The Simple Experiment

Ok, try this thought TWT:

(Let me preface this with the fact that if there is an all knowing entity of some sort, it most assuredly is nothing like what we think it is, nor is it anywhere near approaching human. So with that being said...)

What if you were this all knowing entity (God, as you put it). And let's say consciousness is primary and fundamental. Meaning it pervades everything you think is "real". There is no distinction between "the sun" and "consciousness". How do you show someone that the consciousness they experience everyday, all around them 24/7, even in their sleep, IS consciousness? You're essentially saying to this entity "prove it". But what if by your mere existence here, in this life, in this body on this planet with the self-same sun you can "feel" IS the proof you so desire?
Perhaps you need to be more specific in your inquiry. Ask in a point blank way, in no uncertain terms what it is that would "prove" to you the existence of more than this "human reality".

And be prepared for the answer to be a pathway that opens to you, that brings people and opportunity into your life that can help lead you to the answers you seek, as opposed to just a straight up answer like god appearing before you asking "Hey, what's up TWT, you called?" In other words, answers can be found, but you must put in the work. Not to say your being lazy about it, but I think too often people want it to be like a Google search. Instant gratification with little work. Formulate the questions, precisely, that you feel you need answers to in order to fulfill what you think your life purpose to be. Then be prepared to be shown a way to find these answers. Remain open, even if the answers aren't what you want or expect. Do the work. ;)

I think of all the times that I picked up a book, not really knowing much about it or expecting much, and it changes my perspective. That somehow it's what I needed just then, but didn't know it.

Also keep in mind, perhaps what you are wanting at this time is not what is in your higher selves best interest. I do believe that what we come to learn is given when we are ready. Otherwise, we may misunderstand, ignore or misinterpret what we are given.

It may not ever come as a "eureka!" moment. It may be slow, subtle changes over time that comes to be a knowing at the core of your being. For some it is some big life changing moment. And I don't know why that is. I can only surmise that perhaps that is part of their journey, their work.

Another thought to take into consideration is the idea that the "veil" so to speak is in place for a reason. We cannot be so focused on what comes after death, that we forget to live.

Thank you for your post Vault313, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm frustrated because I have friends who are born again Christians, and friends who are atheist materialists, and they're both so passionate that their view is right that I feel like a ship tossed around in a storm, I don't really know who's right.

What's worse is that if I choose to find God, there are 10,000 religions to choose from, 10,000 different shades of faith. I don't have time to sift through them all and find which one is right for me, and furthermore, sift through them based on what, rationality? So I appealed to God. I don't mind putting in work-- in fact, I'm sure I would enjoy it-- it's just a matter of knowing which direction to step in. I guess I was expecting instant gratification. After six months of praying, I really expected that by now something would've happened, something I could not dismiss as coincidence or imagination. A lot of the topics covered here on Skeptiko go over my head, so I thought, there has to be an experiment to find out who is right, that's so simple that even those with little background in STEM fields can do it.
 
Another thought to take into consideration is the idea that the "veil" so to speak is in place for a reason. We cannot be so focused on what comes after death, that we forget to live.

I do agree with you on that, Vault. It's as if the One, in moving from The Potential To Be Everything, into actually becoming a specific, particularized something, ie "you", must deliberately "forget" that it is also "not-you." A request to connect back with Oneness is in effect a request to have this you / not-you forgetting effaced...at least temporarily. But it would seem that this (*normally*) sets up a kind of contradiction in the system. Because you, as you, are in this context desiring to efface this cosmic forgetting, but at the same time, you as the deep self of That Which Is, remembers full well why the forgetting was set in place...and likely ponders that it cannot grant too many of these "requests," because that forgetting is what holds the world in place.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your post Vault313, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'm frustrated because I have friends who are born again Christians, and friends who are atheist materialists, and they're both so passionate that their view is right that I feel like a ship tossed around in a storm, I don't really know who's right.

