If God Is Real

Too bad we aren't talking about tea pots in orbit. All the same I heard they are brewing coffee on the space station. The very conception of teapots in orbit speaks to the naturally abstract character of the mind to imagine probability. Yes there are teapots in orbit if we put them there. Is it not written you are gods. Certainly we share a god like character as per genesis to invoke tangible experience.
Our perceptions are filtered or organized in accordance with our sincere invocations. There was a time when the imagining of things in orbit not currently witnessed there was seen as delusion.

 

No, we're talking about something far less credible.

 

your incredulous attitude seems to be getting in the way.

while you have presented many valid points to consider, they are all presented with that derisive attitude in which you have set yourself above the "opposition", which is actually kinda funny considering your admitted lack of knowledge concerning the specific thing you rail against the most, the Abrahamic religions.

this is why I usually try to avoid this type of crap.
no matter what is said or presented, it will only be met with rolling eyes and sighs, even though most of those rolling their eyes know very, very little of the topic matter.

thedope isn't attempting to instruct you in psycho pharmacology, so why are you adopting an air of superior knowledge in a field you admittedly know very little about???

It is interesting to note how school has greatly influenced and changed your approach to things. your overall attitude is a lot different than it was a few years ago.
not making any quantitative assessments, just an observation.

Greg, did you ever look at the research I linked about speaking in tongues????
I ask because it is actual science and illustrates that the phenomena is rather unique from all other similar types of experience.
If you have no interest in that, then how sincere are you at finding the nugget behind this all this crap or are you just taking pot shots at what you think is an easy target?

 

Not at all. Credible is able to be believed or capable of persuading people that something will happen or be successful. There are substantial statistics that suggest that such credibility is in fact present.

"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 8% of the world's population, whereas irreligious individuals represent a further 10% to 20%"

This leaves roughly 70% who find credibility.

Now what seems incredible to you is no where near the total weight of what human beings over all actually find credible.

 

Think about what you saying.

 

You are measuring potentials on the basis of belief when you say something is incredible.

 

One thing that clouds perception is the idea any energetic phenomena is nefarious in nature.

What is not real does not exist.

 

People need to be talking about "what is God?" before asking "is God real?"

 

In the way of what? Being bamboozled?

I don't know what you're referring to, but I think I have a pretty good knowledge base of Abrahamic religions, and I think I have demonstrated as much in the dozens of discussions that I've participated in around that topic over the years.

You can attack my "attitude" or you can bring something of substance to the table regarding the facts of the matter.

If only there were some way for you yourself to stop rolling your eyes at the eye rollers and educate them, as you apparently know far, far more than anyone else here about abrahamic religions.

It was in school that I saw even more clearly how insidious religion is, in the context of mental health. When mental health professionals teach their patients to worship Jesus Christ, that is a problem for me.

I've also grown older and seen more of the world in general, and I don't give as much time to tiptoeing around horseshit like I used to. I much prefer to call it out loudly.

I looked into the research, and found it not very exhilarating. It's a pretty tenuous link man. Over here, you've got the entire metaphysics of christianity, and over there as proof, you have a study showing some interesting brain activity. Needless to say the scales are a little imbalanced. The only thing anyone can conclude is "Interesting, let's put a pin in that and keep exploring the human brain, the most complicated object in the universe".

Please stop calling me Greg, that is not my username, and this is not a private message.

It's lines like that that make you lose your audience. It's clever, but it doesn't actually get us anywhere regarding the point at hand, and just serves to confuse and obfuscate.

The fact that they are brewing coffee in the space station does not bode any way towards a teapot orbiting the sun; likewise I do not see any equivalent to the coffee metaphor in regards to the actual existence of the abrahamic god.

Which is basically where I'd argue the whole idea of "God" came from.

I don't know, is it? Is it not also written that Cthulhu sleeps at the bottom of the ocean, his dreams slowly turning people mad?

Will you put a downpayment on an exploratory ocean expedition to find Cthulhu in the ocean?

Exactly, and perceiving God is all about your own internal mental filters, and nothing to do "external reality".

There will come a time when this same rule inevitably covers the concept of God.

As Daniel Dennett says, initially the concept of God was like Mount Everest; very sharply defined (jealous, has a name, has a gender, has wishes), and starkly outlined against the backdrop of everything else. Over time, as skeptics have hammered away at characteristics of this construct, it has morphed into something like okiefreak's idea; The Ground of Being; from Everest to a barely rolling hill . . . now "God" is as miasmic and mysterious as pure mystery itself, which is now to be worshipped. We are getting closer and closer to simply flattening the whole thing in with the rest of reality.

