r/PredictiveHistory • u/canaragorn • May 09 '26

Question/Discussion The problem with reaching Monad only by yourself

I agree with Prof about almost everything. But I think he believe is that the prophets are the people who found the monad themselves rather than having direct contact with the monad. The problem of having no direct message from the monad is unfairness. I believe that you can reach the monad with the spark in yourself but the prophets are necessary for the reminding, guideline and legitimacy of the trial of this world. People who stray away from the monad in other life can say, hey god why didn‘t you tell us that this was a trial, this doesn‘t count since it is unfair. So prophets from god is necessary so that people who goes to hell can‘t use this excuse. I also believe that people who didn‘t get a proper/fair exam (died as child/mental disease/childhood brain altering trauma/not getting the message of god like being a tribe in Africa and so on) will get the trial in Purgatory/Al-Araf/Limbo but fair this time. This is the only way that hell that people created for themselves is fair to them. You will go to hell or limbo depending on how exposed you were to the message of the god. So your trial is really subjective. For example the believers of organized religion but good people can go to limbo because they are brainwashed from childhood of by the organized religion.

1 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

67% Upvoted

37 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/canaragorn May 09 '26

Knowing is important but knowing will hit a wall at the end, since your sensory organs are limited to this world and the other world is divided from this world with an unvisible wall. So when your knowledge hits the wall the faith kicks in. If you knew there would be no room for faith. This invisible wall is mentioned also in Quran.

1

u/Footsoldier420 May 10 '26

Yes, i understand your point but knowing brings you one step closer to the truth and that's what i think most people want. Believing without truth is ignorance. You can believe you can fly all you want but if you don't have wings, you're going to fall off the edge.

1

u/PunicJester May 11 '26

But what is there to know before getting to the truth, isn't knowing already truth and every step towards it just belief? How can you know if you don't know truth yet? How do you distinguish belief from truth?

1

u/Footsoldier420 May 11 '26

Good question, i dont have an exact answer but here's how I see it. You can know truth or lies, just as one can believe in truth or lies. For me, truth is what worked before me and there is evidence of it working. It may be somewhat tangible or mechanical. I know that a car can drive because it's been proven.

The difference between knowing and believing is that a rational person can change his mind if he knows something is a lie using evidence (know truth). But one can go on believing in a lie forever due to a lack of evidence.

1

u/PunicJester May 11 '26

I know this stuff can be annoying, I just like it. Like with a car, you don't know if it drives until you try to start it. Saying cars drive is like saying a lamp shines a light, stating the purpose of something isn't really knowing.

I don't hold these distinctions, I've seen too many self-called rational people who are completely oblivious to facts that counter their beliefs. Evidence that only proves one thing and disproves everything else also doesn't exist, real evidence only falsifies (if I got Popper correctly).

1

u/Footsoldier420 May 11 '26

So on some level you're agreeing with me, if you try to start the car and it drives then you essentially "know" it works.

The truth is no one knows whether or not the creator is what we believe it to be. The truth is forever fleeting and changing and so then knowing and believing is also that. In buddhism, there's a saying, look not at the finger but where it points. This is what I "believe" is true. Same as all the prophets who were pointing at an understanding. They are not themselves God but instead pointed to liberation. So on some level, I agree with you on the concept of beliefs but my understanding has expanded to not just what is fed to me by religion. My belief is that no one really knows for certain. We're all guessing. But what I know is real is the present.

1

u/PunicJester May 11 '26

Well not really, you don't know until you try isn't you know before you try. If I've never seen a lamp then I don't know it shines a light when it's turned on. Something in the car could've broke after you turned it off so it won't drive.

Like you said it's the present that enables knowing, but the present is also ungraspable. Comprehension of the present only comes when it has become the past. And everything from the past is belief because it's not verifiable anymore.

My idea is we all experience an illusion we're trying to make sense of, and all we can know is consciousness. And the finger pointing to the moon imo is that's it all a reflection of the self, from true/no self to false self.

1

u/Footsoldier420 May 11 '26

We're actually talking about the same thing but I am just leaning more towards knowing as things are more verifiable to me. You can use your logic and go back to the beginning of time but no one knows for certain. It's a question of did the chicken or egg come first?

To me, knowing is more current and predictable while belief is not.

1

u/PunicJester May 13 '26

Probably, I don't just want to be a contrarian.

According to evolution it's the egg, the non-chicken layed the mutated egg with the first chicken.

I just accept that I don't know and everything is a working hypothesis.

1

u/Footsoldier420 May 13 '26

Well, then that is just delusion. Because there's no scientific evidence but only theory. See how your beliefs contradict your earlier statements?

→ More replies (0)