What's worse is that if I choose to find God, there are 10,000 religions to choose from, 10,000 different shades of faith. I don't have time to sift through them all and find which one is right for me, and furthermore, sift through them based on what, rationality? So I appealed to God. I don't mind putting in work-- in fact, I'm sure I would enjoy it-- it's just a matter of knowing which direction to step in. I guess I was expecting instant gratification. After six months of praying, I really expected that by now something would've happened, something I could not dismiss as coincidence or imagination. A lot of the topics covered here on Skeptiko go over my head, so I thought, there has to be an experiment to find out who is right, that's so simple that even those with little background in STEM fields can do it.
Well, you're in good company here. A lot of us on these forums have felt the same way. I myself have felt lost at which way to turn, what or who to believe. So I started meditating. Nothing crazy, just sitting quietly, maybe listening to some very peaceful ambient music (no lyrics) and just emptying your mind of thoughts. There are books out there that focus only on meditation without all the transcendental stuff. I started with a book called The Calm Technique. It's great for beginners and it's a simple and straight forward method. Once you've mastered that, then if you feel so inclined, try transcendental meditation, though most people would recommend a guide for this technique.

But really, learning to calm your mind, emptying it of all anxiety and stress really helps to focus on what you are really feeling. I think you'll find your intuition can more easily come to the fore and be a guide for you. You'd be surprised at how often the answers can be found within yourself if you calm all the chaos in your mind.

You sound as though you may have a background in Christianity. It can be a bit hard, IMO, when searching for your truth when your mind is crowded with dogma. Not that there aren't positive things to be found in Christianity, but it can also hold you back when you cling to ideas of what things are supposed to be, as opposed to being open to the truth of what is, even if it's nothing like you expected.
 
Well, you're in good company here. A lot of us on these forums have felt the same way. I myself have felt lost at which way to turn, what or who to believe. So I started meditating. Nothing crazy, just sitting quietly, maybe listening to some very peaceful ambient music (no lyrics) and just emptying your mind of thoughts. There are books out there that focus only on meditation without all the transcendental stuff. I started with a book called The Calm Technique. It's great for beginners and it's a simple and straight forward method. Once you've mastered that, then if you feel so inclined, try transcendental meditation, though most people would recommend a guide for this technique.

But really, learning to calm your mind, emptying it of all anxiety and stress really helps to focus on what you are really feeling. I think you'll find your intuition can more easily come to the fore and be a guide for you. You'd be surprised at how often the answers can be found within yourself if you calm all the chaos in your mind.

You sound as though you may have a background in Christianity. It can be a bit hard, IMO, when searching for your truth when your mind is crowded with dogma. Not that there aren't positive things to be found in Christianity, but it can also hold you back when you cling to ideas of what things are supposed to be, as opposed to being open to the truth of what is, even if it's nothing like you expected.

Thank you for your suggestion, I'm going to start some basic meditation tonight.
 
I do agree with you on that, Vault. It's as if the One, in moving from The Potential To Be Everything, into actually becoming a specific, particularized something, ie "you", must deliberately "forget" that it also "not-you." A request to connect back with Oneness is in effect a request to have this you / not-you forgetting effaced...at least temporarily. But it would seem that this (*normally*) sets up a kind of contradiction in the system. Because you, as you, are in this context desiring to efface this cosmic forgetting, but at the same time, you as the deep self of That Which Is, remembers full well why the forgetting was set in place...and likely ponders that it cannot grant too many of these "requests," because that forgetting is what holds the world in place.

Exactly. I think that without some separation, it would either make whatever work there is to be done here even more difficult than it already is, or possibly negate all purpose of existing in the physical.

Perhaps that is why hardcore spiritual experiences are more rare. If we really pay attention to what actually happens to those who have these experiences, especially NDEs, it turns their whole world upside down and they often struggle to cope.

Perhaps the messages we receive from "beyond the veil", as it were, are ever so subtle precisely because of the potential for confusion and an inability to do what needs to be done. So we get just enough to remind us that there is more than what there appears to be, so as not to be completely lost in the illusion, but not so much we forget the work that needs to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kai
You may simply want to try a different communication frequency. I've had my best luck contacting The Higher Power at 156.8 MHz. Interestingly, He appears to me as a Norwegian ship captain in the North Atlantic. He says if I follow Him, I will understand the true nature of Cod.... (I hope occasional levity is acceptable on this forum!)
 
