Ten undeniable metaphysical truths

OK. Before getting into the meat (or tofu) of this Moses-like blog post, let's break down the title.

Ten. Just seems the right number. The Ten Commandments should be cast aside in favor of my revelation. Plus, I haven't come up with my truths yet, but intuitively I'm pretty sure that, given the amount of red wine I just poured and my sipping speed, I can come up with ten before the glass is empty.

Undeniable. Yeah, I wish. None of the brilliant stuff I write on this blog has received the unquestioning acceptance that it deserves, so I've got no illusions about how this post will be received. I just mean that anyone with sound reason and clear perceptions of reality (namely, someone like me) won't be able to deny what I say.

Metaphysical. Not sure if this is the right word, but I don't feel like quibbling over it. What I'm expounding concerns the nature of what, if anything, lies beyond the physical. So, it's "meta."

Truths. Well, sure. What follows seems so obviously true to me, I can't understand why everybody in the world doesn't bow down before my deca-truthiosity and proclaim, "So utterly right you are, Brian!"

I keep repeating these truths in blog posts, in one form or another, as well as in comments to those who don't understand how correct I am. Maybe now I can simply point people to this post and say "#3 and #7," sort of like a Chinese menu of metaphysical correctness.

Here goes…

(1) Nobody on Earth knows what happens after death. Why? Because if you're still alive on this planet, you aren't dead yet. My logic is impeccable. Near death or mystical experiences don't count as pointers toward a possible afterlife, because they're experienced in this life.

(2) There's no solid proof for God or any other unearthly divinity. If there was, religious skeptics wouldn't have a doubting leg to stand on. Everybody would believe. Plus, whatever religion preached the gospel that matched the proof would overwhelm competing faiths lacking the support of that evidence.

(3) No religion has more validity than any other. This follows from (2). Given that there's no evidence of God, in the sense of a personal (or even impersonal) entity that consciously creates and/or sustains the physical universe, every religion rests on the same foundation: the shifting sand of human speculation.

(4) Miraculous powers are possessed by no one. Ever since cameras and other forms of objective documentation came into existence, miracles have taken a decided downturn. Jesus supposedly walked on water a couple of thousand years ago, but there's no scientifically defensible proof of a major (or even minor) miracle since. Likely reason: nobody can perform one.

(5) Mystical, religious, or spiritual experiences never can be corroborated. Claims abound of people who have seen God, angels, beings of light, or whatever; who have experienced enlightenment, satori, Buddha nature, or whatever; who have risen to heaven, astral planes, paradise, oneness, whatever. Fine. Good for them. Nobody can know whether this is fact or fantasy.

(6) Physical proof of a metaphysical reality belies the truth claim. This relates to (5). Any sort of metaphysical evidence that can be perceived by the bodily senses obviously is physical. So unless it falls in the realm of the miraculous, ruled out by (4), such evidence can be explained by the material laws of nature.

(7) Consciousness or awareness doesn't count as a divine revelation. Devotees of certain "Eastern" faiths, such as Vedanta or Zen Buddhism, basically look upon a higher state of consciousness – or pure awareness – as a manifestation of foundational reality. That may be. But a crystal clear mentality still is rooted in materiality, the physical brain, not metaphysics.

(8) If God is ineffable, a mystery, anyone who speaks about divinity is spouting falsehoods. More simply put, this truth says "If you know God, why the hell are you blabbing about him (or her)?" Prophets, mystics, saints, gurus, yogis, and so on often claim that God is beyond words. Then they blab on and on about this. What gives?

(9) Absolute unity doesn't permit anyone to know about it. Often ultimate reality, personal (God) or otherwise (the One), is considered to be an unbroken wholeness. Well, if there's (a) absolute unity and (b) someone aware of it, we've got two things. So consciousness of oneness belies the claim that such exists, in a sense similar to (6).

