Total posts: 2,869
-->
@janesix
That may be your perception which is fine. But I'm no more confident about what I believe than anything else I know is true. Would you rather people just remain in the dark about God because they think they can't know anything? what purpose would that serve when all knowledge can be known? what reasons do you have to believe that we can't know anything?
Created:
It is presumptuous to think you know anything about God.
I don't believe it is. You know more about God then you would probably ever accept simply because you are very much a part of God. You may not trust your intuition about God because of the frailty and weakness of your limited existence in this world.
You cant know even from analyzing the creation, because we have no idea why things were created.
It's not that complicated. God is creative by nature and that is because consciousness by nature desires to express itself through creative work and experiences. Humans continuously create and express themselves almost endlessly in many different ways because the same is true for them, consciousness by nature will always find avenues of expression. You could say then, that creation is God's canvas of expression...an outlet for creativity and experience.
I suppose some people could have superior knowledge to mine,
Possibly but only in terms of experience and or freedom of thought and mind, you have the same access anyone else has....but to be honest all information and knowledge are at our disposal, we have a vast available body of facts and information in the form of endless works of literature and observations. Of course it would be more like sifting through an infinite puzzle but all the pieces are there. The fun part is putting the puzzle together. That is part of your individual journey.
yet you have no idea if your knowledge is truly correct. How could you?
There isn't an easy answer for that because there are so many factors involved at each conscious observation, choice and belief. It just depends upon the proposition and what we are considering as a candidate for what is true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
if you are using the term ghost to refer to a person who was alive and is now dead, wandering around the earth trying to ease their pain. Or even if they are not trying to ease their pain - just scaring people.Was it the ghost of Saul or another kind of spirit? I don't know. I am content to think it was Samuel's spirit. It does not make me believe in ghosts.
The words ghost and spirit are interchangeable and even sometimes "soul".
Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit....he saw a ghost, he saw a spirit. The ghost of Christmas past, the spirit of Christmas past. A ghost appeared to me, a spirit appeared to me...a ghost haunted the house, a spirit haunted the house. Benevolent ghost, malevolent spirit ect ect it's like saying coke or soda. One person says ghost the other spirit but a ghost is the spirit of a person who has left the physical body, a spirit is the ghost of a person who has left this world. Or, a spirit (ghost) is simply an immaterial entity.
If you were to see a ghost or an apparition that is also a spirit there is no distinction other than what is usually told in folklore. The idea that "ghosts" are simply dead beings that haunt people is basically a childish or limited concept and probably what you are used to hearing about. Every single soul that occupies a physical body has a spiritual body, or ghostly body that departs when they lose their earthly body.
I know Christianity has this bizarre idea of a resurrection that souls will remain in the grave until an appointed time but trust me on this one, get used to the idea of leaving the physical body when you die. Once the physical body can no longer sustain the soul your spiritual body will separate almost immediately after the heart stops and the brain shuts down.
Ghosts or spirits aren't just lost souls that wonder around and scare people lol, although there are many spiritual beings that hang around this planet there are many reasons for why they are here and what they do. Also spirits aren't just limited to earth they come and go and they do interact with people in many different ways. Ghosts are not dead people, they are simply spirits that have moved on after leaving the material vessel. Angels are also spirit beings although distinct from human souls in that they inhabit heavens instead of earth. Demons, well known throughout the Christian belief are also spiritual beings so it is clear the Bible supports the existence of such phenomenon.
Ghost-
"A person's spirit or soul"
"The spirit of a dead person"
"a ghost is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear to the living"
"The belief in the existence of an afterlife, as well as manifestations of the spirits of the dead, is widespread"
"the seat of life or intelligence : SOUL"
"a disembodied soul"
Spirit-
"the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body"
"the incorporeal part of humans"
"the immaterial intelligent or sentient part of a person"
"the nonphysical part of a person"
"A force or principle believed to animate humans and often to endure after departing from the body of a person at death; the soul."
Most translations do not use the term ghost because it is misleading in our culture.
Probably but it's mainly due to folklore or misconceptions about the term or what a ghost is, not really because there is a difference in usage. The term ghost often registers to a person something paranormal like a haunting or something of that nature and ironically the term paranormal is also not limited to ghost sightings it has a more universal meaning.
Having said all that, there can be some differences between spiritual entities in how they appear and what their intentions are. God's creation is stock full of an endless variety of souls, spirit beings, creatures and things of all types, shapes and sizes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Well I hope you decide that this topic of discussion will at least be worth your effort of consideration. We can go much deeper into the problem of evil but I'm trying to keep this as short as possible. Just to kind of go over the points of why evil and suffering occur....
1. The nature of duality- for one thing to be possible it must allow for another thing to be possible. Without duality there is no creation.
2. The nature of our own will ("free" will)- if evil and suffering are free to occur they are also free not to occur.
3. The nature of Karma- a moral law of cause and effect. "The sum of a person's actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences."
4. The nature of God has been undecided. The terms omnibenevolence and omnipotence have no meaning in this discussion as of yet.
One thing I have not brought up until now and just something for you to keep in mind is that every single thing each one of us experiences God also experiences. Everything you go through God goes through, everything you observe God observes. This is because there is no distinction between what you experience and what God experiences as you are a direct channel of access for the Creator.
What does this have to do with the problem of evil? well for one it's not really a problem anymore if evil and suffering are part of what God wants to experience, and that most likely extends to the reality that God wants to learn something from the experiences. This doesn't mean God creates it though just that as the soul learns from its actions in a dualistic environment it's learning between the nature of positive and negative. In this way, evil and suffering are teachers just as much as pleasure and joy.
If I do this I get this, if I act this way it creates this or that, or if I don't do this that other thing won't occur and this applies to both sides of duality. And as the soul moves into the knowledge of good and evil it also learns what to do and what not to do. All in all we are learning from our experiences in a compromised setting so to speak and in so doing God is not removed from our own contributions whether they are good or bad. God is one with our experiences because there is no place or location that God is not present, and that means that whatever you do God does, whatever you feel God feels and whatever you see God sees.
This eliminates the temptation to say "well why does God allow this or that to happen"....when the real question is why do we allow it. Because again, there is no distinction between what we allow and what God allows, there is no distinction between what you do and what God observes.
This creates a fifth entry here.
5. Evil and suffering are not a "problem" for God- even though they appear as unfavorable conditions they are required as a means of learning from mistakes and learning about the deepest parts of our character and being. The fact they are the very results of how we operate in the world they are just as free not to occur as they are to occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
First off, I appreciate that you are here to have proper conversation, and reciprocate this respect. You seem articulate, eager for a productive discussion and civil. I don't wish to turn this thread into a battlefield.
I appreciate that.
My biggest problem with God can be categorised as the "problem of evil", but it's not quite simple. If we posit the existence of a supernatural God who is bothand omnipotent,
I'm going to hear you out here, I just wanted to make it clear that we haven't given God any features or attributes. Actually the "Omni" terms won't be necessary until we show they should be necessary and it may be that only one is usable but I'll get to that later. I want to start from scratch instead of invoking ideas I may or may not agree with. Mainly because I don't want to spend any time correcting concepts that I have not presented. If you come into the discussion with preconceived ideas it will only hamper productivity.
I do have a very unique approach and I want you to have the best opportunity here so for now, let's just go with the idea of Creator and we have not asserted any particular personality other than being creative. The one feature we could at least apply given that the Creator is creative could be "conscious" meaning alive and aware. And....of course that would entail mind, thought and intelligence.
then we must conclude that there is no unnecessary suffering at all. Take note of the term unnecessary suffering, synonymous to gratuitous evils. Unnecessary suffering is tautologically unjustified -
I agree with this only to a point, and that being that I understand the logic behind it. So understand that I comprehend why you believe there should be no unnecessary suffering but I must say that it is derived from the very features that you asserted God has. And I'm not saying that God is evil either just follow me on this one.
The dynamics of the full scale of creation make limiting what can be experienced in this world an issue. There are reasons why we see the full swing of duality on this planet. I call it the wild, wild west of creation lol....it is where we can experience both extreme pleasure, joy and happiness as well as extreme sorry, pain and sadness. It is not that the Creator forces or limits us to suffering rather it is the weak state of man that demands that he must learn from pain. Pain has a cause, evil has a cause and suffering has causes. Where there is any fruit of suffering there is a root cause involved.
To understand why, you must first understand the nature of duality and you also should understand very clearly that evil, pain and suffering aren't things or objects that are created...rather they are free to occur. If they are free to occur they are free not to occur.
it cannot be explained away by a "greater good"
You're right, I think that is a silly justification and again, misses the real reason why suffering occurs.
"free will", as that would render them justified suffering.
Justified only in the sense that it occurred because it was caused.
With these definitions, it can be concluded that, in the thiets world view, all the suffering we see around can be justified, and that, as God is all loving, every bit of seemingly "unjust" act is actually just. This is where it becomes difficult, as I can very easily point out unnecessary suffering in the world. Take a deer as an example. What good could possibly come out of a deer being squashed by a falling tree, resulting in hours of agonising pain? Why did the suffering go on for exactly as long as it did? Why didn't God shorten it for 10 seconds? Why didn't God marginally shorten the suffering? This too me seems unanswerable.
Before we go much further lets back up a hair, because again we are encroaching upon religious territory with concepts we have no need to assert yet. It seems your whole basis for this problem stems from your idea of omnibenevolence. But for the sake of argument lets say that God probably doesn't want creation to endure any more pain than necessary but at the same time....if we want to enjoy a world where we have trees, which by the way provides oxygen as we know, then we have to risk the potential one could fall on us at any given time. Having said that, it is indeed going to be a very rare event.
The problem with hypotheticals is that you are forcing me to answer for problems that may or may not occur and we may not have the proper perspective or perception to see them accurately.
How could we possibly know if a deer suffers and for how long if 1....we aren't the deer and 2....we aren't God? I'm not a deer so I have no real way of knowing how and if they suffer and for how long. Any answer I give could be limited to my own ignorance of that experience. So we can talk about pain and suffering in general but I can't answer for hypotheticals because I'd have to be the one experiencing the occurrence to allow for an accurate perception of the event.
I'm also not stupid, so I know that pain is a real phenomenon and I also know that as pain reaches a certain level or threshold consciousness will black out. You can only experience pain for so long before you will just go unconscious. Now the flip side of that coin is that you can also experience beautiful, orgasmic and enjoyable sensations and everything in between so if we want a world where we experience touch and feel sensation through a nervous system then we risk undergoing very unpleasant experiences of pain but as I mentioned previously there is a shut off feature, there is also adrenaline which can mask pain.