Believing that an similar experiment is possible to show an enormous ingenuity.To the field of parapsychology it is too complex for such a thing posible.
 
I have an idea for a second experiment, I'd like to run it past y'all before I start it tonight.

Before I go to sleep, I'll meditate, listening to a white noise generator app, until I fall asleep. Then, in the morning, I'll record what I dreamt (if I can remember it). My hypothesis is that if I calm my conscious mind and listen to a white noise generator, then my dreams will be less influenced by my conscious mind, allowing my unconscious mind more opportunity to communicate in the dream.

I'll continue recording my dreams in this fashion, hoping to find anomalies (such as dreaming about a person and that person calling me out of the blue). I've heard of people getting spiritual communication in dreams, maybe instead of reaching out to God and my guides (if they exist), I should let them come to me.

Any thoughts? I'm open to suggestions for tweaking.
 
That occurred to me, but what other question can I ask to gather evidence, or dare I say proof, that God (or whatever other name) exists, than to point blank ask, "dear God, will you please reveal yourself to me in a way that I can understand the event was designed by you?"

If you ask me, the error is that you have an ill-conceived notion of God if you think it would work that way.
 
If you ask me, the error is that you have an ill-conceived notion of God if you think it would work that way.

That's highly likely. I've been exposed to and lived several worldviews in my short life, my notion of God is probably warped. Some days, I view God as a loving force which wants the best for me. Some days I view God as an anthropomorphic, wrathful being, demanding sacrifice and blood. Some days I view God as nonexistent. I don't know which view is the right one. That's the driving force behind my experimentation. I've realized calling for God to present Its ID is silly at best, dangerous at worst. So I'm trying to open my mind and let God come to me at its own will.
 
That's highly likely. I've been exposed to and lived several worldviews in my short life, my notion of God is probably warped. Some days, I view God as a loving force which wants the best for me. Some days I view God as an anthropomorphic, wrathful being, demanding sacrifice and blood. Some days I view God as nonexistent. I don't know which view is the right one. That's the driving force behind my experimentation. I've realized calling for God to present Its ID is silly at best, dangerous at worst. So I'm trying to open my mind and let God come to me at its own will.
Sounds just like Types With Fingers from my home forum afterlifeforums. Hi, TWW!

If you change your name over and over again is this considered trolling?
 
Hi Thinks With Thoughts,

I like the rational approach that you've taken, and I suspect that I've got more confidence in its soundness, and in its implications, than others who have responded. But I'll get to that eventually.

Initially, I want to take issue with (only) a couple of things that you wrote in your opening post.

Firstly, that this:

I honestly thought if [...] I just asked whoever created the universe to reveal themself to me [...]

is not necessarily compatible with this:

A) there was no intelligent force directing the machinations of the universe

To explain: an "intelligent force directing the machinations of the universe" is not necessarily the same as a (the) creator of the universe. Firstly, because the former need not have created the universe, but might have, through hard work or personal evolution, found him/her/itself "in the oval office", and, secondly, because a (the) creator of the universe might have created it (relatively) free, and thus not be "directing" its "machinations" in the micro-managerial sense that this seems to imply.

Perhaps a small point, but perhaps not.

Secondly, that the following two options, whilst apparently exhaustive and mutually exclusive in their given domain, might be hiding another synthetic possibility:

B) there was such a force, but it chose not to reveal itself to me
C) there was a force, but it was prevented from revealing itself to me, either by me unknowingly or by a third party (which I consider the scariest option)

That synthetic possibility is this: that the reason this force chose (i.e. option B) not to reveal itself to you is because it was prevented (i.e. option C) by prior agreement as to "the rules of the game".

