Does "the scripture" actually say this at all,.... anywhere?

Author: Stephen

Posts

Read-only
Total: 263
#121
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Please tell me you are not a trial lawyer. Actually, I know you're not a trial lawyer, that's said in jest.

You know it was common sense once that humans sneezing was in fact our bodies trying to expel demons, and common sense dictated that if you said "bless you" fast enough, the demon you just sneezed out couldn't get back in? My point is "it's common sense" is not in and of itself an argument. It's a place to start your hypothesis, and then you try to prove it wrong (NOT PROVE IT RIGHT). I don't outright dismiss common sense answers, like it's common sense that the GrecoRoman pantheon is clearly still operating the earth all the time. Otherwise why else would there be famines or floods? It's just common sense that Neptune didn't get his fair share of sacrifices from Sri Lanka through 2005, so, what else was he supposed to do? He sent a tsunami and killed 250K people. Common sense!

Wow, how about we first stick to what I write?
#122
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Okay, then go back to what I wrote: CAN COMMON SENSE BE WRONG?
#123
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Sure, but why limit it to just that? can common sense be right?
#124
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've already said that yes, it can be right. How can we be sure, one way or the other, if it's right or wrong, in any case? I'll give you an example.

A man comes home from work to find police tape around his house, a huge commotion of authorities, an ambulance...obviously something terrible has happened! He finds an officer, explains who he is, and the officer says "We found your wife, I'm sorry sir, she's committed suicide. She sat in her car with the motor running and the garage door closed, and died of CO poisoning. This concludes our investigation, as we have seen people kill themselves this way before, this is the most likely explanation and we aren't going to do any more investigating. After all, this is common sense." The officer might be right. He might be wrong. Would you advise the man to accept this common sense conclusion as absolute fact and never, ever question it, no matter what other information he might be able to find on his own? Or might have, like "she wasn't depressed," "there were no signs of this coming," "she was happy when I left," "there's a strange set of muddy bootprints outside the back door", "she's never home before me"...well, common sense says if she's dead in a running car in her garage, she killed herself. No need for a medical examiner or even a coroner. 
#125
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
to accept this common sense conclusion as absolute fact and never, ever question it, no matter what other information he might be able to find on his own?

But I never claimed you should approach this discussion that way did I?

Here's a better question....according to what we have discussed in this thread
Common sense-
means ability to reach intelligent conclusions. sense implies a reliable ability to judge and decide with soundness, prudence, and intelligence.

Going by the above description, would you say that common sense can be mostly correct or mostly wrong? in other words is it something you can trust or something you can doubt?
If you go 50/50 that leaves you with 50% room to consider my proposition. In which case why don't we move forward instead of backward?

Again, I'm only asking that you consider what I'm saying, not that you just accept it. Why be so rigid?

#126
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
You say it as though I've never considered the possiblilty. I haven't always been an atheist, you know. And I disagree with this:

means ability to reach intelligent conclusions. sense implies a reliable ability to judge and decide with soundness, prudence, and intelligence.

This is not what I think common sense is. You're baking something in that doesn't belong: intelligence, reliability, prudence and soundness. It literally contains none of those implicitly. COmmon sense changes with what we know as a culture. It is no longer common sense that thunder is the voice of an angry unseen entity. It is no longer common sense that crop yields or communal prosperity are somehow affected by how many children are sacrificed. COmmon sense is not always sensible, but it is ALWAYS the easiest answer. That is rarely correct. Diseases are not caused by demonic possession once you realize that germs exist. Common sense certainly seems far worse than 50/50 to me. 
#127
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
#128
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I don't know exactly what you are focusing on here, but this discussion is going nowhere fast. If this is not something you ever wish to consider then I don't know what you are doing here other than to undermine all religious and spiritual topics. 
#129
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
So you want to use the following definition:

sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
That doesn't imply in any way that conclusions and judgement reached solely on this basis are CORRECT, which is one problem, and the other problem is the last word in the definition. FACTS. 

