A view of The Force

No, I never said I discount the experience. All I said was that because there is no all powerful god there can be no angels that he created. people can interpret ascended masters as lots of things and some of them may even say they are angels to make it easier on others they talk to. thats all I mean. I didnt dismiss anything as silly talk.

and there is a difference to challenging an idea and making fun of it. you and others were making fun of my ideas, not challenging them.

Okay, so when I say that because there hasn't been any well-documented indication (though by rights any number of witness claims) of various magical powers existing and hence I wonder why you would believe in any, that's me "making fun of" your ideas, but when you say that angels cannot exist because the idea of a god makes no sense to you, that's not dismissive of the personal testimonies of an unspecified number of anonymous witnesses?

Just what is your standard? How do you tell fact from fiction? Is there any attempt at consistency you make in this?

well lack of evidence is not evidence of absence in any sort of absolute sense. As the most all you can say is I dont know. you cant say it cannot exist. I believe in them because I have experienced them to be at least possible and I have spoken to guides of the various realms that have told me to keep believing. they never confirm or deny, just leave it open that way.

As for God, no I am not dismissing anyone, once again. like I said people can be mistaken and so my comments are attempts to correct not dismiss. correction comes with new evidence and the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

Fyxe wrote: well lack of evidence is not evidence of absence in any sort of absolute sense. As the most all you can say is I dont know.

Of course. All I can say is that there is zero evidence to warrant belief, a plethora to warrant doubt, and plenty more that would have to be false in order for the claim to appear plausible as it pretty much contradicts most of physics. Yes, technically that still leaves us with an "I don't know", I can admit as much, and I have in the past, on numerous occasions. I have also said that this was a technicality only, and that if this was a scientific or legal investigation, the report in the end wouldn't leave it a practically open question, but yes, under some highest most pedantic philosophical sceptical rigor damn near all a posteriori claims go into the "I don't know" box.

you cant say it cannot exist.

Correct again. That's why I never did, not in any sort of absolute sense, anyway. Nobody here did. Well... nobody except you, that is. You say that a god cannot exist, and thus no angels, which you also say, without reservations or qualifiers, are not real, could have been created by one. But it's alright when you do it, I guess, isn't it...

As for God, no I am not dismissing anyone, once again. like I said people can be mistaken and so my comments are attempts to correct not dismiss. correction comes with new evidence and the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

Yea, again, it's okay when you do it, but when others point at flaws in your ideas or reasoning, they are trolling, or being some other sort of mean to you. For instance, I could now point out - again - that this thing you present is not actually any evidence. It's barely any more than the raw claim itself and I did point out to you in some detail that the actual argument to link one with the other was mostly missing back in my post #344559 to which you never responded. Admittedly, it was then about truth rather than logic, but the only thing you since said on the matter aside from rephrasing the original claim is that you were convinced that the universe would be nonsense if God existed, with no further attempt at an argument towards that conclusion.

I think my attempts at conclusions are pretty clear and I think you are very good at putting words in my mouth.

I never said god cannot exist. I said (and please read this carefully) no god of absolute power can exist.

I also never said that a person cant point out flaws in my arguments. I said (read carefully again) a person should not tease or make fun of an idea. this is what you did.

Now here we are again, I make and idea and you assert its wrong, just for no reason other than you say its wrong, no evidence or counter arguments, no different idea, you just come in here and tell me Im wrong. well if Im wrong how about you do something other than just assert im wrong?

Fyxe wrote: I think my attempts at conclusions are pretty clear and I think you are very good at putting words in my mouth.

Your conclusions are clear, all right. Well, clear-ish, sometimes, at any rate. It's the arguments that I say are lacking.

I never said god cannot exist. I said (and please read this carefully) no god of absolute power can exist.

A fair nitpick. Replace all instances of "god" in my referring to your position with "god of absolute power". Then, if you wish, feel free to address the actual points.

I also never said that a person cant point out flaws in my arguments. I said (read carefully again) a person should not tease or make fun of an idea. this is what you did.

Not before addressing it fairly. I can start getting disrespectful and mocking after a while, if self-contradictions and mischaracterizations of the positions of others become a major part of someone's general posting repertoire. But yes, you are proving my point. If someone raises legitimate critique against your ideas, instead of responding to it, most of the time you end up doing as you do now, and call them meanies. Feel free to get to substance sometime soon.

Now here we are again, I make and idea and you assert its wrong, just for no reason other than you say its wrong, no evidence or counter arguments, no different idea, you just come in here and tell me Im wrong. well if Im wrong how about you do something other than just assert im wrong?

