Incorrect. There is only one door. Everyone is pointing/refering to the exact same door from different FILTERS of perception. It all boils down to your choice to walk through it or not. If someone has gone through, they cannot tell you what is on the other side, for they know it can only be experienced, and not explained.

Therefore all previous 'weightings' become irrelevant, for that is merely speculation as to what is on the other side, never having had the courage or presence to step through themselves. One can knock all they want, but that will never show you what is on the other side.

You must step through yourself.

As for finding my life-mate...I walked through the door and there she was waiting for me. Once you get out of your own way, things begin to fall into place...

Here’s a true story:

I had a co-worker who, years ago, wanted to place a catalog order via phone. She called the wrong number, and had a nice conversation with the man she reached. They exchanged phone numbers and developed a long-distance relationship (he lived over 1000 miles away). Eventually they met, and not long after, he moved to our city and they married (both for the first time). They were soul mates – they had a loving relationship that lasted for about ten years, ended only by his sudden death from a heart attack at a relatively early age.

^^ That you offer that shows (as far as I can determine) that you truly are UNABLE TO COMPREHEND my point.

Right back at you my friend.

I understand your point, but don’t understand why you repeat it over and over again, without really adding anything new.

The point of this “debate” isn’t to convince anyone of anything – we’re all free to believe whatever we choose to believe, for better or worse. I’m participating in this thread with the hope of learning something new, sharing ideas, connecting with other human beings to the extent that electronic communication allows, and growing as a person as a result.

Science has provided answers to many of our questions about the observable world around us, but – as has been repeatedly stated in this thread – there are questions that simply lie outside of the scope of science (what vs. why). We are free to explore possible answers to those questions. We are free to base those possible answers on our subjective experiences. And we are free to believe those answers. We are free to be irrational.

My personal belief (right now – my beliefs are subject to change at any moment) is that we human beings simply don’t have the knowledge or the cognitive capacity to meaningfully answer questions of this sort. The nature of reality is a profound mystery.

There is nothing new, and nothing needs to be added. The point proves that we MUST have some means to choose which paths to go down, we must have some means to try to make sense of what others report. Which means:

1) One CANNOT dismiss rationality (and nobody actually does--we're ALWAYS eager to try to convince that what we say makes rational sense).

2) And one must EITHER use rationality to decide what to believe, experience it personally and subjectively (in which case it can't be communicated effectively to the public at large), or...simply select things to believe based upon our personal biases and life history (i.e., what we were raised around, or what attracts impulsively).

The honest truth is that the vast majority of beliefs arise from the third alternative; and I think Hawking's comment shines light on the arbitrariness of that perspective. Makes such beliefs sort of...silly, no? It's like preferring one sports team over another (which some people seem to take VERY seriously indeed!). A randomly chosen belief is...just baloney; it's rationally worthless (even though it MAY happen to be true).


So...I repeat it over and over because no one (until now) has ACKNOWLEDGED it...and no one has offered any substantial alternative to its consequences and ramifications. Pretty much, you believe things for rational reasons (or personal observation), or you believe them pretty much arbitrarily, i.e., randomly.

If that's true, then Stephen Hawking is ESPECIALLY, PRECISELY correct to say that heaven is a "fairy tale." If one can't know such things, then their ontological source MUST be a "fairy tale;" if they can't be known, then if they're asserted, they must be "made up."

I agree that choosing beliefs on a random basis is “silly”. But I don’t stop there: Choosing beliefs on the basis of subjective experiences is also “silly”. Choosing beliefs on the basis of scientific observation is “silly”. The fact that we believe anything in the face of the profound mystery that’s constantly staring us in the face is “silly”. I guess people are just silly.

You seem to believe that you are an individual, a human being, existing in time and space, alive on a planet, orbiting a sun, in a vast, vast material universe. What silly beliefs! Others believe that this physical world is an “illusion” or a “dream”, and that at the moment of death they’ll awaken from the dream. Such silliness! Still others believe that “mind” exists and that “body” exists, and that they are separable, and that the mind can leave the body. So silly!

There is no explanation of existence that isn’t profoundly silly! So let’s just experience the silliness of existence and smile at the mystery.