So we are back at the nature of duality, if we want one thing it makes for the possibility of the other. You can't have pleasure without pain, you can't have light without darkness, you can't have cold without hot, you can't have freedom without confinement ect ect that is the very nature of duality.
Now it appears there are two distinct issues of suffering...pain that can be caused due to "free will" and perhaps suffering that occurs as a result of accident or misfortune. The first one is easy to deal with because we know that we are free to cause really anything we want in this world and inflict any pain we want on another whether that be physical, mental or psychological. This must be possible for us to live in a world where we are free to choose but this is also why creation is ruled by moral laws. Some people might call it Karma and others may simply call it a form of moral cause and effect (sowing and reaping).
Now pain that occurs due to misfortune or accident can't be avoided because again, if we want one thing we must have the other. If we want a world where we can build cars and drive anywhere we want at any reasonable speeds then we must suffer the reality and consequence that there could being an accident, it only follows not because the world is mean but because one thing must allow for the other....and again back to the tree problem, if we want trees we risk the potential one could fall on us and if we want pleasure we risk the potential for pain.
Now, as far as there being unfavorable circumstances I want you to go look up the term "Karma" and really let that soak in before you react to it. I know we said we weren't going to invoke any religious ideals but since you presented a problem that results from a religious perception of God I think it is fair to introduce this concept. What I want you to do, is take that concept at face value and simply apply it to how you feel about suffering and remember that Karma is not limited by any time frame or person, it is simply a cause and effect law and can play out anyway necessary.
The one thing that I want you to really consider about Karma is that nothing is "unfair" no matter how bad it may appear and the other thing I want you to consider is that it takes the problem of evil and suffering away from the hand of God and into the hands of man. Now, the other feature you have to consider when looking at Karma is reincarnation, and this just means that a soul can come back and be placed into situations and circumstances it must learn from and mainly due to suffering itself caused at some point in time.
How a soul learns from their mistakes is to experience what they put others through in a similar manner, or perhaps if a soul is greedy and lived one life only concerned with itself it may come back to experience what it is like to be deprived. Now keeping in mind that these lives are temporal and though it may seem vicious at times it really is only a brief moment in the eternal nature of the soul. Anyways I don't want to get too far into this but the issue of suffering is rather dynamic and so it takes the consideration of many different angles. I just want you to see how God's existence fits in with the reality we live in and that there really are no equations that cannot be solved or explained.
If you want to, we can set aside the problem of suffering and go back and first deal with God's existence as it relates to the universe I'll leave it up to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Just wanted to add It's always nice to see you here
Thanks! I always like seeing you around too. It's nice to know that after all these years communicating in a forum with the same people all the time that there are a few (maybe a couple) people to share in comradery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Look at the root etymology of "incarnation," then at the meaning of the suffix, "re." Result: a repetition of becoming flesh, i.e., mortal.
Please tell me you're not that dunce?
Reincarnation emphasizes the immortality of the soul, having mortal lives is of no relevance to the eternal soul that occupies temporal bodies. This is why forums like these are so frustrating at times, you people don't think. I even supplied the very definitions of reincarnation and you still missed it lol. The "mortality" that is experienced through material bodies is a brief temporal event, it is not the reality of the soul.
Reincarnation-
"the soul is seen as immortal and the only thing that becomes perishable is the body."
So again, in reincarnation the soul is specifically seen as immortal.
Wrong, that is exactly the power of applying the atonement to our lives.
Wrong, the only way to change the nature of your choices, attitudes and deeds is to change the nature of your choices, attitudes and deeds and no belief can do that for you. The atonement doesn't change what you are or how you choose to act, it helps you respect and reflect on the reality of your weaknesses in light of a larger picture... All the responsibility of what you do rests squarely on your shoulders and your life's experience assists in letting you observe the consequences of your actions.
Yes, I have.
Great then I don't have to remind you that practice makes perfect. Of course there is no literal meaning of the word perfect in terms of our abilities, but it does mean that one can only reach an advanced state of development through practice, or as you say "repetition". And as you probably clearly have seen, many souls have left this planet severely underdeveloped no matter if they had a Christian background or not.
So here you have a clear example of why repetition is not only important but also imperative and why a single life's experience is almost never sufficient to gain a mature progression of attitude, morality or deeds. But again, the soul is immortal so there is no time limit or immediate concern that a soul must reach a certain destination at any particular time or place. And reincarnation allows for many logical solutions to play out in the journey of each soul within the vast context of God's creation.
No matter what preconceived ideas you throw at reincarnation I should also remind you it is defined simply as....
"the rebirth of a soul in a new body."
"rebirth of the aspect of an individual that persists after bodily death"
"the philosophical or religious concept that the non-physical essence of a living being begins a new life in a different physical form or body after biological death."
"involving reincarnation, the soul is seen as immortal and the only thing that becomes perishable is the body."
This is compatible with any idea that the soul moves on after the death of the physical body. The point, is that there doesn't have to be a rigid set of ideas or rules that must be applied to the term, it is a universal concept. Notice how there is no dogma tied to any of those descriptions, it simply highlights the fact that the soul exists independent of any physical form or body.
We can succeed all we need in one pass.
You can assert that, but in reality deep down you know that you will not succeed and we know through many examples that many souls leave this planet severely morally bankrupt. If one lifetime was sufficient, every soul would leave morally and functionally perfect, having mastered the errors of their ways. You can delude yourself, it won't change reality.
And unbeknown to you, if reincarnation is a reality, this might not have been your only "pass". But each experience we undergo, it carries over in our conscious warehouse where our progression is caught up in each life. So even though you may not be fully aware you had prior experience, all your cyclical patterns of behavior play out right where you left them.
I told you that my brand of Christianity differs from most. I mean exactly what I said.
What does this have to do with our discussion? I don't care how you view your Christianity. But no, there is nothing here that sets you apart from all the weirdo Christians I've been around. As I said in my first post, there are many factions, denominations and loose flavors of Christian teachings. Get over yourself. I would be more concerned with your logic, comprehension and reading issues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
My topic is simple: point of view. I have mineThe reason why I say reincarnation is nonsense
And as I've said...."usually when someone presents their beliefs there is no real point in debating anything, it's more an exercise in futility."
What says by repeating mortality
You keep using the term "repeat" and I explained why that was not accurate, but you don't care do you? we're not repeating anything, we are learning from experience in different ways and various circumstances. There is no repeat, there is only progress.
There is no mortality either, the term reincarnation itself opposes the notion. The soul is immortal by nature.
we can learn from our mistakes in one life and avoid them in the next?
Apparently you have no concept of practice, or progression. Also, you ignored the fact that I said reincarnation is not limited to a repeating cycle on this planet. You basically just repeated your ignorance regarding the concept. We can't avoid a next experience, it will happen and we will always learn and progress from our mistakes. If you think that you, living this one life will die and appear in heaven as a perfect, mistake-free agent you are delusional. Get a grip. Perfection will never be a realistic goal in a lifetime, but progression will take place through our actual experiences of reincarnation. Which is simply the continuance of the soul to a next experience. Even if you squeak into the Christian Kingdom of Heaven, that will not be your final destination, your eternal soul will always reincarnate.
it belittles the atonement.
I haven't, only you asserted it does. I never mentioned it and need not to. The atonement doesn't change what you are or how you choose to act, it helps you respect and reflect on the reality of your weaknesses in light of a larger picture... All the responsibility of what you do rests squarely on your shoulders and your life's experience assists in letting you observe the consequences of your actions.
The goal of reincarnation is self improvement. There is no atonement that can work that out for you, it is self-actuated.
We would just make other mistakes, so what is gained by repetition?
Have you ever learned how to play an instrument? you tell me what is gained then, would you tell a Martial Arts Master that all his practice (repetition) is of no consequence? eventually "repetition" breaks the mold of what you were to what you become.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Well it looks to me like you've created a topic where you lay out your personal beliefs. I don't see the real correlation between the topic title and the OP but I'm not too sure what the point here is. I mean, are you just trying to present your beliefs or are you wanting people to dissect them? usually when someone presents their beliefs there is no real point in debating anything, it's more an exercise in futility.
TBH I've been around Christians of all types for as long as I can remember and much of that experience is not very favorable lol. On the other hand I have had some real genuine and deep relationships and joyous experiences as well. A lot of this is typical Christian mumbo jumbo except for maybe 6 and 7 you sort of go out on a limb. Considering Christians have several religious hypothesis they disagree on and many various factions and denominations I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water here. I tend to be more attracted to the looser side of your beliefs as someone who is also not compatible with a fundamentalist version of Christianity.
What I would like to point out (not that you would personally reflect on) is your rejection of reincarnation and then your approval of a "resurrection" and your more loose idea of other worlds, men becoming Gods, creators and so forth. You seem to have a rigid idea or definition of reincarnation, it's not a "repetition" in the sense you repeat something like as if it were on replay. Don't let the word itself fool you. It is defined as a rebirth of a soul in a new body, a progression, a life after death, a transmigration, a new life in a different physical form or body....reincarnation refers to the belief that an aspect of every human being continues to exist after death.
Also...Reincarnation-
"In most beliefs involving reincarnation, the soul is seen as immortal and the only thing that becomes perishable is the body. Upon death, the soul becomes transmigrated into a new infant (or animal) to live again. The term transmigration means passing of soul from one body to another after-death."
"Resurrection is a similar process hypothesized by some religions, in which a soul comes back to life in the same body."
Reincarnation 'can be' a reoccurrence back to the planet earth but it is not a 'repeat' anymore than you visiting the same place more than once, you can still have quite a different experience being in the same place and certainly with a new body and different circumstances. And...it is still part of a progression, it is not a replay. If a soul is reincarnated back to earth it's because the soul has not yet been permitted to pass this experience for whatever reasons.
But certainly reincarnation is not limited to any destination, it is simply the concept of rebirth or life after death leaving the physical body behind to continue the souls experience. Returning to this planet is only one single option out of virtually endless options.
More than not, a term like reincarnation is rejected or shunned simply because it originates with another religious source lol, God forbid oh no!! we wouldn't want to cross paths with some other term from some other source!
Religions come up with their own terms for things that describe reality in a way they find accurate. We call it an afterlife, life after death, the soul, heaven and hell, crossing over ect ect and reincarnation is basically the very same concept. I will say that though it is the same idea it adds a layer of understanding and dynamics that other fundamentalists might not have. Most fundies think the can only inhabit one of two places when they die, they don't realize that the options are virtually endless. God's not that creatively limited or stupid to provide one place for one culture and one bad place where everyone else goes. That is one of the biggest examples of stupidity that occurs within religious circles.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Firstly, no it doesn't. Matter isn't the same as energy, nor is space or time. Energy has many forms but to say that everything is energy is firstly physically false because 'field theory' hasn't been proven yet.
