Hello everyone.

I would like to initiate a new discussion centering around the following premise:

Even if throughout the extreme vastness of space-time that our planet earth is the only place where consciousness exists, which in itself is an extremely improbable concept, then how is it possible that the universe could have ever come about without consciousness along with all other things existing in a subtle or causal form?

In other words, how can consciousness (*meaning intelligence), or perhaps even the basic potential for it, even if it supposedly evolved only after billions of years not have been an integral part of the fundamental origin of all things contained within the universe to begin with, just like everything else in the universe?

How can this be possible?

From any logical standpoint, conscious intelligence MUST have been part of the origin of the universe just as all other things are and were, and in fact it is even more highly likely that it came first, considering that consciousness and intelligence clearly have varying degrees of power over nature, thus deeply implying that consciousness has a fundamental existence alongside energy and matter on the most basic of levels, if not in fact being the very source of their origin.

Further, if however this concept is impossible, then how could consciousness ever have developed in the first place?

Please don't try to insert Darwin's theory of evolution here, because even Darwin himself admitted that he had no clear idea of where life itself came from, and if life can come from dead matter, then why haven't any of the greatest scientific minds in world history been able to create even one small example of a life form from dead inert chemicals?

I welcome your thoughts on this subject.

Peace.

CM.

Evolution. Simple to complex. Basic building blocks combining in a virtually infinite number of locations over billions of years produces more complex phenomenon. Where is "wetness" in hydrogen or oxygen? It was never "contained" within hydrogen nor oxygen, but a result of the combination. It did not "come from" anywhere -- it was inevitable byproduct of the building blocks of matter.

No. Just like micro processors, hot dogs, and DVDs of Pamela Anderson are not part of the origin of the universe. They are a byproduct of it (indirectly).
The universe had 13.7 billion years, humans have been working on it for just about 50 -- and we are awfully close. Besides, argument from ignorance -- just because we currently cannot do it, does not mean it cannot be done. And even if we can't do it, doesn't mean a god did.

Sir, with all due respect, if you admit that there were building blocks in the beginning, then they must somehow have been created...unless of course they had an origin that was more subtle than pure "matter" generally speaking, which if that was the case, you will then have to admit that subtle matter exists, along with the capability of design inherent within the very concept of subtle matter itself.

Once that jump has been made, which must occur in order to admit the very existence of this universe, the next logical jump to a creative intelligence is not very far away, now is it?

Why do you insist upon denying the possible existence of an eternal cosmic intelligence that has the power to create the universe?

Is this idea too threatening for you?

Awfully close?

Are you kidding me sir?

With the billions of dollars being spent on the Large Hadron Collider and the depth of knowledge that the scientists running it have, this is all you can say..."We are awfully close"?

And yet you have the gall to claim that there is no guiding cosmic intelligence behind this universe as if it were and absolute 100% hands down fact!

I really think you need to take a good look at your own thought process for a minute and see if you are perhaps being a bit too hasty in your rush to judgement on the God issue.

Cheers sir.

Cm.

Step out of your dogma Christopher, and you will see that you are not only begging the question, but setting up a false dichotomy. Your a priori assumption is that anything at the "beginning" had to have been "created". Neither one of us can have an intelligent conversation about what happened before the Big Bang, but we could intelligently conclude that there are other options to "being created".

Christopher, you seem to be learning theology from Depak Chopra. This is like learning how to play baseball from Betty Crocker.

Why do you insist on asking questions that fabricate your opponents' position? This makes you lose credibility, and if you are doing accidentally, you might want to be more careful. I never denied such a possibility in my prior post, any post, or any of my writings. Of course this possibility exists -- but I have seen no credible evidence for it -- just typical narrative based on pseudo-science (at best) which relies heavily on our ignorance of the universe.