OK – I’ll take a different approach: For the sake of argument, I’ll accept that the belief in an afterlife is a “fairy tale”.

But if that’s the case, then how is reality any less of a fairy tale?

Reality is a story “consciousness” tells itself to explain its own existence. Reality is a game that consciousness plays with itself in order to experience separateness, embodiment, and aliveness. Reality is not the same fairy tale as the fairy tale of an afterlife, but it is nevertheless a fairy tale.

You see the “afterlife” as a fairy tale due to lack of evidence supporting its existence. I see “reality” as a fairy tale due to lack of evidence supporting its existence. What’s the difference?

This post struck me with a reverberation of absurdism. Just replace 'silly' with 'absurd'.

You mean if it doesn't fit into some formula of physics then it doesn't exist and must be made up?

If it doesn't fit into a formula Stephen Hawkings doesn't understand it.

But I agree it can be a fairy tale. It has fairy's in it! hehe

One of the biggest ironies implied by this thread is the overt fact that nothing which contemporary science has stipulated over the last few decades, is an absolute TRUTH. These conceptualizations are merely today's current speculations about what is the most reasonable to our collective intellects and psyches. It's an approximation of the latest data which can be analyzed and quantified. Now, is it actually true? Is it even real at all? Hardly.

One of the fundamental issues with any theory is that it will, with the passage of time, become obsolete to some extent, as new information comes to light, which changes the consensus to further theoretical speculations. In this way, one human being's rational model of the universe is another human being's antiquated ERROR in the judgment of the conceptualizations which we routinely churn out for consideration.

I do not propose that any of Newton's ideas are WRONG or INCORRECT, anymore than I would suggest that any of Einstein's ideas are. Eternal change is the only constant and is it not naive and "fallacious" to entertain the conceptual construct that that which we do know through reason alone, is LAW. Law is another form of the concept TRUTH. It is neither the reality of the object of study, nor is it totality of that same object of our observation.

The indisputable fact is, we all just see a fraction of any of it's complexity so why be so proud and absolute in our convictions? Besides, I have never personally subscribed to the notion that there is some all-or-nothing LAW or TRUTH, which sharply defines: right or wrong, correct or incorrect, true or untrue degrees of understanding. Each paradigm is superseded by the following paradigm.

Even when I read of spiritual sages extrapolating about "The Truth" and "the falsehood of illusion"... I am instinctively drawn towards impartiality. This does not mean that I refuse to acknowledge that I have SEEN something else. Something which reflects a unity. The Oneness is not just a conceptual possibility for me, it is another plane of being, which I have witnessed when my mind is still and I do hold in faith, that I will penetrate further within this Indivisible Field of Consciousness. And I just could be WRONG... RIGHT???

Now when gibran2 offered the example of the couple who through seemingly random chance, found each other as soul mates, he was implying that there is an unfathomable and quite uncontrolled characteristic to life on earth, which points towards the phenomenon of FATE. You, SWIMfriend, brushed this analogy right off the table, accusing gibran2 of not understanding your ideas. The opportunity to examine the possibility of the phenomenon of fate, or if you will, DESTINY, was wasted by the refusal to accept any notions which fall outside of your rationale. This just goes to highlight how rigid and argumentative your perspective is.

If your really spent time in isolation, off in some cave without the distractions of the hustle-bustle of civilization... how is it that you have so little insight into what is beyond the boundary of reason? After all, meditation is an exponential expansion of the mental faculty of the inner pilot. It has within it's practical methodology, all of the tools to see beyond the finite reality and pierce into the vast realm of non-material variegation of the life force, which through it's own nature, created the entirety of the Omniverse. This is further expanded by the use of entheogens. I am beginning to suspect that you have never experienced the stopping of your mind or taken notice of states of being which transcend all materialistically culled conceptualizations? That's just an impression and yeah, admittedly it behooves me to say so, as I may be misunderstanding your vantage point.


No mind is not a precursor of catatonia, it is an alternative lens by which we perceive the awareness which we are consciously able to pinpoint within our core being. This is a bold step to take and it leaves the subjectivity of the witness without the safety net of our rationale. Furthermore, it behooves those who cannot or will not allow said stopping of the mind, to vehemently reiterate the paradigms crafted by an awareness, conception or opinion which originates outside of themselves.

