Quote from: bl4kjaguar on September 03, 2014, 07:20:24 AM

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on September 02, 2014, 11:20:32 PM

Yeah I heard of Jane Roberts, I don't think she was a fraud, my guess it was some sort of inner workings of her subconscious mind with some ESP chucked in. Spooky that one.

Yeah you have read my link? Or yeah something else? Try that link if you don't want to read the rest of this post. Tongue

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on September 02, 2014, 11:20:32 PM

My research, done mine. My research found there is nothing to research because:

Quote from: Buffer Overflow on August 18, 2014, 06:57:23 PM

God cannot be proved or disproved.

OK, maybe you are telling us a fact;
what about all the old views that are being challenged?

That is a great item for discussion (especially if you have nothing new to say)!

I hope that with our discussion we can help make clear what is the bigger picture surrounding these facts:

Quote

1) that we can and should no longer wish away expansive phenomena of this type.
2) The psychical origin of the Seth material does not automatically invalidate its claims
3) "Nothing is more likely to impede investigation than premature acceptance of 'explanations'"
4) personalities continue to exist after physical death
5) god cannot be proven nor dis-proven

Well, I wonder if you have any ideas about how fact 5 relates to the others. You mentioned an internal origin to solve the Problem... but I am asking for you to read Cunningham's critique of that idea; it is not adequate at all and it sounds extraordinary to me. Anyway, if you have done research then I want to hear the result and how your conclusion relates to the introduction; I would also want to hear a rebuttal of criticism such as may be found in Cunningham's paper.

I feel that it is only fair to question whether proof/dis-proof is a relevant concept. However, I need not state this explicitly in our discussion because mostly I am just asking you to clarify what you really think, activity well-suited for this thread. Also: who will read the research paper? Roll Eyes

I think that this is a good question; at least, I will make it a good thread by my questions.

Basic assumptions about the proof/dis-proof of God may be invalidated at a certain level of consciousness, even though typical reasoning may seem to validate these assumptions, it is actually through our experience that the "evidence" enters our minds. In the presence of Tao, the knots are untied, the glare is softened, and the question takes on meaning beyond proof/dis-proof, a sort of relevance that is hard to come by. It is amazing the opinions that people have on this question of God; one thing we do know is death and transformation; only you and your consciousness can shape how you live your life and your appreciation for the subtlety of life's great questions and paradoxes, in which are found the ultimate bliss or "God-consciousness". Therefore, God is expressed in the action of death and transformation, and also in your consciousness-response to life's many "questions" which are constantly being asked by some internal voice. Your "answers" need to be used for transformation of self--not so that we can know God--but because death is near and we urgently should ponder the questions that we can try to begin to understand at this current level of being. The old answers are not looking very acceptable.

Facts 1-4 are relevant to our discussion; for example,
Fact 4 is a type of expansive phenomena which should be seriously considered (pondered) in an adequate explanation of other expansive phenomena. Also, organized religions often emphasize the afterlife, so they do seem to at least have the facts down; however, their explanations are not adequate. Similarly, your "spooky" explanation is also not adequate.
Fact 3 is a slam-dunk reason to cointinue investigating the facts in our discussion.
Fact 2 means that you need to give a good reason for why your explanation is more adequate than the rest!
Fact 1 is presumably why you are having this coinversation to begin with! You are also seeking a good explanation, so let us use the Socratic method and find it! Wink

Quote from: bl4kjaguar on August 30, 2014, 07:53:47 PM

And they are now being challenged

http://www.rivier.edu/faculty/pcunningham/Research/Problem_of_Seths_Origin.pdf

OK, please if you could answer some of my questions.

If you think I'm going to buy into that Jane Roberts & Seth is some sort of proof of god you are mistaken. After all that's the topic of the thread.
If you wish to start a supernatural thread by all means be my guest. I may even add my very own supernatural natural encounters to it. On 2 occasions to be exact. I haven't added them to this thread as IMO they don't belong in here. Do I class them prove/evidence of god? No. I don't fill in the blanks what I don't understand, with god.