I stated this before: you are confused as to the purpose of the Hadron Collider. Please, do yourself a favor and Google "God Particle". You will see that it has NOTHING to do with God.
I can tell you are outraged by my lack of adopting your dogma. Don't be. Consider what evidence you have and realize that what I said is true. There is no evidence for Chopra's "cosmic intelligence" -- all we have is an incomplete understanding of consciousness. Again, I am certainly open to the possibility (far from your unjustified claim of "100% hands down fact!"). It is you, Christopher, that appear to hold your theistic beliefs with 100% certainty, thus the outrage as demonstrated by comments like, "Are you kidding me sir?"
Thank you for the advice, Christopher. But being a full-time philosopher and author on these issues, I think my conclusions are well justified based on the evidence available. Now, if you have evidence of God and this "universal consciousness", not speculation based on our ignorance, I suggest your present it, along with your conclusion. Then we can have a productive conversation.

As always, thank you for your post, sir.

"Step out of your dogma Christopher..."

Bo, is this an order, or a suggestion?

If it is a suggestion, then you are seriously diminishing and undermining whatever supposed credibility that you imagine you have as a quote, unquote..."philosopher" Bo...and if you aren't undermining yourself, then is this an exemplary manner of how philosophers should speak to "normal" people like myself?.

I would tend to think not sir.

Conversely, if it is an order, then I am certain that you won't mind if I give you an order in return right now, will you?

Here it is Bo:

* Please stop giving people unwarranted and un-solicited orders, (*and that's an order Bo!).

Secondly, considering your order that I "Step out of my Dogma", I am now supplying the Merriam Webster definition of the word Dogma for you, in the interests of shedding more light on whether either of us is actually adhering to any authentic type of "Dogma" or not, or if it is simply a smoke screen put up by persons apparently like yourself who attempt to appear more intelligent by insulting others and putting them down for whatever their personal beliefs or understandings happen to be.

Okay, here goes:
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Definition of DOGMA (*Merriam Websters)

1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
__________________________________________________________________________________

Bo, according to both of these definitions from Merriam Webster's dictionary, your assertion that I even have a Dogma to "Step out of" is 100% completely unfounded, erroneous and baseless.

The reason being, that first and foremost, since I am not basing my understanding upon the typical believer's and/or theist's point of view, and I am in fact only basing my understanding of God and the spiritual life upon actual experiences that I have had in my lifetime, your assumption that I am adhering to any type of "Dogma" whatsoever is completely ludicrous, as I have no Dogma to either hold on to or to "Step out of" Bo.

At the end of the day, no matter how you slice it, a person's life experiences simply cannot be taken away from them no matter how hard you try to achieve it.

That's gotta be a tough pill for a guy (*oh, excuse me..."philosopher") like you to swallow...no?

So on this level, I must now tell you Bo that you are wasting your time trying to convince me or anyone like me otherwise, just as I am certain that I would be wasting my time trying to convince you that God does indeed exist without bringing Him to your doorstep and personally introducing Him to you, and since the only way to God is through devotion, this is an event that for you is extremely unlikely to happen in your lifetime...unless of course that the Lord Himself wills it to be.

Next Bo, as a supposed philosopher, how do you expect to be taken seriously, when all of the most intelligent scientists in the world will readily admit that the universe has been created, even though most of them will naturally refuse to engage in any public debate on the God issue for the most part (*some do, but most won't touch it publicly).

Who says you have to admit that God exists in order to state the obvious fact that the universe has in fact been created by some unknown and extremely powerful force?

If your intention is to remain in an intelligent-looking position Bo, then my un-solicited advice to you on this point is to simply go along with the well-paid scientists, and admit the fact that we are living in a cosmic creation...it's really easy actually...you just start by thinking it, and then you just admit it, that's all.

And you know, by the way...Deepak Chopra is a gentleman of absolutely excellent character and super-high intelligence Bo.

It's easy to see from all of the best-selling books that he writes, as well as all of the major celebrities who endorse him, so thanks for alluding to him Bo, he's a great guy, even though again, I am basing all of my conclusions about the God issue on my own experiences throughout the duration of my life, and not on much else.

Now, briefly back to the "Dogma" issue:

Bo, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, your stance as an agnostic atheist does indeed fit the description of a "Dogma"-oriented thought process, and yet you seem to hold the supposed Dogmatic beliefs of others in a state of absolute mental disdain.