(10) Reality is marvelously beyond our understanding, just as we know it. My proof: I'm down to my last sip of wine, sitting outside on our deck on a warm Oregon summer night, watching a crescent moon through the branches of a three hundred year old oak tree, little me being part of a 14 billion year old universe whose beginning and end almost certainly will forever remain beyond the reach of human cognition.

Which means…the mysteries of this physical realm are plenty enough to grapple with. Who needs imaginary metaphysical enigmas?

Comments

[Ian Stone]

Your total focus on the Material proof and your explanations, demonstrate you are a very young Soul, with very little understanding of your true nature.

Some time in the future after many more lives you will gain more understanding of the truth.

With Love
Ian Stone – Founder of HEART Energy Healing System,
Human Energy Assessment Release Treatments
Metaphysical Institute
Metaphysical Institute Blog

[Brian]

Ian, you didn't provide any reasons why my 10 Truths aren't true. Please do so, before you call me a "very young soul." (But thanks for the compliment -- some days I feel my 59 years in my body, but I do try to keep my soul as youthful as possible.)

[tucson]

I like your ten metaphysical truths. Regarding #9 "Absolute unity doesn't permit anyone to know about it.":

That is because there isn't an entity other than the unicity to know about it or that COULD know about it. We want an answer or truth that we can objectify and say, "Ah, that's it!". But if this truth is a unicity of everything, how can there be an entity outside of the truth to know it, for then there would be another unicity besides the unicity that objectifies the unicity! So, the answer is that it is unknowable except as THIS which is as it is. Whatever is the content of awareness is IT. That's IT. The problem is the thinking about IT. We want IT to be some earthshaking, profound, cosmic revelation outside of what IS AS IT IS that knocks us on our asses when ironically the earthshaking thing is THIS as it is right now!

[tucson]

Ian Stone says: "..you are a very young Soul"

What a pile of arrogant crap. And I guess being an old soul you are in the priviledged position of judging who is a young one?

How can a so-called soul be young or old if the soul is eternal?

When all relativities are seen as non-existent, nothing remains to be understood.

[tAo]

Ian Stone, you're a pompous bone-head.

[tAo]

Brian,

I somehow posted my message in the wrong place. So delete the other one. It should be right here under Aug 5. Here it is again:

Now this is a great article Brian! So you had better save me some of that there uhh wine... that is if you haven't emptied the bottle yet. In fact, maybe you had better send me a whole bottle. With that kind of stuff, maybe we should even start a special Church of the Churchless wine production division.

(too bad all you dogmatic satsangis are not allowed to partake)

[Tony]

Stoned again, youngster. Ah....... to have the ageless wisdom of an old soul!

[Edward]

I count eleven.

[UrlRiane]

Very interesting! I was raised in a very conservative Christian household. I never questioned the way I was raised until I came to college, which is truly an eye opener. I can't say I've lost my faith completely, but I do look at the world differently. I love how you make logical statements and then back them up. I am just curious as to what your thoughts are on humans as natural beings (which obviously we are). I guess that sounds confusing but what I mean is, why do you think we are so different than other animals in this universe (that we hold knowledge about). If the thought process of humans is a physically natural occurence(brain being physical) then what's keep other animals from getting on our level, so to speak. I am not trying to denounce or disuade anyone, just a curious girl cruising through life and taking a spiritual journey.

[Blogger Brian]

UrlRiane, I don't think humans are all that qualitatively different from other animals. Yes, we have more self-awareness, but other animals have some (chimpanzees, dolphins). Yes, we can reason and use tools, but other animals can do the same.

Science eventually will better understand what genetic differences between us and other primates account for our "humanness."

I prefer to focus on our commonality with all life, and with the entire cosmos. Religion believes that we humans are special. I prefer the Taoist notion that we are part of nature, interconnected with all that exists. That's also a scientific notion.

As to what keeps other animals from being human, ask evolution. There are so many species, each adapted to its environment or it wouldn't survive as a species. How long will us Homo sapiens survive? Hopefully for a long time.