"I've never seen anything that didn't have a creator" is a fact...but "therefore everything in all of time an space is definitely created" is NOT a fact, and anything that follows it is faulty without demonstration, i.e. "and therefore a creator exists" nor is "and I know who that creator is." I've invited you, present FACTUAL EVIDENCE. 
#130
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
If by "undermine" you mean "interrogate," okay, but dont get all wadded up about it. Unless I missed it, this is DEBATEart.com. So I figure dissenting opinions are welcome, maybe I'm wrong. What I'm doing here is my business. You're free to drop out of this discussion.
#131
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x

Since you don't claim to make sense of it or are unable to how can you rule out God as the most reasonable answer to existence?

I don't rule it out.
Yet your worldview is geared towards a strictly naturalistic viewpoint that does not make sense of your existence. That is the way you look or explain existence. It does not make sense but you are welcome to it. You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary. That should tell you something right there.

I haven't seen evidence to support it, and furthermore I've never seen convincing evidence of anything that is clearly supernatural.
The universe is evidence that something very significant happened that can't be adequately explained from a naturalist materialistic position (or inside the box, so to speak). If you think otherwise then please give the evidence that it can. So you are left in a more disadvantaged position than I am. 

As for the evidence of God, I see it in everything I look at in all the complexity and diversity of life. I see it in the laws of science, the starting point for morality, the unity of the Bible as a written revelation so that we can know God personally, and the reasonable and logical verification of prophecy. So just stick your fingers in your ears and pay no attention to what I have said. 
 


Without any supporting evidence for a claim, why would I keep including it as part of the "most likely" answer?
Because it is reasonable and logical. If you want an irrational and illogical worldview then stick with your naturalistic materialism. You are welcome to it. 

It's exactly as likely to me as aliens or fairies or magic or in a giant's eye.
So how does your fairy tale magically start? 

"Once upon a time, a long, long, time ago...nothing exploded into something (self-creation)...and that something acquired consciousness. We don't know how or why but it did and don't tell me God because God is not reasonable...." 

That is one scenario, granting you believe the universe had a beginning.

Do you believe the universe had a beginning? Or shall I start from another ridiculous scenario of philosophical naturalism?

I work from what I can see. If you'd like to present evidence, go ahead. You never do, because you want me to do what you do: accept the proposition and THEN build support underneath it. That's not how it works. You build supporting evidence to arrive at a conclusion, rather than look at a conclusion (as you have done, as EternlView does) and then work backwards to find "just so" support.
I've laid out the evidence to others and I'm not willing to go through the effort in doing it for those who are not interested. For instance, with prophecy, my claim all along has been the evidence is reasonable and logical, most compelling, to believe from what the Bible states and what history reveals. 

It is also a two-way street. If I agreed to do so I would expect you to answer my questions also. 

As for accepting the propositions, I would like you to explain how your worldview adequately explains my charges. That interests me, for I don't think your worldview has any idea of how to do so. Why would anybody believe a worldview that can't make sense of the most important issues in life?

I'm willing for others to ask the tough questions and try to answer them. I do not see the same response from atheists, generally speaking. 
You're willing to answer them so long as no one questions your answer: Jesus.
I do not fail to address those questions either. Usually, I answer the whole post.

Meaning of life? Jesus. Purpose of life? Jesus. Origin of life? Jesus. These aren't answers insomuch as they are guesses, because you cannot demonstrate them or prove them in any way, one, and two, "Jesus" isn't even answering the question.
They are not guesses. The information is contained in the Bible either through direct statements or from logical inference. Whether you accept the Bible as what it claims is another matter. 

It's akin to "What's your favorite pizza topping?" "Star Wars." I don't speak for all atheists. I think I've shown I'm open to dialogue. What I'm not open to is you saying "The bible is true," then me saying "can you tell me how you know?" and you responding "BECAUSE THE BIBLE IS TRUE AND IT SAYS IT'S TRUE." That's not dialogue and it's not an honest engagement of the question.
May I ask you a question that I hope you will answer?

I'll go ahead and ask it after I build up the background. 

The Bible discloses God is Spirit. Therefore, knowing God is not something we can quantitatively verify. But in verifying a witness we check to see whether that witness statements line up to reality and are not contradictory. So, as the Bible explains, to know God is to know the Son. Not only that but if you do not believe in the biblical God how are you going to believe in what that God says? No matter how reasonable why would you believe? Those are rhetorical questions. I'm getting to my question to you shortly. Hebrews 11:6 states,

6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

QUESTION: If you do not believe that God is then why would you come to Him to receive a rewarder of those who seek Him? 