But what do I mean by this? Here's my explanation:

I cannot believe in a God who is not good, because I cannot believe in a God who is less than rational in a strongly objective, holistic, unlimited sense[*], and because evil can be justified only by limited subjectivity, which is wholly incompatible with the sort of objective, holistic, unlimited rationality without which I don't believe a "God" (and I do believe in the existence of God) merits that label. Thus, no matter how He became "the director" - whether it be in virtue of being Creator, or through hard work and/or personal evolution - I can only believe in a God - genuinely deserving of that title - who, as you put it, is "a loving force which wants the best for me".

[*] Especially because I strive, and, IMNSHO, do passably well at kind of somewhat halfway approximating that quality, and because I cannot believe that God is not far, far ahead of me in this respect.

But, on the other hand, despite a good God, evil exists. This leads me to two conclusions:

(1) That evil has an existence independent of God (because God, being, by my reasoning, definitively good, would not permit it to continue to exist if it were in His power to eliminate it).
(2) Reality is a (serious) "game" (war) played out between that which is good (supreme in God) and that which is evil (supreme in His counterpart).

And, given that games typically have rules, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one or more of "the rules of the game" preclude God from communicating with (some of, based on some particular conditions in the rules) "the players" in this particular realm.

How and why "we as players", and how this particular realm in which "the game is played", even came to exist, what our purpose in the game (war) is, as well as the purpose of this particular realm, and how "the rules of this realm" were decided, is, of course, a whole bunch of other questions, albeit ones that I'm not totally clear on, but maybe this at least gives you an alternative (albeit, I suspect, somewhat unpopular) perspective to consider.

(And I know that I have not justified my belief that God - any God at all of the type to which I allude - exists in the first place, but that's beyond the scope of this post).

Cheers.
 
Sounds just like Types With Fingers from my home forum afterlifeforums. Hi, TWW!

If you change your name over and over again is this considered trolling?

I am Types with Fingers, and good on you for deducing it, but I do not believe you are bluebird from afterlifeforums. I believe you are a troll impersonating bluebird, because you don't write with respect for others as she does. I get it, you think we're idiots who are afraid of the dark. Maybe we are. But as a clear supporter of mainstream, materialistic, atheistic science, it's your responsibility to examine the evidence for the afterlife we discuss on here, just as its our responsibility to provide the evidence. Even if you end up still disagreeing with us, you should still have a minimum of respect for us. Most of the folks here, including me, aren't trying to push new age woo on anybody, but instead are using basic scientific processes to examine the possibility of survival after death, which is the most important subject in history which science has yet to accept.

But in the end, what does it matter to a troll, am I right?
 
I do not believe you are bluebird from afterlifeforums. I believe you are a troll impersonating bluebird, because you don't write with respect for others as she does.

I came to exactly the same conclusion (with the, disturbing, implication in the posts prior, that this troll is trying to sully the real bluebird's reputation) here.
 
Hi Thinks With Thoughts,

I like the rational approach that you've taken, and I suspect that I've got more confidence in its soundness, and in its implications, than others who have responded. But I'll get to that eventually.

Initially, I want to take issue with (only) a couple of things that you wrote in your opening post.

Firstly, that this:



is not necessarily compatible with this:



To explain: an "intelligent force directing the machinations of the universe" is not necessarily the same as a (the) creator of the universe. Firstly, because the former need not have created the universe, but might have, through hard work or personal evolution, found him/her/itself "in the oval office", and, secondly, because a (the) creator of the universe might have created it (relatively) free, and thus not be "directing" its "machinations" in the micro-managerial sense that this seems to imply.

Perhaps a small point, but perhaps not.

Secondly, that the following two options, whilst apparently exhaustive and mutually exclusive in their given domain, might be hiding another synthetic possibility:



That synthetic possibility is this: that the reason this force chose (i.e. option B) not to reveal itself to you is because it was prevented (i.e. option C) by prior agreement as to "the rules of the game".

But what do I mean by this? Here's my explanation:

I cannot believe in a God who is not good, because I cannot believe in a God who is less than rational in a strongly objective, holistic, unlimited sense[*], and because evil can be justified only by limited subjectivity, which is wholly incompatible with the sort of objective, holistic, unlimited rationality without which I don't believe a "God" (and I do believe in the existence of God) merits that label. Thus, no matter how He became "the director" - whether it be in virtue of being Creator, or through hard work and/or personal evolution - I can only believe in a God - genuinely deserving of that title - who, as you put it, is "a loving force which wants the best for me".