 

I can dig this, but i feel that there will inevitably come a time that man realizes himself to be a demi-God; he will see himself more akin to being God's brother than God's children. Godliness is about having domain over creation. The more that man evolves, the more he will come into realization of his own "god-nature".

If "God" were to be any sort of actual entity i would call it a more advanced extraterrestrial race that's been harvesting humans on planet Earth.

 

That has been my take.

What is it we can definitely say about the issue. This thing that displays itself as self evident becomes the axiomatic basis for further reasoning. What is god...that which we invoke.

From there we can test any further hypothetical assertions. To build on the axiomatic base, god being that which we invoke is conceptual in nature. We ourselves arise in conception. we come from conceptual nature and are conceptually as well as physically organized. The province of mind in conceptual terms is unlimited yet the physical body is limited. The conceptual is organizational and this conceptual mind exists in nature, that is excusing any doubt that you in fact exist and that you have a mind capable of conception.

A way of looking at this conceptual mind in nature is as a field of unbound potentials that are free to interact. Or you could say that the function of chance naturally leads to organization or chain reactions are naturally computational.

You commit a logical fallacy in considering that the internal space is an extraordinary event not covered in the term external reality.

The subjective space is in fact present. You aren't measuring with standard metrics. You have reality on one hand and exceptional or questionable reality on the other hand. The only thing questionable about the subjective take are it's qualifications.

I'm going to cut and paste here on your further comments as the back and forth editing is tedious,

It's lines like that that make you lose your audience. It's clever, but it doesn't actually get us anywhere regarding the point at hand, and just serves to confuse and obfuscate.

This is a qualification. You aren't considering the line as it is written. The fact that teapots exist on earth means in itself that teapots orbit the sun. It is not obfuscation. It is distinguishing between what you are saying, which as has been demonstrated to be based on belief, "incredulous," and what can be observed. As far as popular audience it doesn't concern me. I'm most fond of addressing reason and hearing responses from the reasonable, less so retards. Who is confused here?

I do not see any equivalent to the coffee metaphor in regards to the actual existence of the abrahamic god.

I do not see the metaphorical equivalent when you say abrahamic god, it assumes the existence of something. Abrahamic god is a metaphor you use to describe a belief system. As far as I am concerned it is not even relevant to the question is god real. Maybe more attuned to the question is that god real.

Which is basically where I'd argue the whole idea of "God" came from.

And ideas come from where? I argue conceptual nature.

I don't know, is it? Is it not also written that Cthulhu sleeps at the bottom of the ocean, his dreams slowly turning people mad?

Obviously you just wrote it.

Will you put a downpayment on an exploratory ocean expedition to find Cthulhu in the ocean?

No my meditation is beyond symbols. What is beyond symbols, the thing the symbol represents.

There will come a time when this same rule inevitably covers the concept of God.

As Daniel Dennett says, initially the concept of God was like Mount Everest; very sharply defined (jealous, has a name, has a gender, has wishes), and starkly outlined against the backdrop of everything else. Over time, as skeptics have hammered away at characteristics of this construct, it has morphed into something like okiefreak's idea; The Ground of Being; from Everest to a barely rolling hill . . . now "God" is as miasmic and mysterious as pure mystery itself, which is now to be worshipped. We are getting closer and closer to simply flattening the whole thing in with the rest of reality.

Will there be a time when conceptualization ends? In terms of god as devotion to our own determinations it never ends but does rearrange itself, takes multitudes of forms.

 

homeostasis rides the edge of the continually unfolding free agent

we become physically excited from mental abstractions as well as by autonomous or chemically induced embodied reactions

 

If I am "God's brother" and not "God's child", then the question still remains; what or who is God? All you've done is re-arranged my relationship to an undefined question mark.

What does it mean to "have domain over creation"? This strikes me as misguided language from abrahamic times. We never have had and never will have domain over creation; we are creation. We are not in a political relationship to ourselves; we are not our Kings (only poetically, not literally). Does an ant colony have domain over dirt?

You can call god whatever you like, and define him in any number of zany ways, but you will always be asked to account for your decisions. You will be asked to show the money of your reasoning.