I don't go by what has been "proven" so that means jack shyt because what becomes "proven" was already true before it was ever proven. Matter would not exist without energy. Energy is a property of matter, matter itself has energy called "rest energy". Prior to the Big Bang was this body of pure energy which co-existed with the conscious activity of God, the Big Bang generated quite a few more elements to create with, but without the isolation and condensed point of energy which was then released to create what we call the BB there would be no matter.
You are aware how matter and forms are created right?
Matter isn't the same as energy
And so an ice cube is not the same as water?? lol...
Even if you proved field theory true, your latter statement is false as consciousness has nothing to do with whether or not the brain is made out of energy.
I have no idea what you are arguing here. Brains were never mentioned, they simply confine consciousness to the observation point of the physical body.
Are you saying that all forms of energy have consciousness as a result of them or are you saying the opposite?
First you have conscious awareness, then energy and then form. Conscious activity generates energy and then energy is manipulated through processes to create form.
All forms of energy have awareness because as I said, they co-exist. Anywhere you have energy you have awareness and anywhere you have awareness you have energy. That is why you see energy act like an intelligent source in creation, by what it produces. Because awareness is always present wherever there are processes of energy.
If not, I don't understand how this sentence flows. How did consciousness make electricity in a cable?
Electricity is harnessed and conducted (isolated) through electrical components to power equipment, appliances and machinery. Your house contains an electrical panel to conduct the flow of electricity to all parts of the home. Without electricity the appliances within the house are worthless...dead. However, electricity exists independent of any electrical components or panels...it exists independent of your house.
In the same way consciousness is harnessed, isolated and confined to physical bodies to animate and power them. Your brain is much like an electrical panel which conducts the flow of consciousness to your physical body and confines your experience to this world. Brains don't create consciousness, they are simply a component that is conductive to the presence of your energetic soul. And...much like electricity can be measured through an electrical meter/device so can brain activity be measured in a brain while consciousness occupies it.
As well consciousness exists independent of the brain in the same way electricity exists independent of components.
Even further consciousness can be compared to energy as I've been saying. Energy exists both within form and independent of form, it is omnipresent and is neither created nor destroyed. Ironic how energy has the same attributes as God??
How did consciousness make kinetic energy from movement?
Conscious activity IS movement. As this movement occurs energy is generated. This energy can be manipulated, isolated or confined through the power of God's conscious thought. Your soul (consciousness) also generates energy on a much smaller scale because God is not restricted or confined to any location or forms. God's consciousness exists on an eternal massive scale. The amount of energy that is generated from an omnipresent, vast and infinite Reality is unimaginable. This full scale energy was condensed and released at the BB to create and generate more materials through the combustion and fusion of kinetic force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
How did everything come from nothing?
Everything originates as a product of energy in one form or another, which is a product of conscious activity (awareness). Energy co-exists with the conscious activity of God, energy is then manipulated as the original mechanism in creation. I'll explain below.
How did your god come from nothing?
God is a fixed Reality, so using the phrase "come from" is incoherent, it simply has no meaning. A fixed state of existence doesn't come from anything because there is no linear time frame where there is an infinite past or future of two directions that reach no destination. Rather God's existence is a stationary conscious backdrop to all that exists. The Creators existence is not a progressive event where anything could happen prior to it.
We're not familiar with the concept of fixed because all our perceptions of life involve a process of birth and death, a point where something begins and a point where it ends but this does not occur in eternity. No linear time frame occurs.
Consciousness is akin to energy in that there is no event that brought it into existence, it is an ocean of awareness that is always present and that presence co-exists with energy. Actually conscious activity generates energy, where one is present so is the other. Anywhere there is energy there is awareness and anywhere there is awareness there is energy.
If you accept that energy is neither created or destroyed simply apply that concept to awareness (God).
If it didn't come from nothing, what is logically coherent about an entity that never didn't exist prior to its existence?
This question is nonsensical to begin with. But eternity is not an infinite past and future where there must have been something that happened at some point in time so there is no actual infinite regress paradox. Time is an illusion as it is simply a measurement between two events and that only appears as products of creation.
God exists as a static, fixed backdrop where creation presents itself as a process of life and death (beginning and an ending) which appears as movement from one event to the next. The expansion of the universe occurs on top of or within a Reality that has no linear time frame, it is literally a fixed state of existence.
Since It is fixed, there is no before or after in terms of how we perceive time, so the term "prior" has no meaning or relevance.
Time only appears as something we can measure as God brings events into existence as a process. That process creates the illusion of a linear progression, but it does not effect the eternal fixed (stationary) backdrop.
We have two natures of experience and one nature does not apply to God. We have temporal and eternal....events that are temporal in nature have no effect on God, God simply observes it from an independent observation point. Although everything occurs within God not everything has the same nature of occurrence so there is no incoherence its just a matter of comprehending the two distinct concepts.
You keep saying you have absolute proof of god and souls but what is the proof?
Where did you contrive this from? if I claimed anything, it is that the indicators are near impossible to reject or ignore. I present correlation (products of the universe) in terms of providing strong incentive to consider God's existence and I've used NDE's, paranormal encounters and religious observations as evidence to show how the soul exist independent of the physical body. Nothing can be shown to be "absolute proof" because of the nature of what we are discussing, absolute proof is a personal choice as a mere interpretation of the evidence.
The nature of what we are discussing transcends physical boundaries so the evidence has to be in the indication of it being a part of our reality. Apart from personal experience there is no absolute proof, even though the evidence is obvious.
It's about educated guesses on either side. We are estimating and gambling, not directly knowing.
When the indications are so direct there is no real reason to be guessing anything. The information is there, it's been there for a long time, all the knowledge is at our fingertips in one form or another and the evidence is clear that these things are a part of and a product of reality or reality being a product of it.
If you truly deeply know that God is real and if your basis is that it is simply logical, then what is logical about it? At least explain.
I do that in all my posts all over the forum lol. Do you even read my posts? you even created a topic where I explained much of my beliefs! heavens sake did you even read through your own topic about me?? where you gave me opportunity to explain anything you asked...
How are you conscious of yourself?
Consciousness can only be conscious of itself, that is the very nature of consciousness. Did you mean something else with this question?
Why isn't your body just a puppet of the god?
Who says it is not? There is no distinction between the soul observing your body and God. God observes through every channel of consciousness. What you experience God experiences.
Created:
Posted in:
I did. You literally quoted it and thanked me for my answer.
That was not your only answer. Obviously.
Not every thing is that simple.
In this scenario, it was very simple. But at this point we're getting away from the point of the topic. I'm not going to get very far with you as I already knew, so I'm going to keep this short and sweet.
Why is the tooth ferry not worth considering?
It is known to be make-believe. You do know the difference between fact (non-fiction) and fiction right? In other words I don't considered something promoted as fiction to be anything other than fiction. God is not proposed as a fictional proposition and it's influence and relevance is very much a part of human experience.
Serious question, how did you rule out the possibility that it exists?
Other than that it is presented as fiction, there is no real correlation in my reality to a tooth fairy. Unlike God as a Reality that is very much a part of my life and my observations and there being many factors that indicate God exists as contrasted to that which is considered a child's story/game you are wasting my time.
I know you believe that God's existence is as far fetched as the tooth fairy's and you think there is as much reason to believe the fairy exists as there is with the question of God's existence I get it, you guys make the stupid comparison all the time and for that I feel sorry for you. I don't agree that it is at all comparable but honestly STFU about it.
The question you began this thread with wasn’t “do you believe god exists”? You asked “Does God exist?”
The question in this topic began with three options. All I asked of is that whatever of the three options were chosen to give reason why it was chosen. What I was looking for, was to expose the reasoning for either of the three options.
This is why when it comes to how you live your life there are only two possibilities.There is no “I don’t know” verdict.
In terms of beliefs, I know of Theist, Atheist and Agnostic. I place agnosticism in between theism and atheism. I personally place agnosticism in the neutral category. If you disagree I don't really care. Move on or move out.
Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.
No.
Lol, well I can't say that I actually thought you would. Think it was worth the try?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I didn't reason my way there
Well I don't really think we can "reason" our way into a belief in God. What I'm saying or asking about is that we usually have reasons why we accept our conclusions about reality. There must be something about reality that concludes you to believe in a God. However, I'm very familiar with your beliefs and hypothesis so I already know your answers.
This universe is not logical, as far as I can tell.
Perhaps, I guess. But it is functional, it does produce many things that logically function. If it weren't sensible or coherent I don't believe it could work, I don't think we'd be here. Maybe there are some factors you view as irrational about life, but I do think it tips more towards being a coherent work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Me personally, I think what you're really defining here is faith and trust and you and I would appear to think of it similarly.
Well to be more precise, you and I agree that faith is very much like an action. An action you would move forward in...in trust and confidence. Actually I meant to tell you that, besides myself you are the only other person on a forum I've read say that faith is akin to an action and I have been saying that for quite some time. I cringe when I read atheists assert that faith is believing in things for no reason or evidence, it is precisely the opposite. Trust and confidence are built around reason and evidence, the more trust (reason) and confidence (evidence) you have the more faith you have to act on.
I personally don't define faith as a belief TBH, to me it is the level of trust and confidence a person has in what they know is true. Jesus of the Gospels is a great witness of that fact, he always suggested a contrast between little faith and great faith, and that (little or great) depending upon the individual. Then, even more important is what that faith could accomplish (action).
I certainly agree that once you accept God, logic has a certain openness to it that allows a lot of leeway. For if God exists, there's a whole lot interest as to what exactly is His doing and what isn't. I find myself more often than not deciding that while yes, "everything" is God's doing by extension, sometimes we give God credit to things that He isn't directly responsible for and we end up with people claiming false miracles or the like. It's a tricky business, sorting between the spiritual truths with regular laws of reality. More often they tend to link up as well which just makes it more fun hahaha So then my guess is what you've got going is logic, commonsense, evidence, and then faith(although not necessarily in that order).
I think more accurately that whatever I have gathered as forms of logic, reason, commonsense and evidence is what makes my faith what it is. Not as something distinct from those factors. They go hand in hand in that the one builds the other....faith is not void of those features, it is those features that undergird faith. Faith being defined as trust and confidence is formed through how much reason we have to believe (trust).
In Hebrews it says that faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, and some people think that the passage is saying that faith is void of substance and evidence lol, not at all. Faith is both (THE) substance AND (THE) evidence, and the rest of that chapter gives examples of peoples faith in God, and how their trust and confidence produced viable outcomes.
Jesus compared a little bit of faith as a form of ability that could remove obstacles in ones life. And it is according to each individuals level of confidence.