[*] Especially because I strive, and, IMNSHO, do passably well at kind of somewhat halfway approximating that quality, and because I cannot believe that God is not far, far ahead of me in this respect.

But, on the other hand, despite a good God, evil exists. This leads me to two conclusions:

(1) That evil has an existence independent of God (because God, being, by my reasoning, definitively good, would not permit it to continue to exist if it were in His power to eliminate it).
(2) Reality is a (serious) "game" (war) played out between that which is good (supreme in God) and that which is evil (supreme in His counterpart).

And, given that games typically have rules, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that one or more of "the rules of the game" preclude God from communicating with (some of, based on some particular conditions in the rules) "the players" in this particular realm.

How and why "we as players", and how this particular realm in which "the game is played", even came to exist, what our purpose in the game (war) is, as well as the purpose of this particular realm, and how "the rules of this realm" were decided, is, of course, a whole bunch of other questions, albeit ones that I'm not totally clear on, but maybe this at least gives you an alternative (albeit, I suspect, somewhat unpopular) perspective to consider.

(And I know that I have not justified my belief that God - any God at all of the type to which I allude - exists in the first place, but that's beyond the scope of this post).

Cheers.

I like what you wrote, but remember in war there are no rules. Anyway, that's beside the point. It could be that the force which created the universe isn't the same as the force which governs it, as you said. If so, then I wish to speak with that which created my soul.

I want to believe God is definitively good, but I can't shake the fear that he's a wrathful, jealous god who demands sacrifice, and that there's a Satan looking to snatch souls away. That's why I want to know the truth about God's character, and that's one of the driving forces behind my experiments.

If this is a game, it's losing its replay value very quickly.
 
I like what you wrote, but remember in war there are no rules.

Great point, one which I hadn't really taken into consideration before. Thanks. Thinking on my feet: I suppose that my idea implies either a "higher adjudicator" who applies and enforces the rules (but then why would a "higher" adjudicator not side with good, if s/he is to genuinely deserve the label "higher"?) or that the two sides have voluntarily come to an agreement about rules for mutual benefit. But what might that mutual benefit be? Perhaps it saves both sides a lot of effort i.e. chaos is... well, chaotic, and dealing with, managing, and averting the negative effects of chaos just might be very consuming in terms of energy. Perhaps, having rules, despite the difficulty of a lack of an objective enforcer, saves both sides a lot of energy, which they are both very, very keen to achieve.

Anyway, that's beside the point. It could be that the force which created the universe isn't the same as the force which governs it, as you said. If so, then I wish to speak with that which created my soul.

I want to believe God is definitively good, but I can't shake the fear that he's a wrathful, jealous god who demands sacrifice, and that there's a Satan looking to snatch souls away. That's why I want to know the truth about God's character, and that's one of the driving forces behind my experiments.

Personally, I believe that the force which created our souls (or, at least, with which our souls ultimately belong - see my post above re both God and goodness being related to objective rationality, which - in some sense; feel free to ask if this doesn't make sense - implies that "objectively", "our souls belong with God") is good, but I also very much believe (in part through personal experience) that there's a Satan looking to snatch our souls away.

In the end, though, I am not sure who/what created this particular realm, and, more generally, reality itself (other than the creative agent(s)).

Why am I not sure? Because there is evidence both of a beneficent creator of this realm - the beauty of sunsets, the magic of true love, the thrill of mathematical proofs, etc etc - as well as that the creator of this realm is corrupt: i.e. that, for their very continued existence, organic life forms on this planet (plants, bees, and, arguably, frugivores, excluded) are forced to kill and consume one another. Some people seem to be able to rationalise this as not such a bad thing, or even as a sublime fact; I think that they are fooling themselves. To put the survival interests of His creatures in direct conflict with one another is totally antithetical to the goodness of a purportedly good Creator. Goodness entails loving cooperation, not deadly competition. And it does not seem to be at all beyond the capabilities of a good Creator to have created a world in which beings were fundamentally lovingly cooperative rather than lethally competitive by design - assuming that He had the power. So, it seems that on a fundamental level, there is evidence for the creation of this world both by a good being and by a corrupt being, as well as for the notion that the good being is not omnipotent (because, if He was, He would never have created the diabolical system of predation that exists on our planet).