But would you bet on the human species living long than the cockroach species? I wouldn't. This helps answer why not every creature has evolved to match our capabilities. We may destroy ourselves with those capabilities.

[pass by]

Humans are special, just not in a religious way. Yeah, I know we're all made of the same fundamental particles in the universe, but to say everything is the same because of that is mixing up the level of sameness, which is equivocation. I thought that was obvious.

[Mike]

I'm a strict materialist. I don't want to be, often, but I am. I try to imagine other possibilities but I always come back to strict materialism.

Randy Newman, the singer/songwriter, once said, "There's no joy in being an atheist." I agree. But I can't find my way to any other metaphysical position. The Stoics help, I read them a lot, their focus on Nature (though, I wouldn't let myself go the Pantheistic route). All I know is what we know and what we know seems to point to strict materialism being the way of things.

Now, knowledge grows and changes, so, maybe, one day, we'll learn something new that upsets the paradigm. That'd be interesting if it happened while I was alive. We'll see. Until then, I can only know what we know and accept that there's an awful lot more that I just don't know.

[Catherine]

Mike, we are made of material and we're natural. So we've got to respond to a beautiful natural thing with the deepest pleasure.

This evening sky soaks into me with it's salmon translucent glow.

[Dom]

If I had infinite time I would go through your "undeniable metaphysical truths" and refute them one by one. Many of these are unverified claims with little or no evidence or elaboration to support them (i.e. opinion). What most of them come down to is the question of whether or not God exists.

I would like you to note that metaphysics deals with realities which are beyond science; incorporeal realities. Since matter is continuously changing, metaphysical truths (or any unchanging truth for that matter) could not exist without a spiritual realm, and we could not perceive these without a rational soul.

Concerning #2: Everybody who comes into this world has knowledge of the first principles (e.g. principle of non-contradiction etc.), and we can deduce from these objective truths, usually with the help of observation, a conclusion about the existence of God.
I will give here one simple argument which I believe should lead one to believe with certainty that God exists.

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause for it's existence
Premise 2: The universe/matter exists
Conclusion: Matter has a cause for it's existence

Pr. 1 - Principle of sufficient reason
Pr. 2 is based on observation; likewise self-evident

We have just established that existence of the universe is contingent. Theists believe that God is the giver of this existence.
I am aware that many people would now ask: "How can God be an exception to the causal principle?". I will explain this now (it may be better to formulate premise 1 in a way which would more clearly exclude God e.g. “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence”, or “All events have a cause for their existence”):
All matter has received its existence from something else. If that cause of existence in turn received its existence from another, we have a chain of contingent 'existence givers'. This chain of causes cannot be infinite, since infinites do not exist in the material world (imagine, for example, falling to earth from infinitely far away; you would never arrive).Therefore there must be a cause which is the first in this series of causes. This first cause must be existence (rather than 'existing' in a line of causes); it is its own cause.
This necessary first cause of all existence is what we call God.

If you have any questions about or see any flaw in what I just said, please let me know. I do not have a PhD in Philosophy, yet I don't believe you need that in order to come to a logical and coherent conclusion concerning the existence of God.

[Blogger Brian]

Dom, yes, existence has always existed. So where is there need for a "God" who is believed to have existed prior to physical existence? Why don't you simply accept that physical existence always has existed?

So it isn't true that everything has to have a cause, so you admit that existence has always existed. Guess you couldn't refute that irrefutable fact. Checkmate. There's no need for God, just existence.

[Dom]

Time is a measure of change. All matter is constantly changing. If matter had always existed, change would have always existed too, and thus time. But, as stated above, infinites do not exist in the material realm, and the material world could therefore not have an infinite past, with no beginning. To say that there was no beginning is to say that we would not exist “now”. There is no logic in saying that infinite time preceded this moment.