And if you do not believe He exists (or are not willing to put your faith in His existence based on His word and authority) you will not come to Him in the prescribed way, through the Son and through the New Covenant He established. No matter how good the evidence it will be like Jesus said, 

Mark 8:11-12 (NASB)
11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He *said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.” 

The Christian moral? God is not under obligation to give you a sign. He has given His word. If that is not good enough then what will be? But with faith, God opens up and verifies His word. 



[Here is the rest of the context - Nevertheless, the Christian worldview is logical, rational, and makes sense of existence.] 

From a necessary Being comes other beings.
From personal, intelligent, mindful, logical, loving Being comes other beings of the same likeness.
From a necessary moral Being comes other moral beings.
Demonstrate the first premise: why is a being necessary, start there.
You ignore the rest of the context that I included above in brackets. I'm describing why a Christian worldview makes sense. From an evidentiary and an experiential standpoint that is what we see and witness. Your worldview starts with a presupposition that explains the world strictly in naturalistic terms. Do you grasp that if that is the case then to make sense of being and consciousness you must begin by something that is neither conscious nor intelligent yet somehow produces both? You also begin with materialism and naturalism if no supernatural Being is behind the universe. Go ahead and explain how that happens and how it is reasonable and logical to believe. (Silence as usual)

Why a necessary being? Because you are not it. We derive our existence from something or someone. The Christian worldview teaches it is from Someone. You do not have the answers nor from you do all other conscious beings originate. If you want a reasonable explanation (which evolution nor naturalism supplies) you start with such a being - God. As I said before, ultimately you have two scenarios, God or blind, indifferent, random chance happenstance; intent or the unintentional; purpose or chaos and randomness; intelligence or no reason. Yet we find and DISCOVER these attributes from nature. In nature or the somehow mechanical universe, we see that there are patterns and we put purposes to what we see/understand. We describe gravity, thermodynamics, energy, nature in precise mathematical formulas to explain what we see physically or understand in principle logically. 

As Van Til expressed, it is like a train traveller journeying through the English countryside that sees the words on a hillside, "Welcome to Wales." The words convey information. Does he think they just materialized via hundreds of years to spell out that phrase or were they put there at that specific point for a purpose to provide information? 
  


Show me the evidence for such beings. 
Not until you tell me you'll accept it as real. Frustrating, right? My evidence: earthquakes and hurricanes and tsunamis that kill indiscriminately, both christian and non christian, unpredictably and without explanation, are more easily explained by grecroman patheistic feuds than they are by a personal loving god who just wants to love up on everyone but accidentally maybe kill thousands of people or cripple their way of life, for not loving him even though he would have programmed them not to love him. 

The universe doesn't care or have an answer to why this happens. Why do you care that it happens? You see, whether it is atheism or Christianity, each worldview has an explanation. Is that explanation satisfactory? 

With the Christian worldview the problem is answered like this: If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent why is there evil in the world? The answer is that God allows it for a purpose. Earthquakes and floods are a result of original sin in which God placed restrictions on the universe (decay) and restrictions on humanity (death). He prevented them from living forever but gave only a limited amount of time to live. Since humanity in their federal head - Adam - rejected God He allowed them to live outside of His light and understanding (thus they lived and experienced the work of their own hands - evil). Some people look at this evil and look for a better way which is God and restoration to His light and understanding. 

Romans 10:16-18 (NASB)
16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
18 But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
“Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

Yes, I understand you do not like me quoting Scripture but ask yourself why? Why do you take such offence that you try to inhibit my freedom of expression?

Please note something here. The word, written by or attributed to the Apostle Paul says, "And their words to the ends of the world."
That is a done deal. Now remember what Jesus said, 

This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.

Did the end come? I say it most definitely did. What end was Jesus speaking of in His PROPHECY?
#132
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I have to reiterate, take smaller bites, man. I don't want you to feel disrespected but I have to cut out most of what you post to get to your point. 

