Is there any reason to believe that we are the product of god?

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by iamthat

You are talking about replacing physical components in human beings, which obviously can be done. These can either be transplanted from other human bodies or completely artificial constructions.

The questions raised were about transferring emotions or self-consciousness to non-living beings. This seems to be completely different.

Peace

Not too long ago, people said the same things about implants and prosthesis, but today, nobody questions there existence.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Siemens

Is there any reason to believe that all conscious experience is, in fact, created by only one unitary soul (=energetic structure that creates conscious experience)? And why shouldn’t it be possible that there exist many sources (that generate conscious experiences) independently and parallel?

Yes there are reasons to believe... both are equally plausible. I wanted to bring this up, we have it here in this place, as there is a mechanism for birth here we can be talking about a mechanism that exists for souls, which is possible. As above below. So is there any reason not to believe it "was" as opposed to "is". Creation no longer is. On a side not, I don't think souls give or bring human's conscious experience but the souls observes, it receives experience. Part of their function. I get the sense their's is a symbiotic relationship between body and soul, hence my ideas are going to be different. This is a really fascinating and thought provoking post. I hope to hear something I never considered before but nothing new yet. I'm sure this is an old argument to.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by iamthat

Or we can consider that we are each a life existing within a greater Life, and this greater Life is itself one of many greater Lives existing within a still greater Life, and so on.

And the converse is true. We can consider that the cells in our physical body are a myriad of lives all working together within the one Life which is us.

Peace.

Originally Posted by ThatMan

The questions remains, who made all things? Nothing can't create something, right? There must be something otherwise there is no explanation.

Originally Posted by ketzer

The counter argument typically goes that something was not created from nothing but instead has always been. Of course I suppose the counter counter argument is "Yes, and that something is what we call God."

My intuitive meditative sense, which I cannot empirically prove, is in agreement with Iamthat's post above. (That position, however, does not address "creation" or "non-creation".)

However, Ketzer's response to ThatMan also makes sense regarding the "creation" part of this dialogue.

In Gaudapada's Karika on the Mandukya Upanishad, he posits that there is no creation but that all this is simply the nature of the effulgent being that "has always been", as Ketzer hypothesizes, and which is what we call "God", as Ketzer suggested as a counter position.

This is a fascinating dialogue.

I would like to add one comment related to the original post. My sense and experience (remote viewing, collective unconscious, etc.) has been that all is interconnected in some way and not just a bunch of "individual non-connected entities". This, of course, does not address the "creation" or "non-creation" issue. However, I am inclined to go with the "non-creation" theory at this time.

In any case, I must concede that I do NOT know the definitive answer to this most intriguing question. I have raised this question myself in the past, but did not feel that I am at a level where I can pursue it further. I continue to feel that I am not at a level where I can pursue this further. Nonetheless, this thread is indeed very interesting.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by lemex

Yes there are reasons to believe... both are equally plausible. I wanted to bring this up, we have it here in this place, as there is a mechanism for birth here we can be talking about a mechanism that exists for souls, which is possible. As above below. So is there any reason not to believe it "was" as opposed to "is". Creation no longer is. On a side not, I don't think souls give or bring human's conscious experience but the souls observes, it receives experience. Part of their function. I get the sense their's is a symbiotic relationship between body and soul, hence my ideas are going to be different. This is a really fascinating and thought provoking post. I hope to hear something I never considered before but nothing new yet. I'm sure this is an old argument to.

I'm glad that you brought up the "As above, so below" Hermetic principle. Having practiced conscious sleep for years, inductive reasoning would suggest that, since the one becomes many in dream formation, then the expansion and contraction of the higher aspects of the Reality would function similarly in a dynamically unfolding "is" state, as you suggested, and NOT a "was" state, as you also pointed out.

Yes. This is indeed "thought-provoking" even though this is clearly taking us beyond what is normally considered to be thinking on this level.