Yet even if it were logically possible for the universe/matter to have had no beginning to its existence, it still must have a reason for its existence. Why is there being? Why isn’t there nothing? The principle of sufficient reason would also apply to this eternal universe. The idea that the universe has existed forever with no cause is meaningless. Something would have to cause its existence, for it is not existence itself, but exists; and it exists contingently.

Everything has an explanation, which is either outside of itself or in itself. All matter by its nature has its explanation outside itself. God, on the other hand, being existence, has His cause/explanation in Himself.

[Brian Hines]

Dom, theological speculation isn't reality. You sound like Aristotle. "Everything must have a cause." "There is an unmoved Mover."

Who says? What makes you think that how humans think is how the universe must be? Do you really believe that the cosmos operates according to human logic, and is constrained by the confines of the human brain?

Free your mind. Open yourself up to mystery. Envision that the universe is the "God" you seek in theological abstractions. Envision that the existence in which we live and breathe is the eternal existence which you imagine to belong to God.

You define God as that which doesn't require an explanation outside of itself. Yet you offer no reason why the physical universe requires an explanation outside of itself. Why not accept that something always has existed, and that this something is what we see all around us: omnipresent existence.

Religious believers make reality more complicated than it needs to be. Don't multiply hypotheses, like "God," unnecessarily. Stick with the simplest explanation, the One. What is, is. Always has been, always will be. Is is Is. Amen.

[Tommy Boy]

If anything is, (and last time I looked it was) than the potential for it always was. The potential for it reaches back through and far beyond time and even imagination. Potential, (whether we like it or not)cannot be trumped with a more basic subpotential because even that would just be more potential. Potential has no origin, no reason, no direction, no momentum, no mass, no time. Potential in it's purest esence cannot even be described by these very words or any other words. Potential however wasn't 'nothing'. It was something, it was potential. If you take every subatomic particle in the total existance of what is, and multipy it to it's own power, stacked to the continuance of time that it would take to imagine it, you could not come even close to the number of eons that denoted it's begining."Feel the vacuum." What would you call something like that? "The origin of that is"? If it could talk by reason of time and evolution in route to what you see outside your window (or in the bottom of your wine glass)it would explain it's self (the origin of all that is) by saying, "I AM". Just sayin. Tom

[Tommy Boy]

So..if "original potential" evolved from the unfathomible past into "all that is" today, that includes consciousness as well. So "All that is" has consciousness because we do (being a part of all that is). That conscious 'being' that is "all that is" would be a conscious originator or creator of all that is. What do you call this "Conscious Originator" or Creator of all that is? Grind your teeth on a stone all you like but it doesn't change logic. There was and is a "Conscious Originator" of all that is. If it will make you feel better call it Mother or Bob or whatever. But never forget the 'COE' (Conscious Originator of Everything) is the boss. Tom

[Brian Hines]

Tommy Boy, your "sayin" has something to it. Potential... interesting notion. Kind of like "quality" in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

I don't really know what either means, but they sure seem like the key to... something or other. Without potential, what is there? Without quality, what is there to what there is?

[Brian Hines]

Second Tommy Boy comment... now you've lost me. Just because humans are conscious doesn't mean consciousness has been around since the big bang. Evolution happens. Change happens. Consciousness happens, and changes.

A belief in a "Conscious Originator" is just like a belief in God: a faith-based belief, with no evidence behind it.

Potential... now that's an idea with, well, potential. But your "Conscious Originator of Everything" is just another word for God. Religions already have gone done that road. No thanks.