 You are welcome to go through life not making sense of things because you have a worldview that can't. It does not have what is necessary.
What exactly do you think my life is like without "making sense" of how the universe started? Do you imagine I can't figure ANYTHING out, like I leave my shower running all the time, I've used a clothes iron as a telephone? There is zero impact at all on my life outside of one simple question: do you believe in gods. The answer is no. Everything else I seem to have found my way. 

The universe is evidence that something very significant happened that can't be adequately explained from a naturalist materialistic position (or inside the box, so to speak). If you think otherwise then please give the evidence that it can.
I'm not an astrophysicist. I don't know how the universe started. Neither do you. 

As for the evidence of God, I see it in everything I look at in all the complexity and diversity of life. I see it in the laws of science, the starting point for morality, 
You're putting it there. Demonstrate that any god is in any law of science. Morality...slippery slope considering the wide range of stuff that is considered immoral over time, and if morality were universal., we'd all agree on it. Any case, please demonstrate that this is so, that morality comes from any god.
So how does your fairy tale magically start? 

"Once upon a time, a long, long, time ago...nothing exploded into something (self-creation)...and that something acquired consciousness. We don't know how or why but it did and don't tell me God because God is not reasonable...." 
Don't know how it started. I can't stress that enough. I know the evidence points to the big bang cosmological model. Not to Jesus. By the way, you're not 'making sense' of how anything started this way, what you're doing is called 'taking credit for' more accurately. Saying Jesus did anything or bible God or any god, doesn't EXPLAIN anything. It doesn't say "how", which is what you seem to be asking ME to do. 

As for accepting the propositions, I would like you to explain how your worldview adequately explains my charges.
I don't understand this sentence. I'm an atheist, that means I don't believe in gods. What charges? 

The information is contained in the Bible either through direct statements or from logical inference. Whether you accept the Bible as what it claims is another matter.
Claim =/= evidence. I knew this was coming. Please prove the bible true. Remember, it contains talking snakes, a global flood, a boat that held two of every species of animal, bird and insect for more than a month, angels, a man wrestling a god, and a magic horn that brings down fortress walls.

QUESTION: If you do not believe that God is then why would you come to Him to receive a rewarder of those who seek Him? 

I don't know what this question means. I'm not going to god to receive a rewarder for those who seek him. And there's zero propositions that require me to believe they're true in order for them to be true...

Why a necessary being? Because you are not it. We derive our existence from something or someone. 
Leap highlighted.

The universe doesn't care or have an answer to why this happens. Why do you care that it happens? You see, whether it is atheism or Christianity, each worldview has an explanation. Is that explanation satisfactory? 
"Satisfactory," or "sufficient"? I have plenty of sufficient explanations for natural phenomena. You have..."wizard no one can confirm exists, via magic, until such time as magic is demonstrated to be natural, then wizard did the act using the natural means [THIS WIZARD IS NO LONGER NECESSARY IN THE EXPLANATION]." I don't need it to be satisfactory, any more than one true bit: shit happens. THat's how it works. 

With the Christian worldview the problem is answered like this: If God is omniscient and omnibenevolent why is there evil in the world? The answer is that God allows it for a purpose. Earthquakes and floods are a result of original sin in which God placed restrictions on the universe (decay) and restrictions on humanity (death). He prevented them from living forever but gave only a limited amount of time to live. Since humanity in their federal head - Adam - rejected God He allowed them to live outside of His light and understanding (thus they lived and experienced the work of their own hands - evil). Some people look at this evil and look for a better way which is God and restoration to His light and understanding. 

THis deserves its own topic, it's so senseless. In this story, did god know what Adam would do from the very beginning?

Yes, I understand you do not like me quoting Scripture but ask yourself why? Why do you take such offence that you try to inhibit my freedom of expression?
I'm not offended by it, nor do I want to limit your freedom of expression. All I said was quoting scripture in an attempt to prove scripture is using the claim as the evidence, which is not how evidence works. I don't believe the bible to be a true document, so whatever's in it (like talking donkeys or demons flying out of a pig's mouth or people coming back from the dead) is just a story and the lessons in it aren't even original or unique. 
#133
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
What exactly do you think my life is like without "making sense" of how the universe started? Do you imagine I can't figure ANYTHING out, like I leave my shower running all the time, I've used a clothes iron as a telephone? There is zero impact at all on my life outside of one simple question: do you believe in gods. The answer is no. Everything else I seem to have found my way.