If you call god "advanced ETs harvesting humans", my first thought is "What evidence have you collected that 1) there are ETs and 2) they are harvesting humans, and why isn't NASA, the CIA, and the NSA strapping you to a chair right now?"

"If "God" were to be any sort of actual entity i would call it a more purple balloon that's been sowing the linen on planet Earth."

Your statement and this statement sit comfortably together, because neither accounts for its contents with any kind of reality beyond imaginative mental fictions.

Everytime I think I get your posts even a little bit you get even more abstract and seemingly away from the issue at hand in the context that others are discussing it.

That which we invoke . . . invoke in what sense? Invoke as an idea? When I think "god" in the context of these discussions, I think floating dead white man with super powers.

Therefore god is a floating dead white man? Therefore god exists, and is a floating dead white man? I think it would help if you really spelled out what you mean by this repeated phrase of yours, which seems to point at seemingly everything and nothing at the same time.

I understand that the division between external and internal are false; nevertheless we use this distinction often to great effect because it's "true enough". I see it as Newtonian physics; technically incorrect but it can get you to the moon. I imagine here I've opened a pandora's box of apologetics for religion; see, it doesn't need to be true, but it can still get us to heaven!!!

It is obfuscation because Russell's Teapot posits a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, in the Asteroid Belt. Therefore a response such as "there are teapots on earth, orbiting the sun, therefore teapots orbit the sun" is at best, a tongue-in-cheek rascal reply, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to confuse and derail or perhaps a completely disconnect with the discussion being had. Again if your aim is to clarify language then you've got to start on yourself first, because I know I'm not alone when I say I don't understand ~60% of your posts.

Then we need to step back and ask some tough questions. In particular,

1) When people say "God", do they always mean the same thing?

2) When someone is arguing against a particular God (Yaweh), does it help the conversation to present arguments for a different God (ground of all being, pure mystery etc)?

3) Does it make real sense to call yourself by the name of a follower of a religion (christian), while believing in a god wholly different from the god described in that religion? (a large number of christians believe in their own concocted idea of what god is , separate from what scripture says. Many churches allow and endorse this, saying the important thing is professing allegiance to Jesus and coming to church; the metaphysics are mere details, secondary to being "in the club")

4) If someone believes in a particular god (pure mystery), should they ally themselves with all other believers of all other gods when it comes to sociological similarity and debates? That is, does it make sense anymore to have a questionnaire "Do you believe in God Y/N"?

Daniel Dennett compares this situation we are in with two people who both love rock. Stacey loves Hudson Rock, a handsome boy in her class. Julia loves Reach Out Center for Kids (R.O.C.K.).

In this situation, is it honest to say that both Stacey and Julia love rock? Love rock music?

It is disingenuous; they both use the word to point at completely different things. And not just different like the difference between MY idea of "apple" and YOUR idea of "apple". It's more an apples and oranges situation.

This is a major roadblock in all these discussions; everybody who has any kind of disparate and idiosyncratic conception of "god" is lumped together all on one side of the debate, and any kind of skeptic is forced to reckon with the combined summation of all possible conceptions of "god".

HP Lovecraft wrote it; therefore it must be true. Was it not written?

Exactly, let's stop haggling with symbols. For the low, low price of all your life savings, you will join me on an expedition to find the Real Chulthu. Sound reasonable?

 

Maybe it's the way this topic was formulated that's led to such a diffuse set of ruminations. "If God is real..." is a sentence fragment that could be completed in lots of different ways, e. g., "If God is real, atheists are in big tubble." " "prayer makes sense", "there may be meaning to life after all." etc. Along the way, of course, we'd have to define "God" and "real". Mr. Writer points out, accurately enough, that the term "god" once meant something different and more specific than it does to many people today: a supernatural, conscious being with superhuman powers. Mr. Writer, if I understand him, is bothered by the "bait and switch" in which some followers of contemporary religions embrace more abstract concepts of God instead of jettisoning the whole thing as outmoded.