In this world, we are the channels for the Divine. If God is doing something it is because we are doing something and if God is doing nothing it is because we are doing nothing. There is no distinction between what we do and what God does. This may sound heretical at first, but just look at reality and you will see it is pretty accurate.
You're not wrong, it's a sad truth and a great blessing that when you get enough people of similar belief and put them together in a community they create cultures that usually encourage assimilation and you end up with dogmatic crap. I've wrestled a bit with knowing the balance between community involvement and using the good and supporting parts while removing the less helpful parts that can discourage continued thought and independence. Idk, what I most appreciate about my own belief is that it is incredibly sensible from a conceptual standpoint and really does work in practice so long as it is being practiced. It's when folks add stuff on top or reinterpret things to fit their own sense of morality rather than having a desire to change to something better that makes me sad. I can't complain too much though, I myself am guilty of, as you say, "clearing the intellectual hurdle...and now...set [myself] up behind barriers". What might you suggest is the cause of this yourself?
Well for starters, I always focus on application as the foremost factor of any belief system before I permanently allow any dogma to infiltrate my heart and beliefs. Application are the teachings that apply to yourself that you can observe the outcomes of, whereas dogma is basically nothing more than ideas or beliefs that you are told to accept for whatever reasons. The difference is that one is a practice and one is a creed or perhaps a set of doctrines. Only one of those actually develops your spiritual being.
A good example would be like say I was teaching you how to play the guitar, well I could tell you about it and tell you how long I've been playing and I could tell you all kinds of stories about my playing and where I've played and blah blah blah and then I could actually sit you down and give you some tangible things to practice. I could write down some tablature, show you hand positions and send you home to develop your skills. Which one of those two things would get you to become a guitar player?
The same is true for religion and spirituality, you want to pay less attention to dogma, stories and opinions and focus on the things you can actually apply to yourself and to the world. This is true no matter the religious source you study or find interest in. There are doctrines and then there are applicable practices you can learn from and observe. If you follow this guideline you will be less fearful, perhaps less limited in your pursuit. Because no matter what, you are applying the necessary features that actually merit your progression.
In this you can be fearless and have complete freedom in God to express God in anyway you know is logical and true because you are first a DOER, and no one can take that away from you. You aren't a talker (or just a believer) but an actual practitioner and that is the only thing that means anything and makes you what you wish to be. If you practice (apply) it...you ARE it, and if you just talk it or believe it you are nothing but sounding brass...a wannabe. God will always be in the application, beliefs are nothing but script. And application is universal, things that are real and true apply to everyone in all places and at all times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I believe that I am the only subject that objectively exists. In other words, I am the world, I am God.
Be careful now, you wouldn't want to get yourself crucified lol, apparently Jesus is the only one allowed to make that claim according to Christian sources! ironically Jesus came and declared what had already been taught in many schools of religious thought. He just happened to claim it on enemy territory where such teachings were thought of as heretic and blasphemous.
Jesus would have been just fine as a Guru lol.
Don't bring out the "But that is blasphemy!" no matter what. I can just think as if your religion doesn't exist.
Are you familiar with Hindu concepts?
"refers to the (universal) Self or self-existent essence of human beings, as distinct from ego, mind and embodied existence .The term is often translated as soul but is better translated as "Self", as it solely refers to pure consciousness or witness consciousness, beyond identification with phenomena."
"Atman as that in which everything exists, which is of the highest value, which permeates everything, which is the essence of all"
"That Atman (self, soul) is indeed Brahman"
"that the essence and Self of every person and being is the same as Brahman, is extensively repeated in Brihadāranyaka Upanishad. The Upanishad asserts that this knowledge of "I am Brahman", and that there is no difference between "I" and "you", or "I" and "him" is a source of liberation, and not even gods can prevail over such a liberated man."
"Whoever knows the self as “I am Brahman,” becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their Ātma. Now, if a man worships another god, thinking: “He is one and I am another,” he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish; how much more so when many are taken away? Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this."
"Brahman as a metaphysical concept refers to the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe."
"Brahman is identical to the Atman, is everywhere and inside each living being, and there is connected spiritual oneness in all existence."
John 10
30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
John 14
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?
John 14
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
Would you mind extrapolating on those first three, commonsense, logic, and evidence? Do you mean that these are requirements and the basis of your faith or more that they act as supporting pillars?
They act as supporting pillars. I've adjusted my beliefs through the years where appropriate. Somethings we are led to believe and other things we follow reality to believe. I've always tried to make sense of my beliefs though as far back as I could remember, to me it's just my love for logic/truth coupled with my passion for spirituality. They blend ever so lovely together.
And just out of curiosity, if you find yourself missing one of those does it make a difference?
It's hard to say I'd have to really think about which aspect of my beliefs are missing one of those three. You have to remember though, I'm obsessed with theorizing, considering all angles of each scenario and connecting theory to reality whether that be from observation, experience, commonsense, corresponding sources, cross referencing or philosophical propositions.
With spirituality and religion we don't always have immediate access to hard evidence even though they are built upon observation. So sometimes it's simply best to go with commonsense or logic to determine if something is stupid to accept or has good reason to consider it. If you already know or are 99.9 % sure God exists you can be very open-minded about many aspects of information and Theistic knowledge....once wrestling with whether or not God exists is no longer an obstacle things change dramatically if you're an obsessed thinker. For one, if God exists it changes the dynamics of reality so while things can get very strange everything must harmonize with logic.
There's no reason to ever abandon any one of those three or even all three when evaluating beliefs like for example, would God do this if I wouldn't? or could this have happened if we never see it take place in reality? or why would I need to accept anything that seems absurd just because someone claimed it at some point? there's clear logical guidelines to follow in a sea of information.
When you question things to have deeper understanding answers pop up, you will be presented with alternative solutions.
So, if I'm making a philosophical decision it might not matter if hard evidence is there to support the theory because I already know God exists, it's just a matter of what makes sense and what follows through with reality but again, some people might be surprised at how dynamic spirituality can get yet at the same time there's never any reason to steer away from logic, reason or commonsense.
On my religious mission, this was likely the greatest realization I came to. I so often wish I could just dump the understanding of this concept into another's brain.
Lol I feel you on that one. That's our curse as God lovers, we want everyone to experience what life has to offer on a spiritual level. Just keep yourself open to information and don't limit your beliefs to doctrine or dogma unless they are appropriate for application. And then you will always experience something you haven't before, don't hold anything back from God and God won't hold anything back from you. One thing people tend to trap themselves into, is lack of freedom. Religion (not referring to any particular) seems to have a knack for locking up a souls freedom in God, it's funny...they cleared the intellectual hurdle of whether or not God exists and now they have set themselves up behind barriers that limit their understanding of the Creator.
Far too frequently people aspire to perfection and think they see it among others so they only become increasingly discouraged. Making peace with one's imperfection and choosing to improve slowly, recognizing failures and seeing them as opportunities to grow for the future, is just incredible. Cultivation is a great description, very fitting. A slow, rewarding, painful, and gratifying process.
You come across as a down to earth, realistic and logical guy. Hopefully you contribute more to this section of the forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You didn’t offer any justification: simply blurting our what you think is true, is not a valid way to have an argument.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wasn't in an argument. However, none of my opinions are without justification, they are always well thought out whether or not you agree with them. I understand you don't like my opinion but I didn't need to give anything other than what I think is true because I was not arguing or debating it. You on the other hand didn't argue my premise, you just claimed they were assertions and gave your own opinion. Heck, I wasn't even addressing you to begin with.
Pointing out that they are no more justified than any random nonsense you want to pull from your a$$, is perfectly valid.
I don't need to pull commonsense out of my azz, it sits comfortably in my mind thanks.
I mean, I can assert
That's what people normally do when they present their opinion.
that it is not possible for a fully formed intelligent being, with will and super powers to simply exist without cause
We can discuss this, and this would be easy for me to articulate why God exists without cause. But honestly you don't make for a very good conversation. You're a tad rigid to have any logical discourse about anything related to Theism. So what would be the point, even if I were right it wouldn't matter lol.
: and the demand that you have to demonstrate it’s possible by making such a thing occur, would not be reasonable, right?
Lets not get away from sensible. Asking you (or "asserting" it) to produce anything without your mind or knowledge involved is getting you to think about why my statement was not just an assertion but a logical example that demonstrates the premise. If you can't begin a process that produces a functioning product without any thought or mind behind it, how do inanimate elements do it? they don't because there is awareness behind every process both in our immediate experience as well as that which extends to the universe.
Complexity can come from Simplicitly - we see it every day in nature with things like emergence.
I'm not sure you understand my position, I'm not denying each process rather I'm supporting them. I'm correlating process with awareness. Awareness is how each process indicates knowledge.
Simple genetic algorithms use simple processes to build up staggeringly optimized solutions by unguided duplicating and pruning.
It is my premise that processes are associated with intelligence.
Simple reinforcement processes can make a simple, stupid Neuron “learn“, connecting them together can make a them find patterns.
Learning indicates an awareness.
RNA can form And self assemble, self replicate naturally.
I'm sure everything seems "natural" to you without an understanding that awareness is behind all processes to construct functioning products.
So I’m terms of your question going from nothing to a fully formed intelligence is many, many steps over a long, long period of time.
Intelligence (awareness) was already there, it just needed to manipulate processes to create a simulation where we could develop forms where intelligence could use and embody.
So far we can get from protons and elections, to stars, to planets, to chemistry.
Not without awareness, that's why they produce what appears to be products of such awareness. You're looking at it azz backwards....it is not the processes themselves which produce awareness, it is awareness that utilizes the process.
We can get from planets and chemistry to simple self contained RNA in cells - if we have luck.
Lol, read above lucky duck. Ever wonder why the universe would create a planet? think about that...
Self replicating RNA in Protocells, to more complex cellular machinery in 500m years is a bit unclear.
Again, perhaps you completely don't understand my premise. Reciting processes is making my point not countering it. I'm not arguing against them, I'm giving you the dynamics of why they occur.
From single cells to multi-cells is known, from multi-cellular colonies, to small differentiation, and then to larger differentiation is not well understood; to basic multicellularity is simple - and from there to multiple types of animals is also simple - and from simple animals to all life, just needs evolution and evo-devo.
I'm glad you fully understand a process, but when we get to how and why a process could occur you don't recognize the awareness involved. I fully understand our universe is like building blocks, God builds from literally the "ground" up, from energy to the elements to atomic structure there is a real process to create something from usable materials. There is an evolution in all things to bring about desired products. But the indication here is working processes, you can see the final outcome as products of intelligence. Just because they begin at microscopic levels doesn't mean there is no awareness, it is the intelligence of the Creator from start to finish.
