A Newbie Skeptic: Looking for Proof

OneLittleBird

The Force is Strong With This One
An investigator of a crime looks for three things:
-Eye-witness testimony
-Evidence
-Theory

When investigating esoteric subjects each person is like their own investigator. Some are happy with one person's testimony, some may be happy after looking at some evidence, and others develop theories based on rational (and sometimes, irrational) assumptions.

For those of us whom have never (consciously recalling, anyway) seen an UFO, alien or 4th density bleed-through; have never had an out-of-body experience (despite many attempts) or astral-type experience; whom don't communicate (audibly or telepathically) or channel higher intelligences; for those of us who have read the books, have poured over the material with astonishment and an open mind and, for all intents and purposes, have clear thought processes; how do we justify putting all this energy into something that we may or may not be able to prove to ourselves?

Here's a better question: what have others done in their quest, when faced with internal skepticism? How do you find the proof that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt?

Thanks in advance for your feedback :)
 
OneLittleBird said:
Here's a better question: what have others done in their quest, when faced with internal skepticism? How do you find the proof that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt?

An investigator would look for proofs and if possible direct proofs. However it is not always possible to have direct proofs and sometimes they have to find "incidental proofs". And if they have enough of them, they can bring them to a court.

So I think the same thing applies here, we have to look for "incidental proofs", and when we have enough of them, our skepticism can be defeated.
 
A good book to read, to see how the paranormal was initially investigated, is by Deborah Blum, called "Ghosthunters". She's a science writer. You might find it interesting. :flowers:
 
I've read many accounts of people having "experiences" that convinced them that all is not as it seems and as an "investigator" I try to determine their motivation... and in many cases I come to the conclusion that they have no reason to make this stuff up (that I'm aware of, anyway).

It fascinates and excites me. But I've never had an ethereal experience and ultimately all I can rely on is my own experiences.

The C's say that Jesus had pure faith that he would receive knowledge, so he received it. That's a pretty tall order; akin to jumping off a cliff with the "faith" that you'll be able to fly.

If I'm a kindergartener in this esoteric school, how do I determine if this school is the real deal and the right place to be?

(btw, I'm not attempting to be combative, I'm just really, really curious and searching, especially with so many possible changes coming up)
:)
 
If I'm a kindergartener in this esoteric school, how do I determine if this school is the real deal and the right place to be?

If, after having read the books included in your intro, you then made the decision to join the forum, that is a sign, at least to me, that the knowledge we share here resonates enough for your set of "I"s to the extent that your actions are following your interests. Why not remain open enough to continue for now with a vigilant eye on any left-brain based tendencies inclined towards anticipation of any kind of significant, easily identifiable, and tangible proof ?

During my everyday life experiences, especially since having become more engaged with SoTT, the Cass Forum, QFG, and all that we share, life is becoming increasingly synchronistic with subtle clues popping up here and there along the roadside of my journeying ... these are clues, signs, revealings serving to guide, test, and teach me (and others around me, whether they see things the same way, osit) ... but this is just my experience and worldview at present ...

Maybe the excerpt given below may be of aid, also ? :)

From Cass Transcript Session 18 April 1998

A: We wish to reiterate something further on this subject Arkadiusz, and for anyone else in need of the following message: we are not communicating with you in order to "prove" our existence. If one has faith and is willing to learn, to explore new realms and to discover what will one "day" be commonplace awareness profile, then no "proof" is necessary. If, on the other hand, one is of the opposite psychic orientation, then no amount of proof is adequate.
 
There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic. It sounds as if becoming a believer is important to you.

What's important is that you just continue to keep an open mind. Then if the occasion or experience arises, that flies in the face of your conventional wisdom, you will have the openness to acknowledge it while still maintaining the skepticism to question it.

I think it's better to be a healthy skeptic then a true believer in something false.

I have had too many experiences that have erased much of my skepticism in regards to many strange things. This does not make me "speshul", it makes me vulnerable to being duped.
 
I have always thought if I knew all there was, I wouldn't be here. I also doubt if I ever will know much of anything. The best to do is gather as much information as possible. Trash the garbage. Hold on to some theories, that of course change as more data arrives. Become aware of the third man principle.

Observe with an open mind with no anticipation, (try to)... Keeping in mind of the paths of possibilities and hopefully see what happens. I rather say "that figures" than get blindsided by the unexpected. Pretty hard to do.

Thing is not to give up. Pain, misery, happiness and joy are all parts of the equation. Life is a roller coaster with ups, downs and sharp turns. And where are roller coasters found? In an amusement park. Enjoy the show. This is what I keep telling myself.
 