I come to the issue as a modern person asking does it make any sense to continue saying such things as "I believe in God" and "I am a Christian." I no longer believe that God is the Dude in the Sky who concerns himself with human actions (although I leave that possibility open). When I use the term "God", I'm referring to the felt presence of a Higher Power. This is (1) objectively, whatever mystery is responsible for the laws of science and the integrated complexity of the universe and (2) subjectively, ultimate meaning and the summation of human idealism. I think these concepts still have utility in allowing me to identify the object of my affections, however abstract, and to order my life accordingly--preserving a sense of reverence for the sacred or numinous in reality as I perceive it. In a panel discussion that was once posted in this Forum, the so-called atheist "Four Horsemem" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens) acknowledged the importance of the "numinous" for humans, and debated how to provide it without religion. Since religion provides this already, I think it might be more efficient to reform religion where necessary instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. When I use the term "Christ", I'm referring to an idealized Jesus associated with a set of teachings that emphasize peace, love, understanding, and sympathetic concern for society's rejects and least advantaged members. Pragmatically or existentially, I'm referring to a perspective I adopted as a result of a "moment of clarity" in which I came to see myself and others as reflections of Divinity. This idea seems to "work" for me in providing a useful way of relating to external reality and to others. One could describe this as a delusion and hold out for the kind of "reality" physicist Steven Weinberg described when he said "the more comprehensible the universe becomes the more pointless it seems." To say there is no God and no Jesus is, to me, another way of saying there is no need for meaning beyond the day-to-day grind nor a sense of the sacred or numinous, and that human existence is best understood in reductionist terms. I think that "reality" in that sense is illusory, and the quest for "truth" in that sense is trip down Alice's rabbit hole. From an existentialist/pragmatist perspective, truth is what we're willing to bet on. It's a question of whether we see reality as sacred or profane, and human existence as having a higher significance than matter and motion. Thus reformulated, possibly we can re-approach the topic in a less confusing and circuitous manner.

 

God is a word, an abused word, but only a word

" We are made in his image" of course we are. We are all gods in ourselves,we pass judgment on one another and of ourselves. We can annihilate ourselves through a self imposed Armageddon. We create our own reality through imagination and thought. To be positive and motivated in our own happiness is akin to heaven, we create it and we can destroy it. Heaven and Hell are inside us, we choose to go in one direction or the other, again, we pass judgment on ourselves

The Bible is a book of analogies and metaphors, to decipher it is the key to understanding ourselves as a hole

I encourage anyone to look up Neville Goddard. A man well before his time with the best understanding/interpretation of the Bible and of "God" IMO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNESZAsX38k

 

By God's brother i am pointing back to Magick and humans coming into a more evolved, self-actualized state, where they are co-creating reality with the capacities of their consciousness.

Having domain over creation again points to Consciousness, and how thought, Mind, and Consciousness actually create reality. This has always been the case, but humans aren't fully aware of it, so they spin around in the materialist rat race that we currently dwell in. Humans dwell in a prison. If you are unaware of this, you need to take a second look. The entire economic system is a systematic scam and prison.

There is lots of evidence out there already supporting the existence of Extraterrestrials. Some of it is phony, some of it may not be...but someone skeptical of something such as ET's just points to their own internal processing. A better question would be what are even the mathematical odds that we are the only beings in the entire infinite cosmos? NASA itself has admitted that they feel that we will find Extraterrestrials within 20 years. I can show you an article if needed. What they are actually saying, however, is that they already know all about them, but the only way to slowly disclose this to the public would to be to slowly allow it enter the mainstream consciousness in a way that the public won't panic.

Whether they are harvesting humans or not is hard to say, but I would say that if it were true that we were were planted here by a more advanced race, it would be suitable to truly call them "God", as they would be our true creators.

The CIA isn't strapping me to a chair because society is set up to throw anybody into ET's into the fringe or kooky realms of society. They are cast off as weirdos who needn't be paid attention to. But luckily, more and more people are opening up to the idea of advanced races beyond this planet.

Actually, ET's harvesting us is highly more reasonable and practical than a balloon with linen and a sowing machine. I would hope that this would be obvious to you, but you are a Taurus, which is all about "what you see is what you get". But those two statements definitely do not sit well together.

There is such thing as Intuition. There's also something called the right brain. Not everything is black and white, obvious with evidence, and left-brain oriented.

 

I can only say I am intrigued by the inability to understand words. Invoke means to cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument. You are correct that I posit things in a way that is different from the way others are discussing it. Doesn't mean that what I am saying is not relevant to the essential subject. It means I bring a different set of tools to cobble a ground that everyone can walk on. My argument is not against the reality of what we see but for it. First off very earlier in these discussions I point out that we must be discussing something, therefor the existential question does god exist is meaningless.
Having discerned that god exists then next question is in what form. We have stated many and every single one reflects back on this feature.