So breaking it down, not only explains why your demand is ridiculous -
I wasn't asking you to repeat the processes of the universe, I'm trying to get you to understand that they don't occur without intelligence and knowledge involved. It is nonsensical, inanimate materials have zero knowledge and awareness. Nothing happens without those two features. Certainly they don't construct a whole functioning universe, get a grip Ram.
it also explains exactly why there are not that many vast and insurmountable gaps between the high energy protons At the Big Bang; and you and I talking about it.
Imagine that... senseless energy, unaware protons, unconscious elements, inanimate forces creating a working universe with sensible, aware, conscious and animate beings so that you and I could sit here on computers and have a dialogue? well Jeezuz H Christ, ain't that some shyt? I guess we lucked out huh buddy?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.
Nope what?
As clearly stated elsewhere....I do not BELIEVE in fantasy tales.
That's not what I have asked.
I ACCEPT the principle of purpose....Which can be referred to as a GOD principle....Can be labelled as a FRED principle if you like....It's just that the label GOD is a well established one.
So you believe in God? adding the word "principle" means nothing. You either believe in God or you don't. I'm not asking if you believe in any depiction of God so don't be so scared to tell everyone you're really a Theist.
I also accept the idea of purposelessness.
Okay, with the life that has been permitted you, what reason can you offer to justify that?
In terms of universe, popular religion is a recent and typical stab in the dark (It was a magic bloke what did it)....Though in terms of knowledge, popular religion is an archaic and unscientific stab in the dark.(It was a magic bloke what did it).
I don't care about religion. I mean it serves its purpose so what? Why are you always obsessed with religion?
So you believe in magic blokes.....No problem.....That's just your conditioned way of coping.
What magic blokes? do you even know my beliefs? consciousness is not magic, it is a fixed Reality. Out of consciousness comes creation, out of consciousness comes energy, out of energy comes the substance within all of life. This is a not about magic, it is about the nature of development.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLDIMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
Yes yes, I remember you posting this. I'm not sure what you wish to say. Or want to say to me. I'm okay with imperfection, I don't even know what perfection would look like. Do you have any point behind this? why do you have to cap/bold the letters lol?
I also know the universe wasn't t created to be perfect, it is meant to experience birth, death and decay. With those features there can be no perfection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I have a veritable wellspring of logic to relay on the subject
That I like to hear :)
but you're the one insisting on a specific framework,
I'm sorry I'm not following. I have insisted nothing here about any framework, you have complete freedom to express God in anyway you see fit. This is your time and the ball is in your court.
so I'll have to ask you to "be the judge".
Sure, you'll have to give me some content to think about first.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Look I usually don't like going back and forth in forums,
That's cool, I don't want you to do anything that is not interesting to you.
do you want to debate the existence of God?
Honestly I'm a free form kind of guy guy not a formal guy, I feel I can do that right here in this topic as I have time. I don't think I'd be bad at formal debates but it's not my passion although I do love to read them...I'm also extremely busy, I might not be on here for three days and then I get to punch out a few posts when I get a minute. I can't commit to a debate because it's not really my thing.
I'm also not really interested in putting any notches on my belt, I'm more about wanting to find common grounds and seeing if we can harmonize our thoughts why? because as you said, if there is some God out there you would love to know about it right?
Well I can give you some strong points to consider and I have the ability to bring you different perceptions about life and spirituality. Your beliefs can actually hinder your potential for truth.
I'll tell you what, I do like you and I'd rather this not turn into a fight. Why don't we do this....lets talk about the possibility of a Creator without the interference of any particular religious source. Just give me one problem you see why you think God can't exist that doesn't relate to religion and we can build from there. And again, I'm not looking to debunk you or make you look bad or anything like that. I'm more interested in your thinking process and making sure you aren't limiting your potential when you really don't have to accept limiting ideologies where not necessary.
You are a unique expression of God, while your parents created your physical body your inner being (soul) originates with the Creator. You may not know it, but you are completely free to express those origins however you see fit. You are very much a part of that Reality as anyone else.
I'll let you start anywhere you like, and I'll make this as interesting as I can. Tell me what you think about God, or how you view the topic in general.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
I assume you mean that the sequence of causes must have begun. Why is that ?
On a logical note an infinite past is not possible no matter how you look it, you can't have two linear ends that never reach a destination. I think everyone probably knows this, they just haven't thought it through enough to agree with it. I've settled the dispute with a fixed reality, where movement (creation) appears on top of that eternal framework. This means there was never and infinite past or an infinite future and instead there is an eternal platform that does not exist within a linear time frame. It is simply stationary, fixed and unchanging.
This means that time is sort of an illusion in the sense that it is not an actual phenomenon but simply a measurement between two events. At the moment of the BB is where an expansion occurred, this is where we now can measure one event from the other but it sits on top of an eternal fixed backdrop. This expansion that the Creator initiated does not effect the backdrop, it simply occurs within it.
The atheist doesn't seem to understand that we have two natures of reality...we call one eternal and the other temporal. Eternity is fixed, but temporal is dependent upon the beginning of an event and the end of the event. Basically time only appears where we have a succession of events that occur where we can measure the distance between them but there is no succession of events in eternity and so there is no time that can be measured, there is no beginning point and ending point. As I said it is a fixed Reality.
Now, if the silly atheist would stop claiming that I'm special pleading (which I'm not), they would understand what I've done here. I've dealt with the infinite regression paradox while not contradicting the temporal time frame structure of our universe. They should be happy, instead they play the fallacy game because it is apparent they don't want problems to be dealt with, they want things to remain a paradox so they have no reason to allow for any knowledge of God. They don't want God to fit with reality in a logical way. Fine, it is what it is but I'm sick of going over something so simple to understand.
then God cannot precedede the universe.
If the "universe" is eternal it is only because God is eternal. That being said when I refer to a beginning I'm referring to creation....events that occurred after the BB. Creation is the processes God manifests to bring things into existence.
The reasoning you both arguing about assumes a universal time. I suspect though time was close enough to universal around the time of the Big Bang.
Time began at the BB, this is where we observe an expansion, this is where we begin to observe events taking place. Prior to this, it was a fixed reality where there was no sequence of events. Again, eternity is not an infinite past and future it is a static fixed state of existence. In other words there is no recollection of birth and death and so there is no relation to something that began and something that will end. Linear time is non-existent.
Who is the we that correlates these processes with intelligence ? I don't correlate the creation of gamma ray burst, white dwarf stars and tau neutrinos with intelligence.
Processes that reach a desired outcome for a desired product indicate knowledge. This is about as simple of a commonsense observation one can make.
Why is that ?
I like things that align with commonsense logic?
So God allegedly created the stuff within spacetime, but not spacetime itself ?
This question is nonsensical. Creation is directly related to time, the very action or process of creation is when time can appear as something that can be observed and measured. I'll let you dwell of the idea of "fixed" for awhile. Spacetime is simply an expansion, that expansion had a beginning. Time and this expansion are not relevant to an eternal structure. They occur within it not with it.
That is your belief and hypothesis. However there are many belief on the origin of the universe. The scientific ones referring to God are low on the popularity list in cosmological circles.
Materialism is idiotic no matter what circles it infiltrates. To accept that inanimate forces and materials can build a working functioning universe is one of the most absurd notions that exists.
[What does eternity mean in the absense of time ?
As I already said, honestly I'm getting sick of trying to get someone to comprehend such a simple concept. I've thoroughly went over it in this thread. Eternity in the absence of time is a fixed state of existence because again, we need not bump into the infinite regress paradox. There is no paradox because time is only relevant to a starting point and an ending point. Remove those features and we have a stationary fixture. An infinite past is idiotic and makes no sense, it doesn't exist.
Do you think that brain inside your skull can handle the distinction between eternal and temporal and time vs no time? please say yes, because I'm not going over it again. I mean I get it, everyone here is completely familiar with their life in relation to time....it's all they know, birth and death, beginning and ending, we start here and we go there ect ect but trust me. I've thought about this more than anyone here, once you get it through your head that time is basically an illusion and nothing more than a measurement you'll go "ahhhh well hell, that makes perfect sense".
Eternity has no relationship with space between two events, it has no association with linear time as we observe it.
Created:
Posted in:
Assertion; a false assertion as well.
Thanks for the opinion
Descent with modification, combined with selective pressure is one of the most successful and powerful optimizing function; and is emergent from very simple sub elements.
And who thought of or knew that? the elements lol?
assertion.
So...inanimate materials have knowledge?
assertion.
So...productions, desired outcomes and functioning results don't require intelligence, mind and forethought? please produce something alike without any of those attributes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I ACCEPT the idea of a GOD principle.
How about you elaborate on that to make clear your belief? We would humorously love to know about your God idea.
I DO NOT BELIEVE in 2000 year old fantasy tales.
I don't believe I do either, I'm sure Ethan feels the same way. We believe in reality Zeddy.
One can only believe what one can actually know....Though if one can actually know something then one doesn't need to believe.....Therefore one can only believe in something that cannot be known.
Belief and knowing are synonymous in my world.
And Goodnight America.
Not so fast, we need some answers here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
If one believes in a purposeful universe, then GOD can be all things to all things.
And what do you believe Zeddy? you haven't answered the question....
Stylized deities are but one option.
Well, I didn't present any options so it is kinda irrelevant. Just want to know if you believe God exists, or not.
And the Christian GOD is but one of many stylized deities.
What is the point behind this comment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Zeddy seems to forget that he believes in God, he's admitted it several times.
Ohh but of course, like Zed it's a half-assed version lol, nonetheless I find it funny he insults you meanwhile he conjures up his own God delusion. Ask em...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
To be clear, I'm not asking what caused your belief or lack thereof but rather why maintain your position?
Commonsense, logic and evidence (indication). That's what maintains my position. In other words I wouldn't hold a position that wasn't supported by one of those three or all three of them.
Me personally, I stay a religious person because I know spirituality has, and does, help me overcome challenges
This is a great point and very true. Spirituality also helps to open up ones consciousness to have greater awareness. I often refer to spirituality as a cultivation, it is very much like a life long progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Zeddy seems to forget that he believes in God, he's admitted it several times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Inanimate forces can't produce intelligent outcomes, inanimate materials can't begin to build things into existence as if they had knowledge. That is ridiculous. It requires intelligence, mind and forethought to know and understand how to produce functioning and working results....a desired product.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I do believe God exists and this is why...BECAUSE EVERYTHING CAME FROM SOMETHING AND THAT SOMETHING IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS "GOD" (OR NOUMENON)
There we go! you answered lol, thank you!