Lol pretty funny but if I may interject again. The point of trying to get you to consider the processes in creation originate with God is just the first step in bringing you closer into a connection with the spiritual aspect of yourself as opposed to where you currently are. This is the self that transcends the physical body and its perceptions. You have both an earthly life and experience and on the other side of the coin you have the spiritual aspect of life and its experience. All in all (IMO), this doesn't really have much to do with beliefs per say as it has more to do with your progress and experience of that which transcends the physical sense perception, your spiritual connection.

Now I know you believe most of what I say is stupid but I'm just trying to help you connect the dots and understand what the hell all this is about. So while it seems pointless to you whether or not you accept creation or that there is a Creator when you leave this world you may understand a bit more why we want to help open your eyes a bit. Because why be blind-sided to a reality you could start connecting with now while you live out this life, that you may have some coherence and knowledge of where you are going and what you really are. It would be like going on a long journey only you have no map, you have no idea which direction you're going, you have no idea who may be there or what its like ect ect…

Don't get me wrong, I love a good road trip to nowhere and a good surprise lol, but not something of this magnitude. I'd rather get involved now and have a general understanding and knowledge, a connection and a plan. Most people don't realize that spirituality is how you interface with this reality, there is an actual progression and experience. This experience of course takes place on a higher conscious level because this reality goes beyond the physical body and its normal perceptions, you want to cultivate this part of yourself before you leave this world.

#134
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Now I know you believe most of what I say is stupid but I'm just trying to help you connect the dots and understand what the hell all this is about. 
Couldn't have said it better myself. WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR POST ABOUT? I'm kidding, relax. 

I know you mean well, but that's just a bunch of gibberish to me. No one has ever demonstrated any life or plane or realm or whatever dimension except the one we currently live in. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that everyone who's ever died is still dead, that's the fate that awaits us all, we march toward it inexorably with varying levels of bravura, and when it arrives, that's it. How that somehow robs life of meaning, rather than imbues it with meaning given that I'm the only one who'll ever get to live the life I live, or devalues morality somehow, is really just confusing. 

Can you demonstrate ANY level of 'higher consciousness' in the context you're using?
#135
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
I know you mean well, but that's just a bunch of gibberish to me.

How can a very straight forward post be gibberish to you? do you speak another language? I mean I know you're a hard core Atheist but come on...

No one has ever demonstrated any life or plane or realm or whatever dimension except the one we currently live in.

That may be true as you view it from a collective and material point of view but certainly not from an individual spiritual observation. Many souls both in religious squares and just average people have observed planes beyond this one. If you want to examine this type of knowledge you have to look into various religious sources and propositions. Such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Native American spirituality, Eckankar, bits of Christianity, soul travel and of course NDE's. These planes of existence have been observed for so long they are mapped out.

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that everyone who's ever died is still dead, that's the fate that awaits us all, we march toward it inexorably with varying levels of bravura, and when it arrives, that's it. How that somehow robs life of meaning, rather than imbues it with meaning given that I'm the only one who'll ever get to live the life I live, or devalues morality somehow, is really just confusing.

Wait a minute, there is a point to living in this universe on this planet, I'm just saying it doesn't end here. I'm not robbing your meaning of life in this world at all, I'm giving you meaning beyond this one experience....because it exists.

Can you demonstrate ANY level of 'higher consciousness' in the context you're using?

It's hard to demonstrate that sort of experience since there is no real material base that I can somehow show you. It's more like levels of frequencies like tuning into different radio channels. As you become open to spirituality you are essentially adjusting your normal conscious frequencies to higher ones or ones of another station. Lol I know that sounds weird but I'm doing my best to make sense of it for you.
Your physical brain actually confines your conscious activity and restricts it, reduces it down so your attention is trapped within this body and world. Spirituality helps you transcend those barriers through practice and opening yourself up to higher frequencies.

#136
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
None of that remotely disputes what I said. Look, I enjoy smoking weed too, but I don't feel like I'm tuning into other frequencies and other realms and dimensions. You might need to give me your guy's number if that's what you're getting! 

Seriously, the short answer is "no, I can't demonstrate it". That's not compelling. "It exists": how can I know that? And don't write a poem about it. Give me the instructions.

