Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

AB define 'spirituality'?

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl8fKAYQuPk

[Maeght]

AB define 'spirituality'?

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.

You haven't demonstrated you have free will. Perhaps if you could demonstrate that then that would be a start - otherwise it is all just your beliefs which you want to be true.

[Alan Burns]

Buggeration - beat me to it. Never mind; I'll ask the same question anyway.

How do you know that you have the ability to perceive what is true? By what process or methodology?

I don't think I explained my thoughts very clearly on this.  What I was trying to put across is difficult to put into words.  It is the act of trying to discern the truth which does not lend itself to deterministic chain reaction events.

Your comment, "Or rather, you want to believe that you do (control my own destiny). Isn't that the truth? "
is an assertion that I believe in something just because it is what I want to believe, not because I have used my powers of discernment to try to find the truth.

Something is motivating both you and I to try to discern what is true, but it is not the deterministic chain of cause and effect events over which we have no control.  It is an inner desire to perceive the truth, and it is unique to the human race.

[Leonard James]

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.

Not true. Your free will (ability to choose) evolved as a survival strategy. An animal able to choose between two courses of action, one of which favours survival and reproduction is clearly going to have an advantage over another which doesn't have the ability.

[BashfulAnthony]

"Spirituality," for me, is "an awareness that there is something far greater than we are, something that created this universe, created life and that we are an authentic, important, significant part of it, and can contribute to its evolution.” - Elizabeth-Kubler-Ross.

[Maeght]

Buggeration - beat me to it. Never mind; I'll ask the same question anyway.

How do you know that you have the ability to perceive what is true? By what process or methodology?

I don't think I explained my thoughts very clearly on this.  What I was trying to put across is difficult to put into words.  It is the act of trying to discern the truth which does not lend itself to deterministic chain reaction events.

Your comment, "Or rather, you want to believe that you do (control my own destiny). Isn't that the truth? "
is an assertion that I believe in something just because it is what I want to believe, not because I have used my powers of discernment to try to find the truth.

Something is motivating both you and I to try to discern what is true, but it is not the deterministic chain of cause and effect events over which we have no control.  It is an inner desire to perceive the truth, and it is unique to the human race.

How do you know that?

[Nearly Sane]

"Spirituality," for me, is "an awareness that there is something far greater than we are, something that created this universe, created life and that we are an authentic, important, significant part of it, and can contribute to its evolution.” - Elizabeth-Kubler-Ross.

I suppose given she taught Jesus when she was Isabel she might claim to know something

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074920,00.html

[Sriram]

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

Well....you have at least come out of the reductionist..'we are nothing but atoms'.. argument. Thank goodness for that!

Now its a 'pattern of energy'  that defines us. So far so good.

You've got a short memory Sriram, I've been arguing this analogy for years already.  That there is energy and matter is not going beyond what science reveals.  If you want to believe there is more than energy and matter then you need to justify that position.

But that sounds like pseudoscience.  What evidence do you have for your idea...?

[ekim]

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

But a wave can only be perceived as a wave by an outside observer.  The wave does not perceive itself.
And you do not need to have a soul in each animal if they do not posess free will.  You can replace bits of a biological robot without changing its observed behaviour.

Continuing the analogy (and remembering that it is an analogy).  The ocean is the totality of the water.  The water is the essence and the wave is the form it takes.  If the essence represents 'conscious life' and is present in the wave then by looking outwards it will perceive other waves (life forms) and be an outside observer of them.  When the wave loses its form (dies) the essence remains but not the form.  What do you mean by 'soul'?  It originally meant 'life'.

[Alan Burns]

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.

Not true. Your free will (ability to choose) evolved as a survival strategy. An animal able to choose between two courses of action, one of which favours survival and reproduction is clearly going to have an advantage over another which doesn't have the ability.

Len,
I think you are confusing logical decisions with free will choices.  A computer makes logical decisions, based on data and programmed logic.  A free will choice can give us the ability to override whatever we see as logical and do something just because we want to, even if we perceive it as wrong or illogical.

[Shaker]

"Spirituality," for me, is "an awareness that there is something far greater than we are, something that created this universe, created life and that we are an authentic, important, significant part of it, and can contribute to its evolution.” - Elizabeth-Kubler-Ross.

It's precisely this sort of wibble which makes me want to have nothing to do with the concept more often than not. Other opinions and options are available, but I think most people take it to mean the above, so to use the term is to invite misunderstanding.

[Leonard James]

Len,
I think you are confusing logical decisions with free will choices.  A computer makes logical decisions, based on data and programmed logic.  A free will choice can give us the ability to override whatever we see as logical and do something just because we want to, even if we perceive it as wrong or illogical.

I didn't mention logic. I simply pointed out that free will to choose is a product of evolution, and is no indication of the existence of a "soul", which is what you are claiming.

[floo]

Len,
I think you are confusing logical decisions with free will choices.  A computer makes logical decisions, based on data and programmed logic.  A free will choice can give us the ability to override whatever we see as logical and do something just because we want to, even if we perceive it as wrong or illogical.

I didn't mention logic. I simply pointed out that free will to choose is a product of evolution, and is no indication of the existence of a "soul", which is what you are claiming.

Spot on!

[horsethorn]

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

But a wave can only be perceived as a wave by an outside observer.  The wave does not perceive itself.
And you do not need to have a soul in each animal if they do not posess free will.  You can replace bits of a biological robot without changing its observed behaviour.

