Consciousness after death

[SAI Peregrinus]

I think faith is useful. It's silly to have faith in things that are likely true, but if believing things that you can't prove or disprove and that Occam's Razor would indicate you shouldn't believe in can give you comfort without causing harm then I think it's good to have faith.

I have faith that I should not eat hot dog buns, for such was the solace of the Goddess when confronted with the Original Snub. I have faith that the Goddess has commanded us to go out and partake joyously of a hot dog in a bun on Fridays. It's fun, it comforts me, and the only real harm is a slightly higher fat content in my diet.

I know that the Commandments are contradictory. They can't all be real, they're nearly certainly all false, and it doesn't matter, because they still work as a source of amusement. Since there is no real consequence either way of believing in a creator deity and not believing, I chose not to believe. It's simpler not to, and not particularly fun to do so.

[Irrelephant]

I must admit that indeed I do not understand what you mean. By duality, do you mean perhaps Descartes duality of the mind? It is something I do not think to be valid.

Duality is all things that are divided. Atoms and consciousness, good and evil, beginning and end, or that infinite wall, if you can name it it is duality. Without duality there is only absolute infinity. You may call that nothing, oneness, the almighty father, concepts are a lost cause to grasp absolute infinity. That oneness is the source of all duality.

You can still be without faith. The trick is never to claim to have absolute truth.

That's not a trick but the very acknowledgement of faith, the things you don't know are filled by your mind with believe or faith. In your case you believe that science can give all the answers and because of that religion is a waste of time. I believe that external and internal science are equally important.

There are basically 2 things that I base my philosophy on:
1: absolute truth is impossible but also unnecessary to have. Just follow the hypotheses that have proven to be useful, without claiming that it is objective truth.
2: Occam's Razor. If more that one explanation is available, assume the one that requires the least assumptions to be the correct one.

Nothing i would disagree with.

Based on this, I do not think that it is rational to believe in a creator or god. One explanation is that the Universe operates by a given set of rules and laws which are specific to the Universe we live in. Another explanation is that the Universe operates by a given set of rules and laws, and there is an infinitely powerful being that we cannot see or measure, but it is everywhere, and if we meditate or pray really hard the neurons in our brains (but not animals' brains) can somehow connect to it, and it created these laws and makes sure those laws are upheld. I think that the first scenario requires fewer assumptions.

The first explanation you give is really more of an observation than anything else. The universe is there but why and from what source? And the second explanation a very distorted one. Evolution of physical bodies and consciousness goes hand in hand. I believe consciousness has many physical bodies over the course of it's evolution. How much would you weight your own experience over external sciene if you had an event of some sort like the doctor in the op? Or if you actually tried meditation and found it to be working as described? Would that change your faith even tho science can only say, don't know, prolly random brain malfunction?

But do you not see that the infinite creator model does not solve the infinite regression problem at all? To the contrary, it is one of the best known examples of a case where infinite regression is a problem! "Who created the infinite creator?" is just as valid a question as "What existed before the Big Bang?". Science admits it has no answer for now, but religion says "it just happened this way and do not question it".

We are still talking two different kinds of infinite. Oneness or absolute infinity is the infinite creator. As such the infinite regression problem is solved. Time or beginning and end did not exist before duality happened. True religion says, that's how it is and this is how you can get there. That motivation is the source of any good religion. It is easy to dismiss in general based on crap like scientology, the history of christianity and it's current state, or any other cult which prime motive is to collect money for the prophet. But that does not invalidate the truth that has been offered by the few. It's like with music, you have to wade through alot of crap to find the few pearls. And sometimes what you thought was crap turns out to be really good years later. Like you weren't ready for that album yet.

I think faith is useful. It's silly to have faith in things that are likely true, but if believing things that you can't prove or disprove and that Occam's Razor would indicate you shouldn't believe in can give you comfort without causing harm then I think it's good to have faith.

I have faith that I should not eat hot dog buns, for such was the solace of the Goddess when confronted with the Original Snub. I have faith that the Goddess has commanded us to go out and partake joyously of a hot dog in a bun on Fridays. It's fun, it comforts me, and the only real harm is a slightly higher fat content in my diet.

I know that the Commandments are contradictory. They can't all be real, they're nearly certainly all false, and it doesn't matter, because they still work as a source of amusement. Since there is no real consequence either way of believing in a creator deity and not believing, I chose not to believe. It's simpler not to, and not particularly fun to do so.

That other day someone told me that everyone is god. Interesting, where is your proof? I asked. I have none, but you can experience it for yourself with a little practice he said. Yeah right, proof or gtfo. What a fool.

I suck at this but i hope you get the point.