Tenaciously clinging to logic is a poor excuse for wasting the opportunity to SEE another angle of the equation of sentient existence. Give it a break! At least in this subforum, such adherence to the dictates of reason, are both, inappropriate and rather uncreative.

Frankly, negation is not a philosophy nor a spiritual belief. It is simply put, denial. "If I can't perceive it, it does not exist." It portrays an anti-constructive regurgitation of what might be considered most trite, by those who have explored deeper into the fabric of reality. The quintessential posture of those pseudo-geniuses who unswervingly war against the Divine Principle. I am waiting to hear one unique and original perception from your argumentative stance, even as you patiently await the same from me. Whole-scale dismissal is essentially nihilism and while acceptable in philosophical discussions, it apparently refuses to turn the same scrutiny towards it's own precepts. You know, if the supernatural is a fantasy, so is any and all perceptual perspective about reality.

We cannot be so blind as to insist that our stance about ANY model of the universe, be it physical, intellectual or spiritual, with absolute certainty. so yeah, this has all been said before, over and over again. What is most repugnant to my sense of fair play, is that there exist two polar extremes, which are unbending in their convictions. Neither extreme has any exclusive copyright on reality.

As gibran2 clearly expresses, what we know for a consensus certainty... is minuscule in comparison to what we do not and cannot know. The Omniverse is simply far to great and infinitely complex for us to encapsulate any lasting assessment of it's parameters. The blind faith of the mass believers in a Supreme Deity and the existence of conscious awareness prior to and after the term of physical incarnation, is no more illusory than the proposed laws of today's aggressive anti-spiritualist logicians. Science has it's own delusions about the nature of mind and lens by which we judge data about the universe which has been manifested by "nothingness", through quantum fluctuations.

There are simply aspects of human understanding which are subject to our current interpretation of this mysterious phenomenon we label, EXISTENCE. So too, one human being's "fairy tale" is another human being's "Divine Plan". Only the rude and insane are delusional enough to proclaim their standard of measuring just the tiny part of existence which we are all given to perceive, is the lens which ALL other human beings must see the mirage of existential conceptualization through. There are many lenses, arguably, most of them err to some degree or another, yet, given their intrinsic limitations... how is it that we insist on fabricating laws and truths which are based on only a minute sliver of the possibility of what knowledge is there to be perceived.

I reiterate, this is the Philosophy and Spirituality sub forum. I've yet to hear any philosophical or spiritual models raised by SWIMfriend, who has supplanted Dr. Hawking in this discussion. One can hardly project anti-philosophy and anti-spiritual concepts and see it as a viable insight. Emphatic denial is a extreme person's knee-jerk reaction to any idea they choose to dismiss. It is not particularly profound, nor does it possess any original insight. I may be quite naive in this matter but are we not ideally supposed to be bringing new ideas to the table? New definitions of God and self?

IMO, there are enough parrots out there on other forums (on both, materialist and religious platforms of thought), repeating the mental constructs of third-party human beings. So shall we embrace something unique or even profound about our psychedelically inspired experiences or merely re-hash the same old jive? If not us, then who? If not now, then when?

Neither extreme in human cosmological ideologies is useful for those who are OPEN to possibility and the potentiality of our greater understanding. Kudos to the fearless voyagers who MUST find out for themselves, as directly as their perceptual faculties allow, what is taking place right here and now, and follow this line of perception into new territory. Is this not one of humankind's most noble characteristics? To openly challenge the unknown and bridge the gap which is seemingly without any discernible bridge? We are on the frontier of the moment. We are drawn towards a lens of perception which offers an alternate paradigm to conceive of.

To each their own but I am tiring of the density of the materialist agenda. It is founded on illusory data, which is relative to the observer. Reason is a tool to help our brains organize the chaotic jumble of stimulation and information which flows into our mind through the gateway of time, space and dimension.