OneLittleBird said:
If I'm a kindergartener in this esoteric school, how do I determine if this school is the real deal and the right place to be?
By experience & participating on the forum but it depends on what you're looking for.
I am sure you will find many threads on topics that will interest you ;)
 
OneLittleBird said:
An investigator of a crime looks for three things:
-Eye-witness testimony
-Evidence
-Theory

When investigating esoteric subjects each person is like their own investigator. Some are happy with one person's testimony, some may be happy after looking at some evidence, and others develop theories based on rational (and sometimes, irrational) assumptions.

For those of us whom have never (consciously recalling, anyway) seen an UFO, alien or 4th density bleed-through; have never had an out-of-body experience (despite many attempts) or astral-type experience; whom don't communicate (audibly or telepathically) or channel higher intelligences; for those of us who have read the books, have poured over the material with astonishment and an open mind and, for all intents and purposes, have clear thought processes; how do we justify putting all this energy into something that we may or may not be able to prove to ourselves?

Here's a better question: what have others done in their quest, when faced with internal skepticism? How do you find the proof that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt?

Thanks in advance for your feedback :)

You should be a skeptic. You should also push forward.

I have never experienced anything that has proved to me without a shadow of a doubt that anything beyond what the PTB say about the fabric of our reality is the complete truth. I have seen circumstantial evidence e.g. would the ptb ever lie? answer yes, would they go as far as lying about the fabric of our reality and our past? answer yes, are there certain things that you experience that can not be explained by materialistic science? answer yes, why are there so many UFO stories, are they ALL crazy? answer, surely not. Have I ever experienced anything remotely 'out of this world'? answer no, if I was to be grilled thoroughly about the validity of everything we learn here, will I pass the test? answer no (can you get a jury to believe in the existence of hyperdimensional 6D beings in a court of law? Obviously not).

Given the gaps in my knowledge (even if you do all the reading and get all the understanding, without personal experience, you are grasping at straws) and the fact that what we learn here is essentially 'not mainstream', I can't help but retain a certain level of skepticism. How else is one to operate? On blind faith??

Still, despite being a skeptic, if you sense there MIGHT be something to this then push on forward whilst keeping your wits about you. Otherwise you are just another religious nutcase without any critical faculties.

Another way to look at it,

Do you think intelligent aliens exist? If you go by mainstream science, the logical answer is, "Most likely NOT". Apparently the chances are so small as to be non-existent. Yet, the Cs for example say the universe is teaming with intelligent life.

What do you think? Why do you think it?

Do you think you have a soul? Mainstream science will say, HELL NO! Have you experienced your soul? How do you know what you are experiencing isn't just a mixture of chemicals, hormones and electrical pulses in your brain?? Hmmm???

What do you think happens after you die? Mainstream science will say, that is it, game over. Do you think the totality that is you will just vanish? What sort of proof can you amass? Those with NDE are said to just experience flashes of electrical pulses that they then ascribe fantastical stories to which amount to diddly squat. How will you know before you die?? Yet somehow you must operate in this life with a certain thought about what happens after you die... How did you arrive at your answer?
 
A lot of good questions here and I've sure asked them. I tried to address my personal journey from the beginning in "Amazing Grace" which is available on the cass website. Anything I would write here would just be reciting what is written there.

As to whether it is the right place, I know the problem well. And just because I think I've created a place to deal with such issues for myself and lots of other people, doesn't necessarily mean it is right for you or all other people.

I guess nobody can give you an answer to that question. I think of idea systems/hypotheses as being sort of like clothing: you have to try it on and see if it fits, if it is comfortable, can you function in it well, does it wear well, etc. If not, then you take it off and try another suit. The nice thing about hypotheses is that they can be provisional and subject to adjustment or revision or even being trashed totally if need be.
 
There are several areas to which, I think, different approaches may be suited.

Some ideas may be connected to concrete observations - such that we know that phenomena exist - but the proposed explanations must remain hypotheses. For example, I think that with regard to UFOs, there is enough documented evidence to show that the phenomenon exists. Of the proposed explanations, a number then fall apart in the face of the evidence, and we are left with the remaining hypotheses. All we can do is entertain them, keep in mind their implications, and see if something comes up - evidence - which narrows them down further, or if new ones are proposed that are equal or better explanations of the evidence.