I said that you made no effort at substantiating your claim, eventhough now you say that you had presented evidence. I didn't outright say you were wrong about the content, but I can see how this may be read as me saying you are wrong about what happened in past conversations. I linked to the conversation in question where you and others can read up exactly what happened and judge for yourselves whose version of events better matches the records. You say you provided evidence in the form of a "logical idea", I say that it hardly qualifies as evidence in the first place, but even if it does, you did fail to draw the actual logical link beyond just asserting it, despite guiding questions being provided to aid your elaboration efforts.

I like your post, Fyxe. The content seems plausible to me; it is highly consistent with information I've seen shared with some other metaphysical writers from the East and the West.

I'm unable though to say either "Yes, that's right!" or "That isn't my experience." Experientially, I can relate the first two or three planes you describe to experiences I have had. To me (the limitation perhaps being my own), the rest seems theoretically possible but is nothing to which I can anchor in any personal experience.

I'm also unclear about how dimensions cross reference to planes - again the limitation being mine. I know contemporary physicists are now theorizing about ten dimensions and seven something elses (I have forgotten which term they use), but ... well, my physics education was a long, long time ago. We were taught there were just three subatomic particles and three physical dimensions - with speculation that maybe time was a fourth dimension. In today's world I hear all this talk about strings and ten dimensions and a cat that is both alive and dead, and I am lost. Occasionally I feel guilty now when I see roadkill, wondering if that poor animal would've made it across the street if I hadn't looked at it.

Anyway, perhaps there is more for many of us to learn along these lines. I wish it was as easy as "Take this course and you'll understand"; imo there are a lot of self-proclaimed teachers who will say that kind of thing, when ultimately the course just becomes a sales pitch for another course.

Omhu Cuspor wrote: ... well, my physics education was a long, long time ago. We were taught there were just three subatomic particles and three physical dimensions - with speculation that maybe time was a fourth dimension. In today's world I hear all this talk about strings and ten dimensions and a cat that is both alive and dead, and I am lost.

It's not that it was long ago, I don't think, rather you were given what was the most relevant knowledge in application at the time. Time has been treated as something quite like a fourth dimension pretty much since the days of Leibniz and Newton, though a strong incorporation into what we now know as space-time really happened with Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics, then Special Relativity in 1905 and General Relativity in 1915. Subatomic particles in most regular matter still remain essentially the three you learned about, at most with the addition that we now know that neutrons and protons can morph into one another in radioactive decay events. That there are more elementary particles however has also been known for quite a while. The muon was confirmed experimentally in 1937, for example. The sub-structure of protons and neutrons themselves was only suggested in and experimentally confirmed during the 1960's with string theory forming around the eve of that decade and the morn of the next. So that is admittedly more recent. Schrödinger's cat, on the other hand, was a thought experiment named after the very man who presented it in 1935 to illustrate (in an almost mocking tone) how unintuitive he felt dominant interpretations of quantum theory were.
The ten dimensions thing, though, is still barely taught even to physicists. String theories tend to require more than the four provided by special relativity. Ten is what superstring theory needs, but M-theory needs eleven, and bosonic string theory as many as 26! It is not entirely clear yet that the ten-dimensional superstring model is uniquely more accurate than competing ones. Not only that, but experimentally any of these extra dimensions have yet to be confirmed anyway, so in addition to the mathematical formalisms of the respective theories that can only maintain consistency when granted as many dimensions to work with, the models also have to include some account for how come we are (or so far seem to be, at least) barred from actually observing those extra dimensions or their effects. For a long time, this has been one of the strongest criticisms of string theories, as while they do unify much of physics into a basic abstract algebraic description, they do it by proposing things much further removed from observable nature than pretty much any other so exotic features formally defined in other areas for convenience.

[/nerdy aside]

Gisteron wrote: ... Schrödinger's cat, on the other hand, was a thought experiment named after the very man who presented it in 1935 to illustrate (in an almost mocking tone) how unintuitive he felt dominant interpretations of quantum theory were.

Well, geez, I didn't know that. Every time I've encountered a review of the Schrodinger's cat metaphor in (admittedly non-technical) literature, it's always been to provide a foundation for how, in the world of very small things, events actually occur - usually to convey a sense of amazement and wonder. Or maybe not ... maybe Schrodinger's mocking tone was actually printed in the book until I looked at it.

Anyway, I remain outclassed here. I don't even know how to put the two little dots above the "o", and can't differentiate between a boson and a bison.

