple of initial mistakes in this thread. First, I used the word "Heaven" which has its own connotations. I perhaps should have used "The Other Side," "Never Never Land," or "The Land of Oz," but in an attempt to stir up some interest I used a heavily loaded term. My bad.

My second mistake was not making clear that this is not a personal quest. I'm not looking for moral guidance or personal salvation. My time will come and I'm not particularly worried about it. I'll get to the Other Side and probably be asking the same questions. That I personally understand is not particularly important. The issue is for humanity as a whole to gain a scientific understanding of the nature of Reality that includes the next realm that is not subject to religious interpretation, but is cold, hard, proven scientific fact.

If we cannot do that and/or are not allowed to do that, then we amount to nothing more than avatars in someone else's game. And that pisses me off.
edit on 11/4/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Heaven existed before humanity came around... Angels & assorted 'spirits' were the first to create the place that came about by the hopes & aspirations of a body of entities, a collective creation of like minded wills (icomposed of a Quantum energy field)


Heaven is now available to humans because humanity has reached a collective level of consciousness..
and can enter the etheral domain of Sanctuary known as the kingdom of heaven


it is not a physical place it is a mental creation much as are the emotions of Love, empathy, intimate caring...
conversely Hell is the psyche darkness caused by hate, murderous intention, thieving/lying and such...
a person or alien entity can choose to bond with the collective creations called heaven or Hell that exist in the Quantum dimension, using will/thought/intentional compassion for others. etc etc as the portals to this 'state' of after-life


i would ask if you read the SQ link about NDEs & Souls being released into the Universe ?

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Near-death experiences occur when the soul leaves the nervous system and enters the universe, claim two quantum physics experts

Ground-breaking theory holds that quantum substances form the soul
They are part of the fundamental structure of the universe


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...



see how heaven can be a Quantum state just as the Soul is theorized to be...by these two scientists

interesting stuff




edit on 4-11-2012 by St Udio because: ??



 



here's a thought... or a continuation of the premise i speak of/...


there might very well be a etheric place besides Heaven or Hell... as those were the two constructions were the commonly defined polarities in the human condition for the last +6,000 years of history


with both population increase and the advent of a few information sharing technologies
there very well now have been created by the sheer will & intention of a large community of thinking/conscious minds 2 other spheres of after-life...

i speak of a sanctuary where PORN addicts enjoy eternity after their Earthly demise
And another sphere that harbors all the friggin' drug heads that are stoned into a Zombie Like existance after their mortal death


so now we might have 'souls' congregating into 4 different realms after-death..

Heaven
Hell
Zombieland
Porn-a-topia


what you think?
edit on 4-11-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-11-2012 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I’m talking strictly nuts and bolts here. Scientific. Subject to the scientific method. Provable. No politics. Reductionist.

OK then read the '___', the spirit molecule. Only thing I can come up with right now.
As to string theory, the other dimensions are rolled up and tiny. So what do you want with them?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   
If we're talking about God then we're talking about reality. To understand God we need to understand reality. If we want to grasp the other side, it similarly entails that we must understand reality.

If I am in a large cavernous room and there's one door to the other side, I have to explore to find it. This necessarily means I have to know enough about reality to explore its confines.

I know many will reject what I say because they think that God is separate of reality and that our method to understand God cannot invoke powers of reason or scientific observation.

But what's greater than reality? How is there a greater calling?

I believe if God is to be found God will be found in our quest to understand reality. If we fail to find God then at least we understand reality and can (hopefully) live a comfortable life.

I think this is an interesting link:
en.wikipedia.org - Principle of locality...

In physics, the principle of locality states that an object is influenced directly only by its immediate surroundings. Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must either violate the principle of locality or allow superluminal communication[1].
...........


.........
Einstein assumed that the principle of locality was necessary, and that there could be no violations of it. He said:
"(...) The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space, A and B: external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible. (...)
........


..........
A closely related term is counterfactual definiteness (CFD), used to refer to the claim that one can meaningfully speak of the definiteness of results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).

Local realism is a significant feature of classical mechanics, of general relativity, and of electrodynamics; but quantum mechanics largely rejects this principle due to the theory of distant quantum entanglements, an interpretation rejected by Einstein in the EPR paradox but subsequently apparently quantified by Bell's inequalities.[6] Any theory, such as quantum mechanics, that violates Bell's inequalities must abandon either local realism or counterfactual definiteness; but some physicists dispute that experiments have demonstrated Bell's violations, on the grounds that the sub-class of inhomogeneous Bell inequalities has not been tested or due to experimental limitations in the tests. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics violate different parts of local realism and/or counterfactual definiteness.
...........

NOTE: I'm fairly sure that the wiki link for Principle of Locality used to state: "Experiments have shown that quantum mechanically entangled particles must either violate the principle of locality or counterfactual definiteness." That may not be the exact wording.

This relates to Bell's inequalities and to how QM violates things and to Einstein:
en.wikipedia.org - EPR Paradox...

.........
Heisenberg's principle was an attempt to provide a classical explanation of a quantum effect sometimes called non-locality. According to EPR there were two possible explanations. Either there was some interaction between the particles, even though they were separated, or the information about the outcome of all possible measurements was already present in both particles.

The EPR authors preferred the second explanation according to which that information was encoded in some 'hidden parameters[citation needed]'. The first explanation, that an effect propagated instantly, across a distance, is in conflict with the theory of relativity.

They then concluded that quantum mechanics was incomplete since, in its formalism, there was no space for such hidden parameters[citation needed].

Bell's theorem is generally understood to have demonstrated that their preferred explanation was not viable. Most physicists who have examined the matter concur that experiments, such as those of Alain Aspect and his group, have confirmed that physical probabilities, as predicted by quantum theory, do show the phenomena of Bell-inequality violations that are considered to invalidate EPR's preferred "local hidden-variables" type of explanation for the correlations that EPR first drew attention to.
.........
However, Bell's theorem does not apply to all possible philosophically realist theories. It is a common misconception that quantum mechanics is inconsistent with all notions of philosophical realism, but realist interpretations of quantum mechanics are possible, although, as discussed above, such interpretations must reject either locality or counter-factual definiteness. Mainstream physics prefers to keep locality, while striving also to maintain a notion of realism that nevertheless rejects counter-factual definiteness.
.........

I don't understand all this that well, but in my mind I see it as a quest. It's the greatest quest. Others are much further along than I am, but I try to do my very small part in the scheme of things.
edit on 8-11-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
Heaven
Hell
Zombieland
Porn-a-topia

what you think?


Incredulous. I see no evidence. Porn-a-topia??? Surely you jest.


Originally posted by QueenofWeird

OK then read the '___', the spirit molecule. Only thing I can come up with right now.
As to string theory, the other dimensions are rolled up and tiny. So what do you want with them?


I've read about '___'. It seems to me to be a desperate attempt by reductionists to find something--anything--that might be able to refute sober people reporting very strange OBE and NDE experiences. It's an interesting speculation, but I do not think they have a proven case here. It's a shot in the dark.

Yes, I know the other dimensions in string theory are rolled up and tiny. I don't want to do anything with them. I was simply pointing out that physicists have dealt with the extremely tiny, as in strings and the Planck Length, to the extremely large, i;e.: Multiverses and branes, and have yet to encounter anything suggestive of the "Other Side." I have no reason to doubt them, but it suggest s to me they are "digging in the wrong place," which, just in case no one caught it, is a quote from the first Indiana Jones movie.

edit on 11/9/2012 by schuyler because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join