That which we invoke . . . invoke in what sense? Invoke as an idea? When I think "god" in the context of these discussions, I think floating dead white man with super powers.

Therefore god is a floating dead white man? Therefore god exists, and is a floating dead white man? I think it would help if you really spelled out what you mean by this repeated phrase of yours, which seems to point at seemingly everything and nothing at the same time.

Okay, we make a connection here with the observation that we are devoted to our sense of rightness and in many cases choose to defend that sense despite any contravening difficulties we may encounter. It is at this level of whole conviction that we find the god aspect. When you say you think of floating white man with superpowers it is compatible with your atheist conviction. Do all people mean the same thing when they say god, no, but what they truly mean they are devoted to and this in practice then is their god. Their skeleton key to their terminal experience. We give the world all the meaning it has for us and it is this meaning that we react to in considerate terms.

God I love cheese burgers, (sometimes)

Then from there in theological discussions they bring up the specter of idolatry which in lay terms looks like, you are not adhering to the right standard. I don't even consider it in those terms, I am not a theologian. I consider if my devotion is producing results.

I understand that the division between external and internal are false; nevertheless we use this distinction often to great effect because it's "true enough". I see it as Newtonian physics; technically incorrect but it can get you to the moon. I imagine here I've opened a pandora's box of apologetics for religion; see, it doesn't need to be true, but it can still get us to heaven!!!

False by definition is not true. True enough in this instance doesn't get you to the moon it advances a contradictory argument. Truth is relative and accurate only on the basis of direct comparison. Is it the same or is it different. To make these comparisons is possible because we are real.

It is obfuscation because Russell's Teapot posits a teapot orbiting the sun between the orbits of Earth and Mars, in the Asteroid Belt. Therefore a response such as "there are teapots on earth, orbiting the sun, therefore teapots orbit the sun" is at best, a tongue-in-cheek rascal reply, and at worst, a deliberate attempt to confuse and detail or perhaps a completely disconnect with the discussion being had. Again if your aim is to clarify language then you've got to start on yourself first, because I know I'm not alone when I say I don't understand ~60% of your posts.
Russel has no teapot. Nor did you quote russels analogy, you only alluded to it. He is making an analogy to illuminate an issue of contention. I'm not obfuscating because I didn't state precisely the dimensions of something offered as conjecture. I am not trying to be a rascal or cheat nor cheap in my regard of the issues. Russel has no teapot but he has the imagery he was devoted to. Further I am responding to what you are writing and not to what russel wrote in exactitude. The 60% statistic you encounter represents the vagrancy of attention you give to the whole of life when considering a seemingly isolated issue. That percentage is the amount of time you take considering your rebuttal to things you thought you understood having not been clear about your own case. There are no discrete events but there are momentary perspectives.

2) When someone is arguing against a particular God (Yaweh), does it help the conversation to present arguments for a different God (ground of all being, pure mystery etc)?

Certainly when the purpose of the conversation is to argue against. Helpful is a matter of desired aim and timing. If it is to expand on the community understanding then it is not helpful to argue against a particular god. Understanding is embraced. It is a matter of attraction and corresponding personal investment. You will not see what you will not look at. Further you will not comprehend that which you have judged incredible. There is a third distinction we can accurately make on the truth scale and that is what is it's function.

.3) Does it make real sense to call yourself by the name of a follower of a religion (christian), while believing in a god wholly different from the god described in that religion? (a large number of christians believe in their own concocted idea of what god is , separate from what scripture says. Many churches allow and endorse this, saying the important thing is professing allegiance to Jesus and coming to church; the metaphysics are mere details, secondary to being "in the club")

I interpret this as a personal question. It seems to reach for what I might believe. I say of myself I am studious. I say I have been particularly studious, (disciple,) of christ teaching which is the example of logos in the broadest philosophical sense. The teaching of the figure jesus is posited as reasonable discourse, consider the lilies of the field. Something that is not commonly picked up on in this discourse is the descriptions of how perception functions and how a thing may be perceived or how to learn about a thing, seek and you shall find.

To be accurate there is no contrary to scripture. There are contrasting interpretations of scriptures.

This is a statement which I have translated may times by virtue of observation of the self, but have never identified as such,

The eye is the lamp of the body
if the eye is clear or sound the whole body will be full of light
If the light in you be darkness, if you vision is not clear or unsound, how great the darkness.

In a nutshell, Anxiety is cause by the misapprehension of what is so.