If this is a game, it's losing its replay value very quickly.

I get that you're being witty, and more power to you in that respect, but, just to get all serious in the face of your playfulness: it's a "game" only in the sense that it is an engagement structured by rules, not in the sense that it is fun or without (unimaginably horrifying) consequences.
 
I am Types with Fingers, and good on you for deducing it, but I do not believe you are bluebird from afterlifeforums. I believe you are a troll impersonating bluebird, because you don't write with respect for others as she does. I get it, you think we're idiots who are afraid of the dark. Maybe we are.

I believe you need to quit calling people trolls when you change your name every week or so. Hm? Maybe?
 
Last edited:
Great point, one which I hadn't really taken into consideration before. Thanks. Thinking on my feet: I suppose that my idea implies either a "higher adjudicator" who applies and enforces the rules (but then why would a "higher" adjudicator not side with good, if s/he is to genuinely deserve the label "higher"?) or that the two sides have voluntarily come to an agreement about rules for mutual benefit. But what might that mutual benefit be? Perhaps it saves both sides a lot of effort i.e. chaos is... well, chaotic, and dealing with, managing, and averting the negative effects of chaos just might be very consuming in terms of energy. Perhaps, having rules, despite the difficulty of a lack of an objective enforcer, saves both sides a lot of energy, which they are both very, very keen to achieve.



Personally, I believe that the force which created our souls (or, at least, with which our souls ultimately belong - see my post above re both God and goodness being related to objective rationality, which - in some sense; feel free to ask if this doesn't make sense - implies that "objectively", "our souls belong with God") is good, but I also very much believe (in part through personal experience) that there's a Satan looking to snatch our souls away.

In the end, though, I am not sure who/what created this particular realm, and, more generally, reality itself (other than the creative agent(s)).

Why am I not sure? Because there is evidence both of a beneficent creator of this realm - the beauty of sunsets, the magic of true love, the thrill of mathematical proofs, etc etc - as well as that the creator of this realm is corrupt: i.e. that, for their very continued existence, organic life forms on this planet (plants, bees, and, arguably, frugivores, excluded) are forced to kill and consume one another. Some people seem to be able to rationalise this as not such a bad thing, or even as a sublime fact; I think that they are fooling themselves. To put the survival interests of His creatures in direct conflict with one another is totally antithetical to the goodness of a purportedly good Creator. Goodness entails loving cooperation, not deadly competition. And it does not seem to be at all beyond the capabilities of a good Creator to have created a world in which beings were fundamentally lovingly cooperative rather than lethally competitive by design - assuming that He had the power. So, it seems that on a fundamental level, there is evidence for the creation of this world both by a good being and by a corrupt being, as well as for the notion that the good being is not omnipotent (because, if He was, He would never have created the diabolical system of predation that exists on our planet).



I get that you're being witty, and more power to you in that respect, but, just to get all serious in the face of your playfulness: it's a "game" only in the sense that it is an engagement structured by rules, not in the sense that it is fun or without (unimaginably horrifying) consequences.

Now, that game seems much more realistic. What you say about a good and corrupt force makes a lot of sense. This dog-eat-dog world does have signs of being good and corrupt. I find it a little scary that both sides are trying to conserve energy, because that removes the all-powerful part from whoever created our souls, isn't that so?
 
I want to believe God is definitively good, but I can't shake the fear that he's a wrathful, jealous god who demands sacrifice, and that there's a Satan looking to snatch souls away. That's why I want to know the truth about God's character, and that's one of the driving forces behind my experiments.

Assuming for the sake of the argument that there exists a god with a character - why presume that that character would be entirely good, entirely bad, or entirely anything for that matter? Given what we know about the universe, doesn't it seem more likely that it would be a mixture?
 
Back
Top