Why the dichotomy Bo?

Some would even venture to call an attitude such as this being "two-faced", however, I am willing to entertain the idea that you must have a perfectly plausible explanation for these two radically differing internal viewpoints, so please be my guest now and as they say..."Explain it to me" Bo.

I mean seriously...why is it okay for you to hold a Dogmatic point of view concerning agnostic atheism, but it's not okay for others to hold their Dogmatic viewpoints, no matter what their brand of faith or religious persuasion?

If you do not agree that your agnostic atheist viewpoint falls into the category of being typically Dogmatic, I think you are in for a bit of a surprise Bo.

The 1st definition of Dogma according to Merriam-Webster's is again as follows:

1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds

Bo, is your agnostic/atheistic opinion on the God issue not a publicly held and established viewpoint?

So again, why the negative attitude from you about the supposedly Dogmatic viewpoints of others, (*which again, mine is clearly not), when you are so lenient upon yourself for holding the very same concept so dearly, only from an entirely different angle?

What gives Bo?

And if there's no cosmic intelligence, then in pure theory, neither you, me nor anyone you know has any intelligence whatsoever, as from your point of view, intelligence cannot exist as part of the fabric of the universe Bo.

Oh and incidentally, since you mentioned her, here's an excellent baseball cake recipe from Betty Crocker Bo:

www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/peanut-cere...11-97a3-42a81c3751d9

Cheers.

CM.

About 80% of your post is a personal attack. If you want a serious discussion, please post your argument as suggested.

Bo, if you are against personal attacks, then why do you yourself use them to insult others and put them down for their beliefs and understandings?

And further, why have you ignored the questions that I posed to you in my last post?

CM.

I can tell you are a young guy, probably in your late teens -- and I wouldn't usually address you in the same tone had I remembered. I apologize for anything you perceived as a personal attack, and I will be more conscious of this in the future.

To your questions regarding religion/faith/God.

You have made a strong claim here that in my experience, is blatantly untrue. Please provide sources to back up this claim that, "when all of the most intelligent scientists in the world will readily admit that the universe has been created".

You are equivocating the word "created". I do believe that a force proceeded the Big Bang, but it was no more "created" then two hydrogen and an oxygen molecule getting together to "create" water.

Again, references please.

I am not sure I understand your question. Please rephrase and I will do my best to answer.

Please explain how "cosmic intelligence" is a per-requisite for human intelligence. And does this mean that there is a "cosmic school bus" because school buses exist? I really just do not understand your claim here -- or your justification for it.

Bo,

Regarding your apology, it is accepted...however, I find your assumption that I am a teenager to be somewhat laughable, considering first that your typical atheistic arrogance appears to be fully intact, thus essentially nullifying your apology to me at least somewhat, and secondly because I am in fact a nearly 50 year old man sir.

Ironically though, I do appreciate the inadvertent compliment from you Bo...thanks.

Next time however, in the interests of at least attempting to preserve your own image as a decent philosopher, you might try to tone down the haughty attitude a bit by first asking a person their age rather than making an assumption about it.

(*And incidentally, if you try to use this last statement about not making assumptions against me directly and/or any of my my philosophical statements, then you will first have to make absolute certain that you are not assuming anything in relation to your beliefs about God and the universe yourself...careful there Bo!)

Now, concerning your answers to my questions, first, here is a direct quote from Albert Einstein on the concept of "Creation":

“What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.”
- Albert Einstein

Bo, it is clearly obvious that the greatest scientific mind of the 20th century believes quite firmly in the very basic concept of creation, without needing to bow to any type of faith-based philosophy whatsoever to make his statement...so what is the big difficulty with you admitting this so extremely obvious of facts to both yourself and the rest of the world?

(*I insist, you will NOT have to give up the belief that there may be no God in order to admit this extremely basic of ideas, so don't worry here Bo).