Fyxe wrote: the new evidence that I present is a logical idea that if God existed logic would not. They are opposite ends of the spectrum and since we do have logic we cant have God.

This is the most ignorant thing I've heard today, and I use that term in the traditional sense.

Well

Your original post doesnt have any references to books, articles, videos or other material. Can you provide any that you have used to formulate your view?

Rosalyn J wrote: Well

Your original post doesnt have any references to books, articles, videos or other material. Can you provide any that you have used to formulate your view?

No one here has provided any such material. why do you single me out?
Besides that my guides dont write books, they dont really deal in material things.

Fyxe wrote: No one here has provided any such material. why do you single me out?

Because the burden of proof rests on you, since you're the one making the claims. We are under no obligation to do so.

So here's the thing...I guess. From what I understand, your guides have assisted you in a personal experience and you would you like to engage with us in a discussion about your personal experience.

Did I get that right?

Further, what qualifies as a nice interaction?

Im not trying to prove anything to anybody. Im just presenting Ideas and yes I would like to discuss those ideas and build on them. And yes these come from personal experience of myself mostly but I have spirit walked with my close friend and we have seen the same things.

A nice interaction is one that does not tease or make fun.

How would you like to grow your ideas? Are you ok with hearing ways in which the ideas you presented may be in error, according to others personal experiences?

I want to grow them by expanding on other experience and modifying accordingly. and of course Im open to error exploration

I disagree with your model but I like it and wish that I could agree with it.

I think often our construct of spirituality helps to determine our spiritual path. Therefore, it helps to create segments and strata by which you can "level up".

While I think the chakra system is one of the best views I can't logically imagine the Force in some higher plane of existence or outside of our reality. For me, it IS our reality. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. What I consider layers to reality is like the difference between atoms and how you can go inside to see subatomic particles, and inside them to see something smaller.

Dimensions are also thought to be separate from each other but they exist as different "surfaces" through everything exists in at once. A piece of paper, for example, seeming to be 2 dimensional but actually has more.

In theory, its the same reason that the Force can be said to be light or dark. Depends on what angle you're looking at it and how your limited vision intersects with it. At a certain level photons would just pass through so that level would be beyond sight.

So basically its hard to limit the Force by our perceptions. As other forces acting upon the Force, the Force balances itself, as a life form adapting to a new environment. This act of balancing causes creation and destruction, light and darkness, until beings emerge from it.

We all come from the Force but we don't all connect with it or to each other. When Yoda taught Luke he wanted him to see that the Force was everywhere, including between the ground and his x-wing. Not that canon trumps reality, but I think this was true. Everything is the Force but we disconnect from it and instead of seeing the Matrix code, we see all the shapes things we've identified and labeled and color coded and dewey decimal systemed. I'm using the Force right now in the form of a PC. But when we see it as strictly a magic power to possess and manipulate we don't see the forest for trees. We don't see that we already have it... because we are it. And we can understand the Force by understanding ourselves and our world.

It is human nature to personify the Force. That's why we created gods. It is human nature to want the Force to be something outside of ourselves that can potentially take on human characteristics. But it already has that. Through being you.

And so if you mixed the consciousness of all living creatures into a soup and the walls separating one mind from another were broken, that "collective consciousness" would be the conscious will of the Force. And the desires of that consciousness would be the desires of the Force. Therefore, by serving the greater good you serve the Force. If you seek the Force to serve you that is a path to the dark side. One the right hand, creation. On the left, destruction. For me, understanding this relationship is the foundation for my Jedi path.

ZealotX wrote: I disagree with your model but I like it and wish that I could agree with it. ... (+ more)

I don't wish to diminish any post in this thread (or any post anywhere, for that matter) but - wow, Zealot, I think that is my favorite short essay I have ever read in the Temple. It resonates so closely to the way life has revealed itself to me, through whatever relative degree of clarity my perceptions allow.

I have not regularly kept a handwritten journal, but I am going to start now and that post is going to be the first thing in it. Thank you!

Omhu Cuspor wrote:

ZealotX wrote: I disagree with your model but I like it and wish that I could agree with it. ... (+ more)

I don't wish to diminish any post in this thread (or any post anywhere, for that matter) but - wow, Zealot, I think that is my favorite short essay I have ever read in the Temple. It resonates so closely to the way life has revealed itself to me, through whatever relative degree of clarity my perceptions allow.

I have not regularly kept a handwritten journal, but I am going to start now and that post is going to be the first thing in it. Thank you!

I am humbled by that. Thank you.