[Chris]

Interesting approach and I agree with all of them! However, what led me here is wondering how to logically show how some metaphysical experiences are just as "real" as this physical plane. The obvious problem you've already covered in #5. Yet, I did have a metaphysical experience where my soul returned to "The Source", but what was fascinating to me, was I was able to see this God-liness infinite pool of golden light at the beginning of existence, but I didn't use my physical sight. It was sight from my spirit (believe me, I know how it sounds-especially never knowing what spirit consisted of before this). I was in a dimension where all thought, even the concept of a concept was non-existent, yet perception spiritually was occurring. I know that may contradict my previous statement, but it's all I got to describe it right now. BTW-my definition of God would entail the undefinable. Trying to describe the totality of God is absurd, as it would take away from the definition. Absolutely the most real experience I've ever been part of in my 32 years. The point of all this is to show that we don't always have to provide proof for it to be accepted as true. Such as headaches;yet somehow we're able to treat them. Also, did gravity exist before Newton proved it did? What if we don't have the scientific means to be able to prove (some unknown factor)its existence yet? Does it become proof when the majority agrees? Can we prove water is wet? Sorry, getting sidetracked-I'm a scientist who had no concept of God before this, so I know all I can offer is my word, but when it comes down to it, this experience is truly the only one ever that I can definitively say was real. Hell, this "reality" can be another dream right now and I'm about to wake up, who knows. This is why I'm searching all over trying to get some insight of how to approach this. And I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to "prove" any of it... Anyway, nice post!

[Brian Hines]

Chris, do you think your experience was truly "supernatural"? Meaning, was your consciousness completely disassociated from your brain?

If not, then your experience of God was filtered through the physical neurons of your brain. If so (or seemingly so), how is this possible given that you were still alive physically? Meaning, how could you know that your brain wasn't involved in the experience, given your existence as an embodied being?

I had quite a few psychedelic experiences with LSD, mescaline, and such in college. Those were brain experiences. Sometimes psychedelic experiences are deeply life transforming. People see reality in a completely different way. How is this different from what you experienced?

I'm not discounting the subjective reality of your experience. Just a claim that it reflects an objective reality of God, or whatever we might call "ultimate reality."

[Chris]

Ahhh, and therein lies the conundrum. A little background: I too have had countless psychedelic experiences with you name it; Psilocybin mushrooms, mescaline, DIP-T, DMT...there might be a handful of the synthetics that I haven't experienced. I'm not sure if there was one time where it wasn't transforming (know what I mean?) Looking back on those, I still hold those to just as high of credence of every day reality (if not more). But this was the one experience out of all of those that I can logically reason, to myself I realize, that it was a state of truth, purity and unconditional love. I was left with an absolute truth that I always mocked prior to. Sorry, this was during a meditation with a ceremonial setting, with my wife and brother and 2 very close friends. During this merkaba exercise (I wasn't even sure what it was), I was in DEEP meditation, and I look around, and everyone started to dissociate and fade into the background. Then I could see the energy and code(?) that everything was made of. All of the sudden, this luminescent pentagram appeared, which felt like it was being burned onto my brain. Then in a split second, it flipped into the flower of life with even more luminous characteristics. Then this star tetrahedron broke through this 3D plane and descended down filled with iridescent colors, and was spinning. As soon as I acknowledged it's existence, I felt my heart slowly stop, and BAM!, my spirit left my body and was whizzing through these different dimensions until I was in this place of being everything, everywhere, simultaneously. Then my spirit popped out of that place, and I was looking at what I can only interpret it as the beginning of existence. This is where to the left of my spirit, was this luminous golden pool of light, which I couldn't even look directly at. Now, I initially didn't mention this specifically because as you have mentioned in #1, I'm not dead, and it was experienced in this continuation of my life. So, I'm not sure how to explain that I completely left my body after my heart stopped and my last breath, yet I'm still here. I can combine all of the metaphysical experiences I've had with psychedelics (and wow there have been some life transforming ones), but nothing even close to this...from meditating. It's interesting that you note in #6 that any metaphysical experience perceived by the senses is physical. This use to be a redundant statement for me as well, thinking, well no shit. I'm still not sure how to account for it, but my belief is that the spirit is able to mimic similar senses of this vessel. I wouldn't have this knowledge if I didn't have this experience, and I honestly don't expect anyone to believe it, because frankly, I'd have a hard time believing it too. The thing is, my close friend had this experience with the merkaba (star tetrahedron) and went through a eerily similar experience. So, in some way, that adds more validity for me, which I was SOOO grateful to have him to relate to, because it was unbelievable in it's true essence. In addition to all of this, we did this same meditation the next night. My wife and I were very in tune with each other, and as we focused every bit of attention to each others pupils, everything froze, I mean completely stopped, and we (merged?) with each other. As soon as that happened, our spirit was formed together in this black empty bubble which was completely separate from our bodies. We were able to essentially hold conversations with each other, without talking, and I would assume this was because our spirits merged together, and shared the same thoughts. I know how this sounds, because I'm use to the reactions I get when I try to explain it to people. All I do know, is that these experiences have happened not only with my friend, but also with my wife. And to me, it was without doubt that it was not only real, but was validated. Sorry to ramble, but when I discuss this, I get to ramblin'. Any thoughts?