Continuing the analogy (and remembering that it is an analogy).  The ocean is the totality of the water.  The water is the essence and the wave is the form it takes.  If the essence represents 'conscious life' and is present in the wave then by looking outwards it will perceive other waves (life forms) and be an outside observer of them.  When the wave loses its form (dies) the essence remains but not the form.  What do you mean by 'soul'?  It originally meant 'life'.

I'll persuade you into panentheism yet!

ht

[wigginhall]

And as Guru teaches, there is neither wave nor ocean, nor indeed, water, but only the abyss, into which you peer, and which peers into you.   Omm!

[Alan Burns]

Continuing the analogy (and remembering that it is an analogy).  The ocean is the totality of the water.  The water is the essence and the wave is the form it takes.  If the essence represents 'conscious life' and is present in the wave then by looking outwards it will perceive other waves (life forms) and be an outside observer of them.  When the wave loses its form (dies) the essence remains but not the form.  What do you mean by 'soul'?  It originally meant 'life'.

The problem with the wave analogy is that it lacks the independent spirit within each one of us to be able to choose our own destiny.  To some extent we are driven along by the forces of nature, but we have been given the ability to change course and even swim against the tide if we so wish.

I would agree that the soul is what is at the heart of human life, enabling us to perceive the world we live in and to interact with it using the spiritual power of free will.

[Alan Burns]

Free will has nothing to do with 'spiritual' which you can't even define!

If free will does not have a spiritual source (in this case the human soul) it can't be free will.

[Alien]

I think it is generally accepted that the book of Job is a piece of divinely inspired fiction written to illustrate a very important point.

There you go again with "divinely inspired"! How can you possibly know that? You simply believe it because a couple of the Bible authors said it was. Can you not see how gullible that is?

Len,
That was not my quote. If you read my post you will see that I was questioning Alan Burns' "I think it is generally accepted..."

Slow down a bit, mate.

[Alien]

No, he can't.

Thanks for checking that Len got his "quote" from me.

Not.

[BashfulAnthony]

"Spirituality," for me, is "an awareness that there is something far greater than we are, something that created this universe, created life and that we are an authentic, important, significant part of it, and can contribute to its evolution.” - Elizabeth-Kubler-Ross.

It's precisely this sort of wibble which makes me want to have nothing to do with the concept more often than not. Other opinions and options are available, but I think most people take it to mean the above, so to use the term is to invite misunderstanding.

That thought resonates with me:  it's not intended to do so with you; so your comment is mis-placed.

[ekim]

Continuing the analogy (and remembering that it is an analogy).  The ocean is the totality of the water.  The water is the essence and the wave is the form it takes.  If the essence represents 'conscious life' and is present in the wave then by looking outwards it will perceive other waves (life forms) and be an outside observer of them.  When the wave loses its form (dies) the essence remains but not the form.  What do you mean by 'soul'?  It originally meant 'life'.

The problem with the wave analogy is that it lacks the independent spirit within each one of us to be able to choose our own destiny.  To some extent we are driven along by the forces of nature, but we have been given the ability to change course and even swim against the tide if we so wish.

I would agree that the soul is what is at the heart of human life, enabling us to perceive the world we live in and to interact with it using the spiritual power of free will.

Well, as it is an analogy we can give the wave the means to alter course.  All that this means is that the wave form has developed self will and can use it to interact with other self centred wilful waves instead of surrendering to the 'will' of the ocean.  It gives it the ability to puff itself up and lord it over other waves and more and more it will identify with its mortal form and less and less with its immortal essence, the water.

The word 'soul' represented the vital principle or essential part.  Unfortunately the word has been used to translate a variety of words in the Bible, each with different meanings.  In the Old Testament there seems to be an analogy with air rather than water.  Ruach/spirit is 'air' and neshama/soul/psyche is 'breath' i.e. air within the body.  One could say that it is the air/breath which empowers the body to live.  When the bubble bursts the air within merges with the air without.  Peace at last.  What you seem to have in mind for 'soul' is a kind of doppelgänger.

[Shaker]

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.

I hear you. I remember in one of his books (can't now remember which one - wiggy may know, if he sees this) Alan Watts said that as we think of a wave waving, we should think of the universe as 'peopling' in a like manner - so that just as the sea has waves that arise, persist momentarily and then are subsumed back into the water as part of the ceaseless but locally transient activity of the water, the cosmos 'peoples' people.

Makes sense to me. Mind you, he did like a drink or two.

[torridon]

AB define 'spirituality'?

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.

Anyone else see a certain circularity in this reasoning ?

[Shaker]

Yeah, just a bit. It's a familiar thing 

[torridon]

Continuing the analogy (and remembering that it is an analogy).  The ocean is the totality of the water.  The water is the essence and the wave is the form it takes.  If the essence represents 'conscious life' and is present in the wave then by looking outwards it will perceive other waves (life forms) and be an outside observer of them.  When the wave loses its form (dies) the essence remains but not the form.  What do you mean by 'soul'?  It originally meant 'life'.

The problem with the wave analogy is that it lacks the independent spirit within each one of us to be able to choose our own destiny.  To some extent we are driven along by the forces of nature, but we have been given the ability to change course and even swim against the tide if we so wish.

I would agree that the soul is what is at the heart of human life, enabling us to perceive the world we live in and to interact with it using the spiritual power of free will.

People are more complex than ocean waves. Noone is going to disagree that.  I doubt that complexity licences us to rise above the laws of nature however, that is way too fantastic for me.  I think I am made of flesh and blood, not magic, so if you want to convince us otherwise you need to point to some proper evidence for 'souls' or 'gods' or 'free will'.