To view the world in sane proportion causes delight in the body

To view the world with insane proportions causes an unpleasant internal state, (darkness,) puts you up in arms which in turn invites further unpleasantness.

We can appreciate the value of our own chosen proportions by the taste of their fruit which is the state of temperate ease attending your convictions about what is there. Think a thought, take a breath, observe the sensation that follows.
This is a major roadblock in all these discussions; everybody who has any kind of disparate and idiosyncratic conception of "god" is lumped together all on one side of the debate, and any kind of skeptic is forced to reckon with the combined summation of all possible conceptions of "god".


If your view which is sponsored by your convictions causes consternation, re assess your convictions, (if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out) reality is not a challenge to your existence, your existence is always embraced by it. Our challenges come in bracing reality. Notice the cause of sin in the statement in parenthesis indicates an error in perception.

The correct perspective always inspires in one a measure of peace.

HP Lovecraft wrote it; therefore it must be true. Was it not written?

Truth is accurately determined by direct comparison. Direct comparisons in this venue are in the form of words. It is true that lovecraft wrote the words. Is it not also true that they are written as science fiction?

The words I quote represent the veritas of the situation in an accusers own terms in response to the allegation of blaspheme for comparing himself to god. Saying quite plainly it is an inheritance we all enjoy or depreciate as to our perceived preferences. God spawn. When asked in the dialogue, whom shall I say sent me, the answer was tell them I am sent you. I am is our common name and I am hot states my relative attentive position in the moment. I am is our claim on individual experience, we are is the verity of our estate in common. In the context of the blasphemy accusation for claiming character of god, In terms of godliness it is not necessary to be greater or lessor than god, only to be like him.

This is a major roadblock in all these discussions; everybody who has any kind of disparate and idiosyncratic conception of "god" is lumped together all on one side of the debate, and any kind of skeptic is forced to reckon with the combined summation of all possible conceptions of "god".


I lost my place going back and forth but this caught my eye in passing.

There is no roadblock to comprehension if you are open minded and reasonable. Kind of skeptic gives the impression of distinct species. To "be forced to reckon with the combined summation of all possible conceptions of god" is simply the expression of an unhappy learner who cares more for his idea of the way information must be disseminated than the information that can be appreciated.

Exactly, let's stop haggling with symbols. For the low, low price of all your life savings, you will join me on an expedition to find the Real Chulthu. Sound reasonable?

Symbols are the things we have to reason with each other. So no, the cessation of the exploration of meaning does not sound reasonable. As far as your expedition, has nothing to do with reason but I have a reason to decline the offer in that it doesn't appeal to me.

 

It's hard to jettison the whole thing as outmoded, because, as you say, it's just a higher power. I suppose new words should be invented for everyone's different idea of God. (A few years ago someone on here suggested "Omnimax" to me.) But where on Earth are you going to find a thread about the Omnimax and find people willing to discuss what you're trying to discuss? The word God works pretty well for instigating the kind of philosophical discussion everyone is interested in.

Really threads should always begin with a specific concept of God and then the moderators of this website should actually pay attention and keep people from going off topic, right?

...and here goes another lost post. Let the debate continue!

 

So we can appreciate mr.writers sentiment on discussing this issue with me. I sincerely do but frustration is not a prescribed guide in the scientists tool kit. The salient evidence is found in whether or not it gets you to the moon. The moon in this case being heaven. As I think I stated somewhere heaven is proposed as a perceptual state, being describe in the terms, heaven is like. So it is something you can recognize if you orient your attention in a certain way. One aspect is becoming as children, (beginners mind,) A little child's mind is not full of the accounting of every violation it experienced in life to be construed as meaningful reference material. The process of forgiving or undoing the static perceptions of the convicted mind is essential in restoring sane perception.

I listened to an interview today by beshlove of john c. lilly who testifies that certain practices do lead to these perceptual states. Samadhi equals meditative absorption. Prescription, seek first the kingdom of god. This is the intellectual effort and with all you heart and all your strength is the investment of your whole creature. Nirvana refers to an imperturbable stillness of mind free from desire, aversion, and delusion. Heaven is described as being free of suffering. I can report the same having invested myself in the pursuit. Ease of being is the highest purpose I can identify and I am in no instance more pleased than with bliss.

 

Well in answer to the question where on earth you are going to find people willing to discuss in those terms I would say you had discovered a place and also add where ever two or more are gathered in my name...