Please understand that saying the universe has not been created is tantamount to saying that it does not exist at all, so again, whilst you may (*falsely mind you) claim that my statement is untrue, there will come a point when you will have to either admit it, or risk looking kind of...well, let's just say...simple.

Now Bo, regarding your not understanding my question about agnostic atheism clearly being a Dogmatic belief system, please re-read the definitions of the word Dogma from Merriam Webster that I supplied to you in my earlier post, and compare your philosophy of agnostic atheism to the concept of Dogma, and I am certain that if you are being honest with yourself that you will see quite plainly that your agnostic atheistic belief system is in all seriousness a Dogma-based philosophy requiring faith in order to maintain the belief in it.

Next, concerning the "Cosmic Intelligence" issue, please answer the following question directly Bo:

* If the universe has no fundamental intelligence at it's core, then how could anything in the universe ever have or develop intelligence in any way, shape or form Bo?

Stating that the universe is essentially "dumb" or "intelligence-less", is inadvertently stating that your own intelligence has no real basis for existence itself...no?

And lastly, regarding the "Cosmic School Bus", this question you have put forth is essentially a futile attempt at belittling an extremely powerful concept.

Bo, since it is clear that you possess at least some vestige of intelligence as a human being, it should not be difficult for you to admit that physical objects such as school buses and the intelligence contained within a conscious sentient being are two drastically different things.

All I am suggesting here is that since all physical objects have an origin source, that further, all subtle objects and/or energies such as the mind etc. also have an origin source, and this is what rightfully can be deemed "the Mind Of God".

Cheers Bo.

CM.

Christopher, Albert Einstein was an agnostic, and firmly rejected the idea of a personal God. I have read the book "Einstein's God" which carefully examined how he viewed "God" (more as a force). I can assure you, he believed nothing of what you consider "creation". Regardless, your claim was, "when all of the most intelligent scientists in the world". One scientist would hardly justify your claim. Care to withdraw your claim? Or offer a reasonable evidence for "when all of the most intelligent scientists in the world..."

Your assumption here is that everything that must exist, must have been "created", in other words, you are assuming your conclusion in your statement. You need to prove that existence entails creation -- which you can't. If this is all about tautology, and you simply want to use "creation" as the word for not existing, then existing, then fine. But I think you are fishing for a "creator" here.

Atheism is simply the NON belief in any gods. If I am "dogmatic" about that, then you are "dogmatic" about not believing in leprechauns. If you disagree, please explain to me the difference.

Because intelligence arises as a result complexity. It is a result of more simple phenomenon, Christopher. Again, this is like saying if the universe did not have school buses at its core, how could anything in the universe resemble a school bus. Or, if we accept the Christian God, if God is not evil at his core, how could anything in the universe be evil?

Respectfully, you have a real issue with misrepresenting other's positions (creating a strawman), and now that I know you are not a teenager, I can't excuse you for not knowing any better. I never claimed the universe was "dumb". Plus, I demonstrated my position how intelligence evolved -- at least for humans, a well-accepted scientific fact.

You missed the point of the analogy. A school bus is not part of the "foundation of the universe" in any recognizable form, yet it exists today. Intelligence did not have to be either. Both intelligence and school buses are result of going from the simple to complex.

Christopher, it appears to me that you are still just appealing to ignorance. We don't have all the answers when it comes to intelligence, consciousness, and the mind, so you are inserting God. Your hope is because the atheist cannot explain something, you think "God" can explain it -- but God is not an explanation; it is a substitution for "magic".

You have yet to make any kind of positive claim -- at least a clear one that I recognized. What is your claim? What is your argument? If you make an intelligible argument, then myself and others can tell you where we agree and where we disagree. I would encourage you to give that a try, from my experience, it is the most productive way to proceed.

Thanks Christopher.

CMax writes:

One answer:
Endless Permutation. Even the simplest of programs yield very complex results, without any "agent" directing anything. The possibility of consciousness just being one of a virtual infinite variety of possibilities could be the case.

But I do agree with the basic premise of your wonder: that being of the evolution of consciousness itself. How does matter/energy without consciousness, become conscious?