[Brian Hines]

Chris, thanks for the detailed description of your experiences. They sound wonderful. I don't have much to say other than: wonderful.

Well, just a bit more to say...

The mind, or whatever, works in mysterious ways. Maybe you experienced something beyond your own mind/brain. Maybe you didn't.

Whichever, your experience is your own, and to be cherished -- like all special experiences.

[Jake]

What a simplistic view. I dont know if you are trying to be a prophet or you just want hits on you little blog, everone has obivous uncertainties that fall in to your top ten.... shocking, your titles are leading, which really just sound fake so you can make up a disappointing argument that ends with your own questions. Sorry but it s poorly written and sound s like a wanna be writer with no real plot.

[Blogger Brian]

Jake, you didn't mention which of these truths you disagree with, and why.

Please do so. It's easy to leave a mindless critical comment. More difficult to share a reasonable critique of what I wrote.

[Gordon Tubbs]

Here's some quick thoughts:

1. Agree with this point, but not with your reasons. It's tough to determine "death" however, so you're going to have to define it. If you go with the accepted definition of "clinical death", which states that both the body and the brain have stopped functioning, then there actually have been cases where people have been revived from this state. If you want to maintain your position on this, you're going to have to define what it means to be "alive" and what it means to be "dead". In either case, you're probably going to appeal to some form of consciousness or awareness as well as physiological activity, both will lead to gray areas that anyone can dispute. Better, it is easier to say: "the afterlife cannot be empirically verified, so we can't know if it's real or what it's about".

2. The existence of God is a question of metaphysics, not of empiricism. To call this second point a "metaphysical truth" is confused philosophy. This "truth" should be removed from your list. Why you ask? Because if God is a metaphysical being, then the only way we can know him is through rationalism, not empiricism. If God could be proven empirically, then he wouldn't be supernatural anymore, he'd be natural... ergo not metaphysical, ergo you should again remove this "truth" from the list.

3. This claim is also deniable. Some religions claim that they are valid than the others, and so who are you to say they are not valid one way or another? The only way to make that sort of claim is to presuppose that you know the cold hard truth about reality and existence. And you don't. Once again, you seem to be espousing an opinion... not a rational "undeniable truth".

4. This claim is deniable on the grounds that it presupposes supernaturalism is impossible. You can neither prove nor disprove supernaturalism, and so to claim miracle-working powers aren't possessed by anyone is epistemologically false.

5. "Nobody can know this is fact or fantasy"... so why is the fact that it can't be corroborated some sort of "truth"? You're resorting to circular reasoning here. "Spiritual experiences never can be corroborated ... because nobody can [corroborate them]" is essentially your argument. Circular reasoning is not valid!

6. No shit! That's why metaphysics is backed by rationalism, and naturalism is backed by empiricism!

7. Once again, your esposing an "undeniable metaphysical truth" and then saying it's not really a metaphysical truth because it is your opinion that materialism is our foundational reality.