Awareness has it's roots in a level of reality, which is not born of reason, so why measure this eternal force by such a partial glimpse of the whole? The totality is not subject to quantification by any fragmented view of said totality. Gross materialism and anthropomorphic deification are both absurd parameters to project upon the manifest and unmanifest attributes of the Tao. Logic must be fused with intuition if a holistic and balanced viewpoint is to be crystallized. The entire time, within the continuum of perception, holding to the understanding that this too... is another illusion. :idea:



Peace, love & light

I hadn't realized that philosophy (etymologically: loving knowledge) was such a staunch enemy of reason! I was under the misapprehension that philosophy was actually intimately involved with reason, using it to develop and evaluate models of knowledge. I was similarly under the impression that materialism is a philosophical model... am I to assume this is likewise incorrect?

At any rate, I think this thread has devolved into a state where everyone is talking at cross-purposes, on two counts.

First, Hawking's comment seems to be getting misconstrued, and people are arguing against interpretations of it that are likely not consistent with his intended meaning. Saying the Christian Heaven is a fairy story is a correct statement. It makes no absolute judgement on whether it might actually exist, but rather means that it is not objectively verifiable, and is in essence a "made-up" construct. Part of the issue seems to be the pejorative connotations some people attach to the term "made-up." It doesn't mean it arose out of thin air, I'm sure it arose out of experiences that people had within the context of their own worldview (just as fairy stories did). Different people with different ontologies ascribe different amounts of value to subjective internal experiences. And I don't see anywhere in that interview that Hawking says everyone must adhere to the same ontology that he does.

The other point on which people are talking at cross purposes is ontological: Some people believe firmly that there is a layer of reality beyond this one which is impervious to scientific investigation. Some people believe that constructs which are not capable of being objectively verified are of little value in the pursuit of communicable knowledge, and lend themselves to a extreme risk of fallacy and error. Some people believe that we cannot honestly know anything beyond the fact that our consciousness exists in some form, because we experience everything else subjectively through it. The adherents of each camp genuinely believe that the others are missing out on the awe-inspiring beauty of the world which they perceive through their own ontology. We are not likely to convince one another to shift ontologies, which is why this thread has lately been tilting at windmills. And at least if that is our goal, I think it should happen under the auspices of it's own thread rather than be appended to linguistic quibblings over the words of Stephen Hawking.

That is correct, but why is it ironic.

I've been trying to understand why science got dragged into this discussion and two things seem to stand out. The first is that some people don't understand what science is about. e.g., Statements and sentiments along the lines of, `science can't prove it', being made like they are relevant. Science isn't about proving things, it is about disproving them. The second is an apparent belief that anything a scientist says must be rational--as if they are not allowed to have faith based opinions! It takes just as much faith to be an atheist as it does to be a theist, and neither opinion has anything to do with science.

Other than that, it has been an entertaining and thought provoking discussion... thank God for misconceptions and irrational beliefs, eh.

My main emphasis has been, and continues to be, on what can and cannot be proven:

It cannot be proven that an “afterlife” exists.
It cannot be proven that “hyperspace” is real.
It cannot be proven that “unseen immaterial realms” exist.

So in the sense that these things can’t be proven, all the items I listed are fairy tales. But there’s another item which belongs on the list that is so commonly accepted most people can’t bring themselves to add it. Yet it belongs there with the others just the same. There’s a fairy tale that nearly everyone believes in:

It cannot be proven that “reality” exists.



As I said in my last post:

You see the “afterlife” as a fairy tale due to lack of evidence supporting its existence. I see “reality” as a fairy tale due to lack of evidence supporting its existence. What’s the difference?

Well reality must exist in some sense at least, if independent observers can perceive it, or also just the fact that you exist at all (think therefore am blabla), no?

Of course this can still be a simulation of some kind, but then the simulation (some other more encompassing reality) exists and translates into these constants for all of us. And at least with these constants it affects our life in perceivable ways so we can make use of them. Now you cannot say the same about afterlife and so on, right?