You mention all sorts of religions. Do you think they're all correct? 
#137
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
So in other words you're not open to other forms of knowledge and experience. That I already knew. The point of course is to get you connected to it. So where is the room to learn and grow?

None of that remotely disputes what I said.

You mean you produced an argument? where?

Look, I enjoy smoking weed too, but I don't feel like I'm tuning into other frequencies and other realms and dimensions. You might need to give me your guy's number if that's what you're getting! 

Weed is a very limited approach to getting out of yourself. Spirituality is the real high.

Seriously, the short answer is "no, I can't demonstrate it". That's not compelling. "It exists": how can I know that? And don't write a poem about it. Give me the instructions.

Lol, perhaps read my answer again, did it not make sense? does it not explain something of value for you in any way?

You mention all sorts of religions. Do you think they're all correct? 

Many of them have legit knowledge and insights about the reality of the created worlds, that is what they do and what they study. 


#138
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Give me the instructions.

I'm getting there, it's not something that can be digested all at once. Spirituality is a cultivation and it's that way for a reason. Some things you can handle now and other things you cannot. 
#139
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Here's an example, this section contains literally zero useful information for anyone that isn't you.

The point of trying to get you to consider the processes in creation originate with God is just the first step in bringing you closer into a connection with the spiritual aspect of yourself as opposed to where you currently are. This is the self that transcends the physical body and its perceptions. You have both an earthly life and experience and on the other side of the coin you have the spiritual aspect of life and its experience. All in all (IMO), this doesn't really have much to do with beliefs per say as it has more to do with your progress and experience of that which transcends the physical sense perception, your spiritual connection.

It sounds all woo woo and pseudo deep but it's just campfire college kid stoner stuff man. What can anyone do with this? 

You mean you produced an argument? where?
Here:

"No one has ever demonstrated any life or plane or realm or whatever dimension except the one we currently live in. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that everyone who's ever died is still dead, that's the fate that awaits us all, we march toward it inexorably with varying levels of bravura, and when it arrives, that's it."

Some things you can handle now and other things you cannot. 
Please deomnstarte any other proposition wherein this is true. 
#140
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
It sounds all woo woo and pseudo deep but it's just campfire college kid stoner stuff man. What can anyone do with this? 

It was an explanation to why we are sharing such information and how it concerns you. I read it, it seems like a useful bit of knowledge to show why you should pursue it. 
When you say it sounds like woo woo, that just means to me that you're used to a certain level of thinking. 

"No one has ever demonstrated any life or plane or realm or whatever dimension except the one we currently live in. The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that everyone who's ever died is still dead, that's the fate that awaits us all, we march toward it inexorably with varying levels of bravura, and when it arrives, that's it."

And as I said, it's been demonstrated through sources of knowledge. But from individual experiences. Argument dealt with. Perhaps move forward?

Please deomnstarte any other proposition wherein this is true. 

Any time you learn something it is a process is it not? if I were to get you playing the guitar I wouldn't have you burning scales like Zakk Wylde because that would be stupid, and you would be unable to handle that. I'd start you off at baby steps. 






#141
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
AS you know, individual experiences that cannot be duplicated or independently verified are not good evidence. I'll move on because there's just no way we're ever going to agree: I need to see things demonstrated in order to accept them as true. 

And your comparison of different realms to earning guitar is facile: I know people who play guitar. I don't know anyone who has learned to travel to another realm or dimension or has been tuned to some information that they know but can't impart in any useful way to anyone else that I'm supposed to accept as real because it makes life easier or something like that. Guitars are demonstrably real. Other levels of consciousness are not, unless you're holding out this info because I "can't handle it." Which sounds like appeal to special knowledge. 
#142
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
AS you know, individual experiences that cannot be duplicated or independently verified are not good evidence. I'll move on because there's just no way we're ever going to agree: I need to see things demonstrated in order to accept them as true.


You are included in the process of observation as an individual, but if you have yet to get involved there are others who can teach you things that you currently don't know or have experienced. That's how learning works, we learn from those who know what we don't know, then we gain knowledge, apply it and have experiences.