It almost appears impossible, unless matter/energy already posses consciousness. To evolve in any other way would seem (or actually be) life coming from death. How does the equivalent of a rock suddenly become not only aware, but self aware! Isn't that the essence of the question?

And soconcluding
It is certainly possible, if consciousness has an independent status (e.g. can exist on its own without a host body), but that would make consciousness an independent form of matter/energy that only appears to require a host. This of course has never been demonstrated, but the reverse has. We only witness consciousness within the confines of a central nervous system.

To have consciousness without a host body would imply an alternate body ALSO with a central nervous system, otherwise how could it: hear (requires antennae like vibration gathering ability), smell (requires an olfactory apparatus that samples molecules in the environment and catalogs them into unique experiences that can be recalled), sight (requires a light gathering mechanism by which the surrounding world could be matched via an inner "model" of what that light represents thus forming its view of "world") and so forth.

In the absence of a body, one must ask "conscious of what?" The world we experience is a system of senses that form our ego, or self identification juxtaposed to the outside world. Without sensing mechanisms, there is nothing that can be sensed, and thus nothing to be aware of. Even if we had existence, we would have no way of knowing it.

I believe you are interpreting "consciousness" much like an element; as a quantitative substance that permeates matter/energy in clumps (i.e. in a body), but nevertheless has an independent existence from that body, making the body only a temporary vessel.

Am I far off in this interpretation?

what is it this site has done to me...and probably many others??
Its been eating away my faith...God willing He will keep me in His sight...but yes, I have been loosing sight
maybe its just been everything I have been going through in my life too...Why am I loosing sight of God...this site has to do with it

Karl,

Don't let that happen! Spend some time visiting other sites that are Christian. You need to refuel yourself with the right stuff. I've said it before and will say it again, this is not a site for babes or those who are weak in faith. You have always come off the loudest on here, defending what you believe. Don't let anything rob you of that. You need pray and read your bible. Stop spending all your time on here, reading what is being said. Seek God so He can strengthen you.

I love you man!

Karl,

This is for you! Let it go deep into your heart

Karl, Good to hear from you again!

Respectfully, I disagree with Linda's suggestion. The best thing you can do is be exposed to different opinions -- this is the heart of critical thinking. Even if you take Linda's advice and shut yourself off from the world of information (and truth) you will always now know that you are hiding from something. Yes, visit Christian websites and watch Christian youtube videos -- but for every Christian one, watch one from a secular perspective as well (great website is www.exchristian.net - very supportive community).

We are all you here for you Karl, the Christians, creationists, secularists, agnostics, and atheists. This is a great place to be. Stick around.

If you like humor, and very sincere story about one woman's journey of letting go of God, listen to this (Julia Sweeny played the "Pat" character on SNL)

Bo,

Several of your answers are in my opinion coming from such a bizarre place that I truly feel that no amount of reasoning with you on these subjects will ever have any appreciable degree of impact on your core beliefs, so for this reason, I will wait until you have come to a firmer understanding of the possibilities that life has to offer before entering into any further serious discussions with you again on these subjects.

However...@Aces Lucky:

Your very last statement has essentially touched on the heart of the real subject, and I found it to be a beautiful explanation...check it out:

"I believe you are interpreting "consciousness" much like an element; as a quantitative substance that permeates matter/energy in clumps (i.e. in a body), but nevertheless has an independent existence from that body, making the body only a temporary vessel.

Am I far off in this interpretation?"

Aces, not only are you not far off in your summation, you are in my opinion virtually square on the money sir.

Consciousness is indeed like another element, only it is far, far subtler and finer in essence than any material element in existence, to such a degree that it has a different nature than matter altogether, which is why it is called "spiritual", because it is non-material by nature.

And further, consciousness has both the capacity for outer awareness and inner or "self" awareness, as well as the ability to control nature in varying degrees depending upon it's evolution, based upon it's first main property, being that of absolute free will.