Because while a few isolated individuals may say they've "seen" heaven or afterlife, they cannot show it to anybody else. Does this mean its absolutely not real? No of course not, I dont think anybody here has pretense of absolute truth, but it certainly means I will most likely not pay too much attention to it and will rather try to think of what to eat next, or how to improve my work, or whatever. Maybe its some weird simulation where if I dont believe in bearded god and if I use my simulation-life to trying to be healthy and pay the bills instead, when I simulate-die, I dont go to simulation-heaven. But you wont see me losing my sleep over it

I guess we all have to make choices on what world view to subscribe to in any given moment... I will make mine on what I consider is more probable and pragmatic, what I think can lead to most benefits to me and others (according to my criteria and supposing other people are real ). I dont think science has all the answers but for the most part I will definitely be way more interested in whatever information comes "filtered" by the scientific method than anything regarding the pineal gland of a flying masonic egyptian yogi living out of light in the seventh heaven

Yes, I know... I can't believe I said that in the first place. My bad. That will teach me to get less that 5 hours sleep for 3 nights in a row. Had I been more lucid, I would have simply suggested that there is MORE to philosophy than ONLY the lens of reason. Knowledge, thought and concept are intimately linked to philosophy, so I apologize to all concerned for such an illogical statement. Caffeine is a poor substitute for a good nights sleep. Pardon me while I shrink into the tiniest fibers of the carpet upon which I stand. Nihilism is certainly a viable philosophy. So is cold, analytical rationale. I freely admit my error in self expression was fraught with some serious confusion. My fingers were typing faster than my mind could define with any impartial clarity. Again, my bad.



For myself, it is ironic because the materialist argument stresses that what is unknown and therefore, cannot be proven by scientific procedure, takes at face value that what we conceive of as "material" is not what it appears to be (it is only so from our limited scope of observation). Quintessentially... nothing is real or at least, in the usual manner in which we use the term REAL. So too, within each appearance of reality, another interior exists. And most of these interiors are beyond our capacity of awareness. Yet this does not mean that we cannot intuit them and that they do not exist, except in fairy tales. It's just too convenient to give credence to only the level of reality which we are able to access. For it too, is simply a matter of which specific lens is used to assess it's existence through. I personally find this quite paradoxical and most ironic.

I’m not saying anything about what the “true” nature of reality might be. I can create another “fairy tale” and call it “true reality”, but how far does that get me? I’m also not saying that reality does not exist.

What I’m saying is quite simple: There is no evidence to prove that reality exists.

Science describes the characteristics of “reality”, but that is not proof of existence. Actions and behaviors in my dreams follow physical laws, sometimes different laws, but the presence of describable laws is not proof of existence. My visits to hyperspace are not just random chaos – there seems to be underlying laws. I don’t know what they are, but the presence of laws in hyperspace isn’t proof that hyperspace exists.

Some say that reality exists because we have “consensus” that it exists. When I dream, everyone in my dreams behave in consensus – when I talk to characters in my dreams, they answer back, they react to common stimuli in the environment, etc. On one hyperspace visit I was in the midst of countless entities, and told them that there were some from my reality who doubted their existence. They responded by laughing! This shows that consensus about reality does not prove reality exists.

Science tells us what sorts of things can happen in reality. It doesn’t tell us if reality actually exists. Consensus isn’t any better at telling us if reality actually exists.

So what proof or evidence do we have that reality actually exists?

Well we have a lot of models based on observed data that we use to make accurate predictions about future data that has yet to be observed. Over countless iterations of the model holding up it kinda becomes self evidient.

HOWEVER. It is a circular self evidence that requires our models of this reality to be based in this reatlity. It is like a recursive computer algorithm trying to prove that it exsits.




For sure I agree with this. Whether this reality is real I suppose depends upon whether we can wake up from it like a dream. Since I suspect non of us have this ability without drugs then we would all be wise to consider it as real in some sense at least.

So like you endless I try to make my decision around pragmatism, but at the same time I keep a very open mind about would could or could not be. I can't ignore my own perceptions. People can say but you see God because you take drugs...and I can respond that you see this reality because your brain is always on drugs...serotonin, dopamine, gabba..etc,etc. Our entire reality is determined by chemicals. Why should I trust this one any more than another one? I guess the answer I give to myself is because everyone else is also experiencing this reality and my actions here directly affect them, whereas in hyperspace it's my reality and you are not effected...but is it less real? Personally I don't think so. I think it's all real and it's all not real. <<--- that's philosophical speak for I simply don't know and I can admit it!

Believe nothing. Allow anything. Question Everything.