8. I agree with this point, but it should be removed from your list and directed to a discussion board since it is debatable.

9. Now we're getting somewhere. Again, more discussion-worthy than "undeniable truth", but this can stay.

10. Opinion.

Overall, nice try. You need to change the name of your list to "My Top 10 Reasons for Materialism/Naturalism" because it seems thats what this list is.... just a bunch of opinions and half-baked philosophical ideas pertaining to but not necessarily about metaphysics.

[777]

There are all very un-intelligent
denying relativity
except 9) & 10) somewhat

Grade = D-

but now you know slightly better by now
after some clear comments and also by using the snare theory

You defended a
metaphysical
Earth = Flat
or
Dinos are Fake

777

[777]

I must admit
Brian is placing what we write ! :)

777 <3

[talento]

To all coments:
The notion to all bieng and souls lies within each individual sence of brain activity.we cannot change others beliefs of existense. It takes 1500 years to loose once self conscience and recreate the notion of being. Some rely on what others do and say(societies) and others want real freedom of the brain. We are fighting our knowledge / brain activity to manipulate our destiny. There is no helping the human race as no one wants to be the one cead. The way of life over seads. Metaphysic understanding. But time reveals all lies and decits and that's why we are proned to war. There is no compromosing with the notion of jesus christ(fake) because its narcist and does not see others as equal.

[Magoolino Meianove]

Yeah Man! You are right, that could be gold, wasn't it rubbish.
Less wine next time, for your own sake!

[Really]

There's always a perception to obscure things, and a lie and fear to contend w. FEAR a bad thing or a good thing. Not a question

[Rochelle]

Hi Brian. Love it. So glad I saw this!!! Finally I see someone who understands things the way I do. Delusion versus undeniable reality. Thank you for your post.

[Ra]

Humans hahaha.
Before you jump to new layers, master the one in front of you.
You are nowhere near understanding what matter is.
Only when you fully understand quantum physics and used all that knowledge to advance you will start finding side effects of unknown origin in the quantum realm.
What you call spacetime is no different.
Declare what you said only once you were able to survive 10,000 years without being ruined by your own foolishness.

[Lance]

Hi Brian,
#10 sums it all up, The camouflage in which we are now existing is so complete and seamless that it forces us to go beyond our senses in order to understand true reality,
we are so used to feeling and seeing and hearing and tasting (your wonderful glass of wine) and smelling (its bouquet) that any sort of understanding of anything outside of these parameters is very difficult but not impossible,
faith is as intangible as God and they both go hand in hand, and God can never be understood from a materialistic state of mind,
dropping your guard for a moment may give you a glimpse of something special,
by creating your site you will get that ah-ha moment when you die and you will be that much closer when you come back for another try.

[Reuben Raya]

You're a closed minded Atheistic joke. You argue from a biased atheist pov. You have literal presumptions and put them down as truth.

1. People have physically died (heart stops, breathing stops), and they are pronounced dead. Most of those people have an experience that the living can't have, because they aren't dead yet (You're half right). Ultimately, your final conclusion is wrong, but your logic is right. A living person CAN'T know what happens after death, but you can't forget about those who literally "died".

2. Evolution is just as religion as archaic "religion". There's no proof of missing links, none to witness the big bang, no one to witness consciousness arise from matter. Macro evolutionary questions are still unanswered and should be categorized as "religion."

3. There's some validity in ALL religions, just like there's "the truth", the "whole truth", and "nothing but the truth". One can identify one truth and another a whole truth. Example, in the bible the Hebrews were instructed to circumcise the baby boys on the 8th. BEFORE modern science, who knew that Vitamin K would be at it's highest on that day? Somehow the Hebrews knew (Vitamin K assists in blood clotting). You can say this is "circumstantial", but this has been true since the dawn of man. Science only confirmed what was ALREADY true.

Don't have time to do the others, just be open minded and less jaded lol.