Do you have any other reason for your answer? or does that suffice?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I haven't made one. I stated my position that it is more reasonable to believe God does not exist than to believe he does. That's not a determination of what is true
So your position is that God does not exist? if you don't want to commit to that, simply say you have no answer. Considering you're an Atheist it is clear you have made a stance. If we go back to the OP, there's three options. Either you believe so, do not believe or you simply don't know. Saying you believe it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist as a way to avoid the options doesn't work either, you're still not choosing the option that you don't know and there is no fourth option. You first answered no "in most cases", even though I made no reference to any particular religious idea.
it's a determination of which of two options more aligns with reason.
That will be the point of this thread. As of yet, there's no reason for you or I to believe that it's more reasonable to believe God does not exist. I'm a man of reason, and I cannot say that is anywhere near true.
I went on the use the tooth ferry example to make my point, but you focused on the absurdity of the example rather than the point.
Lol, because I'm not here to compare your absurd perceptions with a solid proposition. If my child asked me if the tooth ferry exists of course I would say no, that's not what I would say about the existence of God. Lets just stay on track with things that make actual sense and are worth considering, aside from that I'm not making the claim there is no evidence for God, to me it's not a real comparison.
I believe there is very good reason to believe God exists, from different angles not just one.
Between three positions, the default position is generally the middle
God exists on the left, I don't know in the middle, God does not exist on the right.
Between two positions there is no middle, so you have to pick one as your default.
The default position is that you have no position, that would be "I don't know".
When it comes to belief, that entails three potential positions (I believe X, I believe not X, I don't hold any belief).
Agree, I thought that's where we were.
But when it comes to how we live our lives, there are only two (I live my life as if there were a god, I live my life as if there were no god's). So when I say 'between the two' I am making reference to the fact that in this case, I have to pick one.
This does not have to be complicated.
They lack indication.
How does it lack indication? products are a clear indication of intelligence. Are you saying that you don't believe or see that the universe can be seen as a product of intelligence? you don't see a correlation between the processes that occur within the universe and thought? in any way shape or form? is that correct? tell me what is lacking.
In order to claim X is indicative of Y you need an example of Y. Without an example of Y to compare X to you're just guessing.
First of all, I don't need to guess. I'm sure of my beliefs. What I'm doing with correlation is giving YOU something worth considering for why we are saying God exists. My beliefs are based on a lifetime of observation and experience but I don't expect you to be worried about that. Here, we want to correlate the works of the universe to help you see that they are associated with agency. It's simply a starting point, not proof, not fact, not anything other than a logical thought game to get you from "I don't believe God exists" to "well...maybe there's something worth considering".
Evidence is defined as an indication, and if there is an indication the products of the universe can be correlated with intelligence then there is something to bite...there IS evidence.
So instead of feeding you religious dogma I want it to be clear to you there is sufficient reason to consider God exists. The counter position to this would be to accept that inanimate forces can begin to produce intelligent results as well as animated features without any knowledge involved, and as a matter of interpretation that can also be seen as an absurdity. If I could get you to consider that inanimate forces producing products that correlate with intelligence by themselves is strange to believe, maybe the counter position might seem more appealing.
Now this is not an argument from "design", it's an argument from correlation and function. The design argument falls apart because it gets people to focus on the flaws of the design and look at imperfections. The problem here, is that we are not looking for perfection because this world was created imperfect. Death, decay and spontaneous events will appear imperfect, but they are part of the product. Rather function is more appropriate, and associating processes with thought and mind (intelligence) can barely be avoided.
I don't expect a guy like you to accept it of course, but if I can get you away from such a rigid belief that God just doesn't exist and there's no reason to believe it then it is a step in the right direction.
I'd rather this not be a shoot out honestly because that's usually where it goes, but that we look for good talking points that we can expand on. If I can give you a decent reason to move forward in considering God exists that is what I would be looking for. I think correlation works strongly as a starting point.
But to get to your response, the products of the universe are indicative of intelligence simply by what they produce. They are products of thought and mind, each event serves a particular purpose or outcome. This can be seen in stars, orbits, planetary arrangements, solar systems, ecosystems, evolution, plants, animals, humans ect ect. The final product from the start of the BB until now correlates clearly with what appears to be a product of thought.
We have clear examples of that right in front of our faces.....production requires a producer, construction requires a constructor, buildings require builders, manufacturing requires a manufacturer. Why? because inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves and because there needs to be forethought into bringing about a product that is functional and working.
Would you accept that as at least a clear example of of "Y"? I'm not asking you to believe it, just that you consider the example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Assertion.
WTH? are you denying that the products within the universe have no beginning?
Beginning. Requires a time Before without something - then a time after with
Are you serious right now? don't get this mixed up between two things I'm describing....a moving universe on top of a motionless backdrop. Lets say we have a body of water and that body of water represents a fixed reality (motionless backdrop). It does not begin and it does not end, now lets drop a penny into that body of water from above and we observe as it sinks to the bottom. "Time" represents the moment the penny appeared into that body of water and the measurement of time resides between that moment it appeared, and the moment it hit the bottom. Time doesn't exist as a real phenomenon, time rests on top of a fixed reality. It is simply the distance between two events, but there is no event prior to creation. God exists as a reality where there is no measurement between something that occurred and something that ended. God initiates an event and that event occurs from one point to another point, and we perceive that event as "time", but there is really nothing that is changing behind that event.
End. Requires a time Before with - the a time after without.
Yes certainly there is time before an ending, and AFTER a beginning. Time is right smack in the middle of a beginning and an ending. If we are referring to creation, which are events arising out of a fixed reality.
Before. Implies time prior go an event
No, you are conflating time with existence. Existence does not rely on time, time relies on events even though events occur within existence. There must be a succession before time can be measured. A fixed reality has no succession of events. You're getting shit mixed up here, surely before I begin any event there was "time" before it...that's because I exist within a frame structure that occurred before me. I'm talking about before creation, before events unfolded. You do understand what fixed means right?
Always. Implies all point of time.
I'm not sure you understand what time is as I've been explaining it, or eternity as I've described it. We can agree that the BB was a beginning right? and we would agree that as an expansion occurred right after that moment, is where we have a measurement of time between events? that's because as the expansion took place, events occur from one point to another point. Our measurement of time relies upon the distance between those events. Before the BB there was nothing occurring, it was a stationary, fixed existence where there was no beginning of an event and an ending of an event.
Precedes. Implies something occurring prior to some thing else
"Occurring prior to"? no...because again you're getting shit mixed up here. Obviously something occurred prior to what I just did. I'm not suggesting that something doesn't occur before something else as long as we are talking about things that occur within a time frame structure. I'm talking about that which precedes a time frame structure, which would be a measurement between two events. There is no measurement between two events in eternity, that took place the moment creation occurred where there was something occurring.
Anything I do within an occurrence between two events can be measured as time, because I myself appeared within a time frame structure and there was an event that took place prior to what I did. There were many events that preceded me, that's because my physical body resides in between the expansion of our universe. Even though that true, my existence does not rely on those events only my body that is subject to a beginning and an ending. My actual existence (soul) exists independent of such events as opposed to my physical body. The same is true for God, God's existence does not rely on anything that begins and ends.
There is no before, no preceding the Big Bang, if that the beginning of time. There can’t be, because for there to be a before, there must be time before - which you suggest there isn’t.
Time doesn't represent reality or existence, it only represents a measurement between two events. The BB represents the beginning of an event where time began. Before that event there is no measurement between any event.
God can’t precede the Big Bang
Of course God can lol. The BB is distinct from eternity. It occurs WITHIN eternity.
nor create it
Sorry, but this is stupid. The BB can certainly be initiated. I can explain that if we actually get to a point where we could move forward.
nor did time “begin” if the universe contains time - because all of those require there to be a time before the Big Bang in order for God to precede, create peace for time to “begin”.
Not at all, hopefully what I wrote above clues you in to what I'm saying.
Your whole argument makes this key error - and I strongly suspect that your obliviousness tp this error is because you haven’t fully wrapped your head round the implicof the beginning of time
Don't be so sure of yourself there Ram, I'm not as oblivious as you've assumed. I have full control over all the implications of my views. It's just a matter of you comprehending what I'm saying, which in all honestly should be pretty straight forward.
and you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, by declaring that time started at the Big Bang: then building up the remainder of the argument assuming it didn’t. You can’t have it both ways.
I can have any way that makes sense as long as logic follows, my arguments have been consistent. I am claiming that time began at the BB, as that was the moment in which events began to occur. You say nothing preceded the BB, and as such you've already admitted time began at that moment. That is true, what is not true is that you've stated nothing preceded the BB, eternity preceded the BB and is distinct from time. I've clearly stated that time is only relevant at the moment events occur. Time does not occur outside a beginning and ending. It is strictly related to those factors, God is not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Special pleading is when say one thing can do X, but an equivalent thing Y, cannot without offering a justification.
Lol, the justification was there, the explanation was clear. Creation and God's existence are not equivalent, they are two separate factors...you seem to just ignore that fact.
You’re saying that if is possible for God to be eternal by definition, but that it is not possible in any way shape of form, for any aspect of nature, in any respect to be eternal in the same way.
What I'm saying is that eternity is not reliant on time, it is not an infinite linear time scale. It is a FIXED reality. Time only applies to events we can measure, which appears during creation.
You’re placing metaphysical constraints on one but not the other.
If I say time is an illusion, then I make my point clearly. It only applies to certain condition...Because again, time is a measurement between a beginning and an ending. If eternity has no beginning and ending, there is no linear structure to measure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
The Big Bang is T=0
The BB represents the beginning of time, cause and effect. What precedes that has no relation to time, cause and effect. I'm positing that God precedes the BB.
If there is no T<0 then the universe cant have been created or caused, because the universe has always existed.
The products within the universe have NOT always existed. We know that the products within the universe had a beginning, will have an ending. These are the things we refer to as being "created", we can observe those processes, we correlate those processes with intelligence. If you claim that the universe existed before the BB I'd be fine with that, because it's irrelevant to that which begins within that universe. If you claim the universe began at the BB, I'm fine with that too and then your claim it has always existed doesn't work. Either way, I'm associating time and cause and effect with the products WITHIN our universe after the BB, the processes involved are how we measure time.
Is the universe a piece of string with a defined start and end that can pointed to; or is it like the surface of a sphere; finite(?) but with no physical start or end.
The universe is like the fabric or backdrop to that which appears within the universe. Perhaps we can say that the universe is like a body of water per say, and then we have all that exists within that body of water. When we refer to creation, we are referring to that which appears within that body of water.
In the case of the Universe, the Big Bang would be, say, the North Pole. And time is North and south.
I'm fine with that, it serves my point. North and South would be our measure of time. Take away the BB and there is no more North and South.