And your comparison of different realms to earning guitar is facile: I know people who play guitar. I don't know anyone who has learned to travel to another realm or dimension or has been tuned to some information that they know but can't impart in any useful way to anyone else that I'm supposed to accept as real because it makes life easier or something like that. Guitars are demonstrably real. Other levels of consciousness are not, unless you're holding out this info because I "can't handle it." Which sounds like appeal to special knowledge.

Whoa there, I was comparing learning an instrument to the process and cultivation of spirituality, not the knowledge of transcendent realms. I've been studying spirituality for a long time so you have to understand much of what I know covers a wide range of literature and sources. Here are a few links you can check out for yourself and sift through in regards to how religious sources experience these higher places in creation...however I'm going to guess you won't take anything seriously. 








#143
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Most people believe that when they leave this world there are only two places in the after life, for example "heaven and hell". That is actually not so, the created worlds are set up like a multiverse, layers or planes of existence on many levels. 
When you leave the physical body you will be present within another universe, the very next layer is what is known as the astral plane (which people describe as heavenly) and there you have a corresponding body known as the subtle body or what people refer to as a spirit body. This is just as large if not much larger than our physical universe. It is stock full of solar systems and of course trillions of planets, an untold number. This is where you will be present when your physical body dies, where your conscious soul translates. 

This is where it gets fun, the astral plane is only one of serval other universe or planes. The physical plane which is what we are currently observing is the outermost layer, the lowest and most coarse level of the multiverses, and most limited/restricted as is the material body. 
These higher planes exist at a much higher and finer vibrational frequency than the physical universe, and so has far less limitations. Which is why people are amazed during NDE's, the way they are able to move and how they can communicate. 
These planes travel all the way up to what are known as the pure conscious worlds, these are the highest levels one can reach. Interestingly the subtle bodies exist far, far longer than the physical body so your experiences there can seem like eons of time. But, it is cool because there is so much to learn and so much to do and experience. 
But, to earn a place in the higher realms the soul has to reach maturity through progression. A soul that has yet to mature can cause great harm to these higher places of existence. And this is why I find it important to get you to consider spirituality not just as a belief but a way you can interact with and grow from. There should be a chart in one of the links I provided giving you an idea of how these multiverses are set up. 
#144
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Also keep in mind the links are for general information and you may have to do some searches, since I'm already very familiar with it all I can articulate and elaborate on any things you want to know or have a question about. Literally anything. 
#145
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer

Yet your worldview is geared towards a strictly naturalistic viewpoint that does not make sense of your existence
Please explain my world view, there's a good chappy.
#146
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
This elusive verse has baffled me for a long time. Why can I not find it ? 

I am not pretending. I know the bible inside out the New Testament in particular,  and more than  you will ever live to know them.
*You didn't know Jesus could not have been quoting a nonexistent bible.

*You didn't know the history of how the bible came to be.

*You know the bible does not contain all scripture.

*You thought Jesus had made a mistake.

Knowing something inside out is sure not what it used to be.
Topic's author
#147
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,619
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
*You didn't know
*You didn't know



The fact remains the same , unchanged and unaltered. You didn't know the answer to my question. I admitted right from the start that I didn't know. What you still cannot get over is that you didn't fkn know either.

 I know the bible inside out the New Testament in particular,  and more than  you will ever live to know them.

Yes that was something I said to Mopac and I stick by it. I will also add that I know these scriptures better than you too. 
#148
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Yes that was something I said to Mopac and I stick by it. I will also add that I know these scriptures better than you too. 

And this is coming from someone who doesn't comprehend the way scriptures use words and phrases?
#149
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
It's only literal when you want it to be right (hate)? and figurative only when you want it to be right (sheep) lol?
#150
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
It's only literal when you want it to be right (hate)? and figurative only when you want it to be right (sheep) lol?
And then will dodge and shuffle around instead of addressing his contradiction.

I admitted right from the start that I didn't know.
Yet in your ignorance you were able to claim Jesus was wrong.

What you still cannot get over is that you didn't fkn know either.
I knew it wasn't in the bible. I knew that the bible was not in existence at the time of Jesus comment. I knew "scripture" did not necessarily mean "bible". I knew Jesus was not wrong.

I will also add that I know these scriptures better than you too. 
Lol! Sure you do Jed. That must be why you dodge and run like an Olympic champ.