When it comes to less tangible things, like ideas of hyperdimensional reality, esoteric cosmologies (such as the framework of densities), etc. - which are part of explanations for other things, e.g. UFOs, but also subjects in their own right - then, as Gandalf mentioned, the evidence may need to be incidental. Such evidence, gathered, can disprove the explanation of "materialistic skepticism", and be suggestive of a direction to go in, but we are generally not left with enough to be certain in our interpretation.

Beyond that, in how to relate to the hypotheses presented in e.g. The Wave, Laura put it well above.


But besides the things discussed thus far in this thread - which we can't be sure about - the research has gone into many interesting concrete areas, such as (this is a short list): Psychology; psychopathy and ponerology (how our world has been and is shaped by pathological influences); and quite a lot relating to history, cometary interactions, and cyclical catastrophes; and our physiology and the role of various things, including diet, in it.

Here we get to a practical point: Among these more concrete things, there are those that explain important aspects of the world in which we find ourselves. Further, there are those that can be applied and tested for oneself, that can be shown to work practically in down-to-Earth ways. Working on our own psychological functioning (psychology and "The Work"), and our physiological functioning (diet, etc.) can improve our lives and, depending on the situation, make it possible to help others improve theirs; and in any case generally make us more capable of doing what we aim to do.

This is where much of the focus lies. The "strange stuff" can be mind-expanding, but alone it won't get anyone anywhere. But understanding the world better in concrete, scientific terms, enables new choices, new ways of relating to the world. Especially when it comes to what is applied and gives results.

There are plenty of these topics to explore - seeing for yourself whether they lead somewhere. Whether you find it useful. Apart from what Laura mentioned, I think this is another major part of what allows each one of us, individually, to form the answer to your question:
OneLittleBird said:
[...] how do I determine if this school is the real deal and the right place to be?
 
I think all the feedback is great. Thank you everyone.

I do keep learning because of the simple idea: the amount of phenomena that people report can't all be overactive imaginations. It may be a bit childish on my part, but I guess I'm a little disappointed that I haven't "experienced" something that would confirm the phenomena, personally (not that I want to be abducted or learn any "hard" lessons).

I just always hated, as a child, being told "you'll understand someday." It always made me even more curious to know what I'm missing out on.

Anyway, I have many more questions, but I won't over-burden the forum today.

Thanks again for all the replies, thus far. Where else can a person have these sorts of conversations
:)
 
luke wilson said:
Another way to look at it,

Do you think intelligent aliens exist? If you go by mainstream science, the logical answer is, "Most likely NOT". Apparently the chances are so small as to be non-existent. Yet, the Cs for example say the universe is teaming with intelligent life.

What do you think? Why do you think it?

Actually, even by mainstream science, there's a whole lot more chance that there IS other intelligent life in the universe than not. Consider how many known galaxies and star systems there are. What are the chances of life developing on only one planet in only one solar system? And then only on that one planet, "intelligent" life developed accidentally, just as all life developed accidentally.

By the same token, mainstream science's take on how life came about and the whole materialistic and mechanistic schtick is pretty ridiculous in terms of the likelihood, the probability that that's the way it happened. There's actually much more evidence AGAINST the mainstream theories - e.g neo-Darwinian, Big Bang, etc. - than FOR them. All this has been thoroughly discussed throughout the forum and SOTT, etc. Mainstream radically materialistic/mechanistic "science" is just another dogmatic worldview that is NOT based on evidence at all. FWIW.
 
SeekinTruth said:
luke wilson said:
Another way to look at it,

Do you think intelligent aliens exist? If you go by mainstream science, the logical answer is, "Most likely NOT". Apparently the chances are so small as to be non-existent. Yet, the Cs for example say the universe is teaming with intelligent life.

What do you think? Why do you think it?

Actually, even by mainstream science, there's a whole lot more chance that there IS other intelligent life in the universe than not. Consider how many known galaxies and star systems there are. What are the chances of life developing on only one planet in only one solar system? And then only on that one planet, "intelligent" life developed accidentally, just as all life developed accidentally.

By the same token, mainstream science's take on how life came about and the whole materialistic and mechanistic schtick is pretty ridiculous in terms of the likelihood, the probability that that's the way it happened. There's actually much more evidence AGAINST the mainstream theories - e.g neo-Darwinian, Big Bang, etc. - than FOR them. All this has been thoroughly discussed throughout the forum and SOTT, etc. Mainstream radically materialistic/mechanistic "science" is just another dogmatic worldview that is NOT based on evidence at all. FWIW.

"Religion" for atheists. :)

Kris
 
Back
Top Bottom