Notions of creation, or causation requires time before and after
No, this is where you don't seem to follow the logic. Time as we measure it, is only relevant to that which we can trace within the universe. Before that, there is no time, it is an illusion because it only exists if processes exist. What I'm saying is that time began the moment creation began, before that there is no linear time scale.
I've thoroughly explained how eternity and God's existence is exempt from needing time to exist.
- at the Big Bang: there is no before.
The Big Bang is the beginning of creation, you can speculate there is no before but just know you speculate. You can't say, because you can't observe or measure that which precedes that point. At the moment the BB occurred, is the moment time became relevant. God precedes that, which is why I keep harping that God precedes creation, hence precedes time.
So talking about creation or causation in that context implies that there is a north of the North Pole - which is simply an incoherent premise.
Let me lay this out for you....
God's existence before the BB (timeless/uncaused)
Big Bang initiated (beginning of time/caused)
Processes begin to occur (cause and effect)
Products within the universe begin to appear
The current state of our universe
Created:
Posted in:
What correlation?
Correlating the products of the universe with intelligence. Correlating the processes within the universe with agency, thought and mind. Do you have a problem with that?
I'm suspecting a false analogy fallacy.
Lol, sure you will. Whenever someone makes a legit point you guys invoke some nonsense "fallacy" instead of dealing with the content.
I dont hold a philosophical position about the origin of the universe.
Looks to me like you're an atheist. I'm guessing a materialist? yes, that's a philosophical position. So is atheism at that.
It looks like It was probably the big bang.
What could have initiated a Big Bang?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
In neither case is there any point of time in which the universe does not exist
But there is a point in which the processes of the universe began producing things. You accept the Big Bang Theory correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Some of the problem in conversations about origins is equavocation on certain words. For example, when we say, "every thing has a cause", what does the word "thing" mean in that sentence?Theists know there are only 2 "things" in existence, God, and everything else. God is not really a "thing" like creation. Natural, physical, universal laws apply to creation, not the creator. This is only logical, for the creator preceeds creation.The atheists confusion come in when he conflates the creator and his creation, irrationally thinking that both must submit to the same laws.
I agree, that's their "gotcha" card (who caused God?). It seems to go right over their heads, that God is independent of creation and precedes the principle of cause and effect associated with the beginning (creation) of the universe. There is no never-ending infinite past of who made who and who caused who. The fact they don't see the distinction is weird.
Once they finally get it, then we can move forward.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
First - that’s still the excluded middle fallacy.
Lol, there is no fallacy when we are following clear parameters of logical thought. Perhaps you don't understand them.
Second, you are special pleading.
No I'm not, we are following the outline of each nature (temporal vs eternal).... two distinct things. In post 44 I go over the nature of the universe vs the nature of God. Only the nature of the universe needs to fit within the parameters of cause and effect. It does not logically follow that God has to be subject to a cause, as God precedes creation which precedes the laws that follow creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I have a mind of my own thank you very much.
Exactly, he just wants to present a few nitwits that happen to hold Theistic beliefs and then just lump all Theists in with a category of nitwits. I wonder if him, being a nitwit should be categorized with all atheists. I doubt all atheists want to be categorized as nitwits.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
We are following the outline of each nature (temporal vs eternal), there is no contradiction or violation of any principle, rather we are highlighting them. In post 44 I go over the nature of the universe vs the nature of God (two distinct things). Only the nature of the universe needs to fit within the parameters of cause and effect. It does not logically follow that God has to be subject to a cause and creates the problem of infinite regression. You want to deal with that problem right? problem solved, universe equals caused....God equals uncaused. And I explained how that works. Time IS only relevant to our universe (creation)....causes are only relevant to the products of the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
can you repeat the question ?
Do you believe God exists...yes, no or I don't know? one of those three would be your answer. Next, give reason for your answer. I'm not presenting any proposal for who or what God is or is not.
I don't believe God exists....and this is why...
I do believe God exists and this is why...
I don't know and here is why I don't know....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That depends on what you are calling God.
A conscious, intelligent Source involved in constructing our universe.
In most cases my answer is no because the God being proposed contradicts logic.
As of yet, nothing has been proposed. I'm more or less looking for your justification that no God could exist. And then exposing whether or not your position is thoroughly justified.
Like a timeless creator of the universe (creation is an action, actions are necessarily a product of time).
Creation directly corresponds with time so there is no contradiction. But the existence of God precedes creation, which precedes our perception of time....which is a measurement of the events within the universe.
Or an all loving, all powerful God who created a place of torment and torture where we all end up if we don’t follow his rules.
This was never proposed. It is not relevant to this particular topic.
No being capable of creating such a place could possibly fit any coherent definition of all loving.
Not relevant to this topic. We simply want to determine whether or not God/Creator could exist.
Once we cast all the contradictions aside, I would say it’s more reasonable to believe God doesn’t exist than to believe he does
Why? what reason would justify that?
but in terms of knowledge my answer would be I don’t know.
Thank you for the answer.
As far as why I believe it’s more reasonable to believe he doesn’t exist, quite simply because that’s the default position
The default position would be to make no determination. To the left and to the right we have God exists or does not exist. And that would be individual interpretation. The question becomes....which interpretation has more association with truth, logic and reality. I'm looking to highlight that for you here by showing you there is no reason that justifies claiming God does not exist.
Nothing exists until it has been shown to exist.
The same is true for both interpretation, being that the neutral position is making no determination at all. We have the middle grounds which makes no claim, then we have two options on either side. Only one of those options fits with reality.
If your child asks you if the tooth ferry is real and you answer them honestly, I’m willing to bet your answer is “no” despite having no evidence to support that assertion.
There is strong indication that God exists, the two proposals are not compatible. Correlating absurdities with the interpretation that the products of the universe are associated with intelligence is not an absurdity. No one expects you to accept an absurdity.
As far as how I deal with the arguments presented by theists supporting his existence my position is that they all fail, aka there is no evidence.
Well arguments are just logical thought processes tying the existence of God to reality, they don't really prove anything, they are just there to show reasoning for the proposal. However, both correlation and indication ARE evidence, so you have no real grounds to claim there is no evidence. You may find the evidence is not sufficient if that is your opinion, but it is certainly suggestive.
I find it curious that you write this answer off as a lack of thought, It’s almost as if you don’t understand how the burden of proof works. I don’t need a reason to not believe, I need a reason to believe.
You need a reason to make a claim. So I want you to evaluate your own system of reasoning. Your position is not a default position unless you say you cannot answer. If you cannot answer why would you hold atheist views?
The mere fact that I find every argument I have ever heard supporting his existence to be severely flawed is no indication of how much thought went into it.
What do you think about correlation? correlating the products of the universe with intelligence? is that seriously flawed, how?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
OBVIOUSLY GOD IS REAL AND IF YOU THINK THIS WORLD IS IMPERFECT IT INDICATES THAT (EITHER) GOD IS IMPERFECT
Go back and read the OP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I never argued that god cannot exist.
Great. So what philosophical position do you hold as to the origins of the universe? next, how do explain your answer?
I invite you to demonstrate one fact that shows the universe had a creator.
Correlation.
Otherwise it's all in your head.
Lol, thanks I appreciate your opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
PERFECT GOD = PERFECT WORLDIMPERFECT WORLD = IMPERFECT GOD
What exactly is your point, what exactly is your position? what do perfection and imperfection have to do with the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
No, I am actually giving a very serious answer and telling the complete truth. The reason I say "my no is as certain as the no which I give to people asking me whether there are invisible naked men dancing my room right now" is because neither is actually a no, it is a dunno leaning drastically towards a no. By nature of the impossibility of proving negatives, I can never prove that there isn't a God, just like how I cannot prove there aren't invisible naked men dancing in my room right now.
If you cannot prove or give reason to why God cannot not exist then your answer should never be no. You also shouldn't be certain of anything. No one is asking that you prove negatives, but it does give rise to why you claim God does not exist. Do you understand that? how can you be certain of something you cannot prove?
It seems pretty absurd to me
Explain please. That is, without referring to any particular religious source. You claim it's absurd, I have no idea why you say that.
However, times have changed.
Lol, really?
If you go attend a cosmology conferences, there’s a lot of talk about the origin and nature of the universe; there is no talk about what role God might have played in bringing the universe about.
Why would they need to? I don't need to talk about the origins of pizza to talk about pizza....I don't need to talk about Papa John to discuss Papa John's pizza. Unless of course, I wish to debate the origins of that pizza.
It is not an idea that is taken seriously
I'm going to assume you're not this silly?
science tells us something about that external reality, and God does not exist.
You could only wish that were true. Science is the method of study we use to understand the physical universe through a system of observations, it makes no claims about the existence of God. Not only that, but it has no ability to even reach that conclusion. You make sound as if science is a sentient source, as if it contains truth, knowledge and experience of its own lol. Science only reveals what we feed it, it is a method not a person. Science corresponds with our own advancements, it never exceeds that.
that philosophers are in general agreement on.
Do you know what you're talking about?
I do care, if there is an all loving guy out there you best believe I want to know about him, but from what I can tell, no such wishful idea exists.
It's easy to ascertain the universe is a product of intelligence. That's the first step, we do that through indication and correlation (evidence). There's no reason to begin to make any personal claims about that intelligence at this time. It is not a wishful idea, there is no need for that baloney. We are looking at reality to determine reality.
There's a few ways we can get to God, you will have to be a bit more open-minded. Your rigid beliefs and perceptions will be your input and output, you want to move those out of the way because they limit your potential for truth.
No I didn't read the post, I just felt like I wanted express my atheism.
It's usually a good idea to fully read the OP if you want to stay on topic. This was not really a thread to proselytize atheism.
I'll give you a little brain teaser.
Let me remind you what the topic is here son. The universe and the products thereof can be interpreted in one of two ways....either God exists or God does not. Your interpretation fits with your assumptions that inanimate forces can construct a working intelligent universe on their own. You posit that intelligent processes occur without intelligence, ironically all known processes are shown to correlate/originate with intelligence. Productions require a producer, construction requires a constructor, buildings require a builder, manufacturing requires a manufacturer ect ect...
You need to support your assertions and interpretations that these things occur without the former. This is called correlation. We use correlation to determine if God's existence correlates with reality. It does. Intelligent processes are associated with agency, thought and mind.
Theism does not violate the principle of Occam's Razor and actually it fits quite well. If we see a product of intelligence, it is the most simplest deduction that intelligence was involved.
I just want to test how sharp you are
LOL, I'm not on trial you are.
The bible contradictions and shenanigans with certain individuals is just me having fun and trolling.
It is not necessary for this topic, so it would be appreciated if you act mature.
I think my reasoning is pretty good.
