I think Dio would be able to tell us more about that kind of emptiness if he came back to life (would he even want to be alive after what he went through?). Well, provided that he remembered what it feels like to be in that state of nothingness. This sort of "emptiness" or still mind can be experienced while you are still alive via meditative states. It seems that living people can distinctly remember their minds being still and lacking thoughts. But the living possess a working brain capable of recording information... where is that in a dead person? They might as well be naturally unconscious and blissfully unaware of anything whatsoever.
Earlier, I might have come on a little strong in my views but I am only trying to raise awareness on what is scientifically hypothetical, theoretical and proven fact. Again, it bears repeating that, in the realm of science, the hypothetical stance is extremely tenuous compared to theoretical solutions proposed by experts which often prove to be accurate or are in the least on the right track. Yes, scientific theory has a lot of substance otherwise it wouldn't be considered. Like Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's astronautic theory, for example! This genius calculated the propulsion required for a rocket to safely escape the Earth's gravity (even more remarkable is the fact that he was self-taught)! Yes, this is rocket science and the theory was on the money!
To highlight the relevance to the topic, let me point out that we have two ideas going here. One where we are intrinsically empty (but there is obviously room for manifestations which may or may not come about naturally), and the other regarding the primacy of consciousness which expresses itself through matter (or mind over matter). The latter is more hypothetical. Less evidential is the concept of a soul departing from the physical body.
Spectacular NDE reports, that purport to prove the existence of a soul capable of exiting the physical body, lack veracity (sorry LoLmart). A test where a message has been placed on a high shelf out of sight of patients and hospital staff was set up. NDErs have yet to mention such message in their reports. In fact, any of us can enter the phase and attempt to read the message.
So far, in my own deck of cards trials (see Phase Experiments: ESP), I have not been able get one card right (at least not a hundred percent). It appears, however, that my subconscious comes up with numerous possibilities before it settles on a particular outcome which often comes about after I have fixed my gaze upon a manifest possibility. This doesn't mean to say that the phase state is useless in providing solutions (or guessing). On the contrary, I think it does better than wild guessing as it provides us with the opportunity to access information that was gathered subconsciously.
I got the suit right on my last trial and perhaps this came about because a side of me might have picked up something from the way my wife behaved prior to my trial. Perhaps Stacey unknowingly gave me clues. A subconscious talking to another subconscious perhaps? Anyway, so far, the only thing that seems apparent is that the phase provides a great glimpse of how our minds work and it's amazing.
Back to my point made earlier, the existence of a soul concept remains scientifically hypothetical. So is the God notion (not to offend any believers here but if you have strong reasons to believe in a deity or a creator of the universe, do express your views and make me understand what makes you believe).
But before you launch your protests, know this...
The majority of scientists don't believe in God based on the fact that this one remains only a hypothesis. God is supposed to operate the universe and our lives (according to Judaic-Christian-Islamic faith but disregarding Deism). This means that evidence for His existence should be scientifically detectable. So far, no controlled experiment provided an observation that cannot be explained by natural means which would, as a result, force science to seriously consider the existence of a world beyond matter. Again, I apologise if this doesn't sound good to some but I'm just highlighting facts here.
Studies have been conducted on prayer. All evidence shows its ineffectiveness. Is God asleep at the wheel? Doesn't he answer to prayers? The evidence in this area strongly suggests his non-existence. Remember Bruce Almighty
? I love that film. It depicts what would happen if all the prayers were answered. If prayer worked, or if God obliged to your every wish, the effects of this should be observable. Unless, of course, God is a capricious entity. Millions of prayers have been said every day for thousands of years and yet not a single miracle has been scientifically verified - and remember that asking for a life improvement and then winning the lottery the following day is not proof of anything (such event, although highly unlikely, is still possible and thus natural means can explain it - the chance in probability is still there!!)
Likewise, revelations from the lord in mystical experiences lack confirming evidence. Often, believers misinterpret such experiences through their faith and underestimation of mind power (the real origin of their experiences). If anything, the experiments that Michael Raduga has conducted demonstrate the creative power of our minds and there is no reason to believe that what people experienced before was supernatural and not the product of phase states, dreams, and other hallucinatory experiences.
Equally, no evidence for intelligent design of life on Earth is found either (sorry, Breadbassed, as I know that this is where you somewhat stand - at least from the perspective of Nassim, where fractals, dimensions, infinity and other geometrical concepts are glibly presented and yet his mathematical logic would bring shame to Pythagoras and other experts who have long passed and knew less than what we do today). The Fibonacci sequence in nature is not proof of design either.
The complexity in the structure of life is certainly not evidence as some like to claim (as explained in earlier posts). Life looks exactly as it should according to Darwinian evolution.
When we were more ignorant, religious powers were more content, and then, the more we learned, the more challenged they felt in maintaining their doctrine. To use a famous example, there was Ptolemy with his geocentric ideas that appeared to support religious belief and they loved him. Along comes Copernicus and says that we are not the centre of the universe and that the planets, including the Earth, revolve around the sun. They wanted to stamp him out. Galileo, his successor, also encountered the same troubles. Their theories, which proved correct, contradicted biblical passages - e.g. the Earth was not supposed to be moving!
The universe didn't need a creator either (check out legitimate Lawrence Krauss if you haven't already: he'll explain why as well as giving you a good understanding of what nothingness is in physics - creationism has got nothing on him... nor anything for that matter!!). It required no miracles to manifest itself. If you don't like the Big Bang theory (even though the evidence for this one is still visible in our skies), you might like the theory of a multiverse where our universe originated from another. The latter can be hard to grasp but it is still far more substantial than the creationist debacle. Everything looks exactly as it should if there were no God.
The blind faith of religion in the world makes people acquire warped thinking as they passionately hold on to infeasible concepts and ideas. Because of this, a lot of them (especially the zealots and the devout) lack paying attention to evidence.
Finally, most religions claim that we have a soul. Again, no mentally induced phenomena that are independent of brain chemistry is found. God is also said to be the source of morality and yet no evidence for a supernatural origin in human behaviour is found. People of faith generally behave no better than those who have no faith, and, in some cases, God worshippers can behave a lot worse. But this isn't just about God worshippers. Spiritualists, or people who consider themselves to be spiritual, can be just as bad (go on spiritual Forums and see how you are received if you propose the materialistic worldview and deny the existence of spirit in your humblest opinion...
Religion did help to bring people together in the birth of civilisation, mostly to get people to compromise with one another, for many, it provides comfort (although I'd rather see people finding comfort in facts rather than, ahem, fairy tales), and, it was and still is being used as a means to control. But never forget that our moral behaviour evolved socially. This is fact.
By the way, I hope you guys have heard of sociologist Herbert Spencer. He coined the term "survival of the fittest". I think you will find this link I found interesting:http://www.bolender.com/Sociological%20 ... pencer.htm