The reason why I and many others feel that God must in fact exist is because since everything has an origin source, then all consciousness must also have an origin source, meaning that somewhere there must exist a literally infinite ocean of pure consciousness, and it is this that we are referring to as "God".

And the reason why God cannot be "seen" typically speaking is because for the most part, most people are conditioned to believe that only that which is material has any credible existence, but I feel quite sincerely that time will prove that this is in fact not the case.

It is in a way quite similar to how it would be if we were able to go back in time 200 years and have a discussion with an attorney about "Intellectual Property Rights"...he would laugh you out of the room because intellectual property would have had no tangibly "real" existence for him to make a case from, based upon the level of understanding of the people of the time.

In a similar way, it is entirely conceivable that 200 years from now, we might very well be having discussions about "Spiritual Property Rights"!

Cheers to you for your excellent summation Aces.

All the best.

CM.

CM,

If consciousness " has an independent existence from that body, making the body only a temporary vessel", what happens to it when we sleep?

CMax

I am curious. In your assessment, is a consciousness (let's call it a spiritual body), that is without a physical body, separate from other spiritual bodies; or is it a part of an overall body since it has no physical boundaries?

In other words, are spiritual bodies uniquely contained unto itself (as a physical body is) or is it without boundary and merges with other spiritual bodies?

Because you make this statement:It sounds like each spiritual body is contained unto itself; would that be correct?

And if so, especially since you talk about "spiritual property rights" are you conceiving the spiritual as simply a "finer" grade of the physical? (I think you used the term "subtler.")

And if that too is correct, would you be willing to call this "finer" level of existence, rightfully a "plane" of existence, co-permeating the other planes (i.e. physical plane, etc)?

I accept the possibilities that I think you are proposing, but you have yet to make any positive argument, so I cannot know for sure what it is you are proposing... "cosmic consciousness"? What you have not demonstrated is the necessity, or even probability of your "cosmic consciousness". In addition, I have repeatedly shot down your sensationalists claims one after another, calling you out on factual errors and inexcusable hyperbole (Einstein believed in creation, "when all of the most intelligent scientists in the world will readily admit that the universe has been created", Large Haydron Collider has to do with God, etc.) I urge you to make an argument, as I think you will get further in your debate.

Dear Bo,

Due to the obviously hostile and arrogant nature of your posts to me, I have essentially lost interest in debating with you.

Your claim about having "shot down" my "sensationalist claims" is patently ludicrous, as you have in fact done nothing but obfuscate the very bold statements I am making by simply attempting to act as though you have won the debate, when in fact no such win from your side has ever occurred, nor will ever occur until you can hands-down prove that there is no such thing as either a "cosmic consciousness" or the supreme Divine Reality of God himself.

What has without question become crystal clear to me is that you are far more interested in being right than really finding what what the actual definitive truth might be, regardless if whether accepting that truth may mean having to abandon any of your former ideas that may factually have been rooted in ignorance.

Because of this, it has become impossible for me to take you seriously as an authentic debator, and thus I am essentially pulling the plug on any further discussions with you personally until I observe a clear "about-face" in your general attitude, (*and not your essential beliefs mind you, as because we all have free will, I both honor and respect the free will which God has granted to you for you to believe whatever you wish to believe about anything whatsoever).

Lastly, in closing, I will out of the simple desire to clarify the two points you made in your last post to me give you my final answers...namely:

1. When I stated that all of the most intelligent scientists in the world will readily admit that the universe has been created, it does not mean that they of necessity have to believe in God, rather, that they admit the simple fact that something extremely powerful no matter what it's essential constituency may be has most certainly created this universe, or it factually could have no existence whatsoever...end point.

Even a person who has virtually no knowledge whatsoever can both readily see and admit that no matter if a supreme entity or nothing at all has brought this universe into existence, the pure and simpler fact of it's existence is visible proof of the fact that it has most certainly been created by something (*or in God's case, some-ONE).

And lastly...

2. Regarding the Large Hadron Collider and "The God Particle" as it has been termed...this partcle is so imperceptibly small that it's very existence as a material object is in serious question, and it is for this reason that I have made the comparison to the concept of God, because all descriptions from almost every major religion in the world about God from a conceptual standpoint states that his very existence is of a non-material or "spiritual" nature.

The extremely intelligent and highly paid scientists at CERN in Switzerland will readily state that this particle may factually have no material existence, and it is for this very reason that the Higgs Field Boson has been dubbed..."The God Particle".

The Sunday School is dismissed Bo.

With my kindest regards.

CM.

Once again, you are making claims that are simply untrue, or at least quoting inaccurate sources (please state your source).

The term was dubbed that by Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?
"Lederman said he gave it the nickname 'The God Particle' because the particle is 'so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive,' but jokingly added that a second reason was because 'the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing.' "

(source: Ian Sample (29 May 2009). "Anything but the God particle". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 24 June 2009.)

Chris, I am really sorry you feel that way. I certainly don't mean to be neither hostile nor arrogant, perhaps it is just our styles of debate are very incompatible. I will do my best to refrain from getting involved in debates with you -- there are plenty of others here to keep you busy

All my best to you.

Andrew, concerning your question, the soul either rests within the body during sleep, or travels out of it into the astral realms of the universal mind, in order to either re-juvenate itself or to engage in other types of experiences which are not possible to have in the physical realm.

It is very common for the spirit-self to dis-connect somewhat from the physical body and float either around or above it during sleep, and this is when a fascinating common occurrance tends to happen:

Have you ever been sleeping, only to wake up and not be able to move your physical body?

This happens because you have travelled outside of the body for some duration of time, only to wake up, trying desperately to move your limbs but you simply cannot achieve this most basic of acts because you are not 100% situated back in your body yet.

I hope this answers your question.

Cheers Andrew.

CM.

@Aces:

Regarding your questions:

1. According to ancient Hindu Vedas which are highly advanced spiritual texts, the individual self is a direct emanation of the pure consciousness of the supreme Lord God, known also as Isvara or Paramatma, while the individual soul is called the Jiva or Atma, meaning that it has acquired a "suit" if you will of the limited mind, ego and senses, thus allowing the soul to have the experience of both enjoying and suffering in the material universes separately from God, and to evolve spiritually and intellectually to the eventual point of complete and total spiritual enlightenment.

So from this perspective, in truth the eternal bond between the individual soul and God is never broken at any time, but the illusion of this separation is so deeply and profoundly rooted in the psyche of the soul that it is experienced as entirely real by the spirit soul throughout his sojourn through what they call "Samsara" or the great wheel of birth and death in this material cosmos.

The only way out of this continual cycle of being born and undergoing the physical process of death is to live a life dedicated to becoming and remaining spiritually enlightened, which is no "light" matter.

It is for this reason that many to most human beings refuse to engage in any extensive kind of spiritual practice, until it is literally too late, when the time of departure from this world is at hand.

It is however possible for the soul to either merge into the great ocean of consciousness (*God) or to remain as an independent, limited ego-construct bearing individual, but the former of these is only possible by performing very intense spiritual practices for a very long time, and quite honestly, there are better options than either of these scenarios, but I am certain that likely no-one in this forum is really ready for this discussion at present.

Now concerning "Spiritual Property Rights", I was in reality joking on the subject, however in principle it is not entirely impossible to rule out of the equation.

And yes, all of the different levels of existence can be called either as "planes" or "dimensions", with the only difference being that the extremely subtle areas would be called subtle or "spiritual" dimensions, wheareas the more gross dimensions would be called "material" dimensions, etc..

I hope that I have answered all of your questions satisfactorily Aces.

Cheers.

CM.

CM,

So our soul, which gives us free will, leaves our physical body when we sleep to experience other unknown experiences. Why do we not remember any of this?

CM wrote;
This is a well documented occurrence called 'Sleep Paralysis.'

[url=http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep_paralysis[/url]

Just like at one time we had not yet circumnavigated the earth.


Isn't that like saying "I won't have a debate with you if you keep countering my positional agruements? And do it in a nicer way."