You gave no reason as to why God cannot exist. I'm still waiting for your contribution. Lets start with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Explanation of is not evidence for.With NDEs, God is one of a class of explanations for which God is an explanation. They are not evidence for God because they do not indicate one explanation above another.
Perhaps you're missing the point entirely. Whether or not NDE's prove any particular relationship with any religious source is not the point. NDE's are evidence that the soul exists independent of the physical body which certainly indicates that what religious and spiritual sources have been proposing is true, or at the least there is plenty of evidence which supports the claim that a soul exists. And if a soul exists then it certainly indicates that God exists, since of course.... a soul falls into the category of Theism.
Specifically because;- they can occur without life threatening conditions.
NDE's by definition are when a person has been declared medically, clinically dead. Brain death occurs within minutes after the hearts stops beating, after the heart stops beating and there is NO brain activity is when an NDE can take place.
The documentary called "I Survived Beyond and Back" introduces NDE occurrences who have been hospitalized and presents the corresponding medical facts with each case. If you are not sure, clinically dead are those who have "flatlined". These NDE's are recorded after the heart stops beating and there are no signs the person is alive. This is when the soul detaches from the physical body and freely moves outside the confines of the brain and body.
- they are culturally and personally specific to each person, rather than a single consistent deity.
I'm going to assume you have no clue why you are saying this, did you hear it from somebody else? However, when a person leaves the physical body they may have many variations of experiences, including extensions of their cultures and this doesn't work against NDE's.
Variations of experience is not a negative it is what makes creation beautiful....It would be like sending ten people across the globe in various directions and assuming they should all come back with the same experience of persons, places and things. Rather, the afterlife is as vast as the physical universe and perhaps much more so. Many societies that we experience here extend outside of the physical world so it is likely when a soul will exit here they will continue their relations they had with their religious affiliations and cultures. In other words souls who have certain religious backgrounds will not be forced to be in the company of other strange and unfamiliar beliefs. No one would force you to leave your family and friends to go live with strangers and places you are not welcome why would you think that should happen when a soul leaves the body?
When you leave the physical body you will be present in a parallel universe, you could be located in any number of places and where you go from there could be virtually any numbers of other places. A soul is not bound to anything really except for Karma, and many times it's a persons desire that dictates where they will go next.
- they contain very similar trends and mental states to drug induced altered mental states.
Not true, SHAME on you. They are not altered mental states at all. In fact quite the contrary they are highly lucid, clear and articulated experiences. Everyone knows what normal conscious experience is like, you can't contradict a persons conscious experience that they had themselves. So you should do a bit more research, I would suggest watching the documentary I outlined above.
- they contain very similar trends to hallucinations, and dreams.
Nope not at all....do you think people are dumb and don't know the difference between reality and dreams or altered states of awareness?
"Aren’t NDEs hallucinations? No. Hallucinations are usually illogical, fleeting, bizarre, and/or distorted, whereas the vast majority of NDEs are logical, orderly, clear, and comprehensible"
"People looking back on hallucinations typically recognize them as unreal, as fantasies, whereas, people often describe their NDEs as “more real than real."
"Aren’t NDEs the result of anoxia (lack of oxygen) in a dying brain? No. Physicians have compared oxygen levels of cardiac arrest survivors who did and did not have NDEs and their findings discredit the anoxia hypothesis"
"Haven’t locations in the brain been found to produce an NDE? there is no empirical evidence that any one of these, or a combination of them, manufacture the NDE. Every perception we have will be associated with activity in a specific part of the brain, but that doesn’t mean the activity caused the experience"
"Many of the patients who have been revived have been able to describe in great technical detail exactly what went on in the operating room"
"The findings of this study suggest that virtually all NDEs contain at least some elements that are not dreamlike."
"Only one NDEr out of 217 met these requirements, suggesting virtually all NDEs contain elements that are not dreamlike. These study findings suggest NDEs and dreams are generally different states of consciousness."
"There also appears to be a heightened awareness of the physical senses and emotions, much more so than dreaming. This can be seen in comments like, 'I've never recalled a dream with such clarity before,' or 'No, very real, I will never forget!,' or 'it was very real to me, the power and energy was nothing like a dream.' In fact, this heightened awareness and clarity of events seems to play a key role in NDErs occasionally concluding that life on earth is not as 'real' as life on the other side. These descriptions are very different than those of ordinary dreams."
- There’s no verified example of any of these extra-corporeal experiences revealing extra corporeal information.
Lol, what is this supposed to mean? what it verifies is the proposition of the souls existence as being distinct from the brain and body. That's what we're looking for here.
So in this respect, there is no specific aspect of NDEs that explicitly point to God over being the product of an altered mental state. IE: it’s not evidence.
An NDE explicitly points to the existence of a soul, as we went over above. Asserting NDE's are a product of altered mental states is poor research on your part. Sure, I'm sure you can dig up a materialist link on someone making that claim, it is contradictory to the actual facts. In other words, do you like someone making assertions about something you witnessed you know is not true? people aren't as stupid as you might assume. The average person knows what normal conscious experience is vs some bizarre altered state of consciousness why? because everyone is conscious, it's something they know and understand quite well obviously.
If the NDEs all showed the same God, or showed external information that would only be accessible to people if the vision were real - it would be evidence.
Typically, NDE's don't "show" God, again...I think you're missing the point besides the fact you appear to be very ignorant of such cases. Typically NDE's show that the soul leaves the confines of the physical body, from there they have a variety of experiences just like if we sent you all over the world you would have many variations of experiences. When you leave the body you are present within a parallel world/universe, not present with "God" per say, although people may see spiritual beings and hear audible sounds. Rarely as reported, some souls hear God speak to them....it's not God who defines Itself, it's souls who define God as they perceive who God is. In other words if a soul encounters God, they typically call God whatever name they are familiar with albeit it's the same Reality the other souls encounters.
But all the various aspects of NDEs are consistent with them being a product of the brain - which has the capacity to produce visions, dreams and hallucinations based on changes in chemistry and operation - going through the same specific process that causes changes in chemistry and operation during specific events: all of which strongly influenced by the individuals personal beliefs, experiences and culture.
This is all speculation you have no real reason to be asserting as if you know anything about it. As long as the soul occupies the body, there will be brain activity and once the soul leaves the body there are no signs of life. This is because the brain is simply a conduit that confines the souls conscious experience to their physical body.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
That's special pleading.
No it's not, we are following the outline of each nature (temporal vs eternal). In post 44 I go over the nature of the universe vs the nature of God. Only the nature of the universe needs to fit within the parameters of cause and effect. It does not logically follow that God has to be subject to a cause, and actually is quite stupid to assert.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Well... uh... yeah.That something can exist without a cause inherently violates the principle that each thing that happens was caused by something else.
We have two things that have to be dealt with here, a system of effects which have causes and an infinite regression paradox. Everything within the known universe had a cause, yet at the same time there must exist a point in which those causes began, which brings us to WHY they began. This is not an excuse to bring God into the equation it is a logical calculation and God happens to fit such a postulation. We can trace everything back to a single moment of that which began a succession of events, to a point which preceded those events.
Lets not forget we have two distinct propositions here, God's existence and the formulation of the universe! Only one of those propositions need fit into the cause and effect scenario and the other must address the infinite regression paradox by logical necessity. They need not have the same principles to exist, as only one must meet subject 1's requirements and the other subject 2's requirements. As one can be shown to fit within the principle of cause and effect the other MUST have an answer for the infinite regression paradox. The same need not apply to the other until we fully understand that nature of existence. And we do, as it just so happens.
Before we go into that, lets be clear in what we have here. We have a created universe....or lets say we have a universe that began at some point through a succession of processes, and each moment of progression had an event that caused it. This would be the unfolding of our universe as we know it. Before that, we had a static Reality in which we can't say whether or not there was any cause that justified its existence. We know that God is postulated as infinite, eternal and having no cause. This doesn't necessarily mean that God exists in an infinite measure of time where there was an infinite past and an infinite future. Time is only relevant to the expansion of the universe as we measure that expansion. But before that, there was no measure of time, or a succession of events. God exists independent of time as we measure it so there is no infinite past or future rather there is a fixed, uncaused backdrop to a moving picture play within that reality we call the universe.
Or specifically related to notions of time; because that’s a complexity that seems to always be ignored - Cause and effect have a temporal relationship - cause precedes effect: without the existence of time, that notion of causality as cause preceding effect doesn’t hold. A “cause” that exists outside of the concept of time can’t be a “cause” in any way we understand the word because the very nature of timelessness invalidates the inherent premise of causality.
Time is an illusion, it's only the measurement of events that take place within a simulation of matter moving through a succession of events on top of a static reality. We can measure those events by the nature of a beginning and an ending but it has no real relationship with eternity, only that it takes place within eternity. But eternity is not an infinite past and future that is a misconception due to our experience of life and death, that only takes place within our measure of physical phenomenon. The backdrop of the picture play of material phenomenon has independence from the events within our universe as they occur.
Say we have a "canvas" and that canvas represents a static, fixed Reality or an eternal platform (backdrop). And that canvas simply exists, it has no relationship to time as we measure it. Now, as we begin to paint on that canvas things begin to appear as layers of paint are properly applied until the final image is portrayed. Now imagine that time is only signified as an actual phenomenon once paint is applied and we can measure each stroke and work of art as the image appears. We can trace the image back to each preceding layer and that is our measurement of when that image began.
God exists independent of the events of the universe, and is the first cause. I can show what that means and how that occurs and by what methods but first I need you to see that we have two separate factors and that God does not need a cause like the universe needed a cause. Two different postulations, we know the universe needed a cause to follow the law of cause and effect within our universe. We do not know that God needed a cause, and we know that it does not follow logical thought because of the infinite regression paradox. So the nature of God being eternal which is not relevant to time and the nature of the universe being temporal and relevant to time we have a clear working premise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Most of what you wrote I would agree with. I would work on tightening up your arguments but they are sound propositions mainly because they align with reality.
the design of the universe is weak evidence but it's evidence
That's because we shouldn't be focused on "design", rather function. Harping on design tends to get people to focus on imperfection of such design, and then rejection of that theory. Yet the universe was not created as a work of perfection....it was intended to function as need be. Death, decay and spontaneous events are purposefully on display yet by nature imperfect.
If we focus more on function rather than perfection or design it's easy to ascertain and correlate the products o the universe with intelligence, and is almost unavoidable unless a person is seriously conditioned to believe that creation cannot be possible. Or better yet, that it's stupid to believe.
Get people to focus on the processes involved in creating a universe, there is no need to invoke perfection. To believe that inanimate forces could begin to intelligently construct a working intelligent world is absolute nonsense. It is illogical and absurd. So if you correlate processes with intelligence the work is easy.
Created: