Hey, your post has an apparent contradiction in it; observe:

Does the personality survive after death? If so, then death is NOT eternal.
Yet you claim that death IS eternal, indicating NO existence after death (NO survival).

Did you already post the explanation for this contradiction? Or would you care to explain it now?

Go ahead and have all the opinions you like!
Just explain each of them as best as you can, including some words as to how they relate,
then carefully revise what you have written, at least 3 times; 7 is better.

A fool will open his mouth to speak, but a wise person will carefully consider his words. I don't think you are a fool, but I have not yet understood your words, so I would like for you to try to tell me again what you are trying to say here:

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.

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

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. 


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:

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?   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!  



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

If you like I'll tell you about my supernatural encounters. Though this would be derailing the thread as it's not relevant.

Again, in simple English, the evidence for God is the existence of the kind of universe we live in.

For a moment, get any preconceived notions of God as you have heard of him through the religions, out of your mind. Then consider the following.

The whole universe, all of nature, acts like a gigantic, ultra-complex machine. Machines have makers.

At the same time we see the machine, everything is wearing out, running down, like a clock that needs to be wound up. We see nothing in nature that can make a machine anything like the universe. We don't see anything that can wind the clock of nature up again. Nothing!

If nature were not so complex, if we could figure it out in detail, then maybe there isn't a God. But, simply because of the way the whole universe and nature exist, there has to be a God. Machines have makers. And this Maker is way beyond us, far greater than we can ever think to be.

Proof is in the eye of the beholder. But the evidence is so overwhelmingly great that there simply is no other way.

I have detailed instructions on how to 're-start' that machine.. clues are already posted.. including the 'device' used.. for those with eyes to see.. if they were gouged out, google it.. lol.. a hint is in my posts re: star maps.. cant remember whit thread it's in.. I learnt this from a shaman's drum.

So your saying the universe is too complex to just appear, yet God (who would need to be exponentially more complex) just popped up?

I think I'm done with this thread now, just going round in circles now. Least decksperiment put some new stuff on the table.

I think the problem is there is no clear definition of what God is. Everyone has their own interpretation. Which means no-ones is going to get anywhere.
I think before discussing proof of God, everyone has to agree exactly what God is.

And that can only open up a fresh can of worms. (Maybe a Flobberworm!)

This is my last post. See ya around.

GODS
GODS EVERYWHERE!!

I have read quite a bit about the survival hypothesis, but mostly from an academic perspective; I would for sure love to hear more from non-academics, I just wish their writing was more coherent!

I am inclined to take a cautious position approaching expansive phenomena of this type, merely wanting to emphasize that we can and should no longer wish them away. The Problem of Seth's Origin is a metaphysical question also related to survival, so these expansive questions are, if nothing else, useful practice for other expansive questions!

Some people don't care for evidence; it is perfectly fine!

“To know how to choose a path with heart is to learn how to follow
intuitive feeling. Logic can tell you superficially where a path might
lead to, but it cannot judge whether your heart will be in it.”

Many things are sought and some are found. Many other things are not specifically sought for and found (serendipity).

It is through following the facts presented in the published record and remaining open to all avenues of fruitful speculation and intuitive possibilities that the problem of Seth's origin will most likely be solved.

Challenge is a part of the quest to find God just as much as soul-searching; all beliefs must be challenged if they are to hold up! I think that the survival hypothesis is important in this discussion; it is expansive enough to give us some hints about God.