A challenge to theists. Can you be honest.

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

05.18.2020 03:02PM

-->

@Outplayz

To expand on the post above, the reason all these aspects of creation and religious theology fit together and work is due to how creation is set up, and even though the multiverse is only a theory in the scientific squares it will become more prominent as man progresses in his quest to explore and discover. The multiverse fits into spirituality perfectly, it even explains spiritual experiences and NDE's if you really think about it. You could also use the term parallel universes or alternate worlds. What happens is once the soul drops its embodiment or material vessel they are then present within the next or preceding parallel domain/world.

So basically once you shed the physical body you are still alive and conscious within another embodiment. You actually have a body or layer/covering that corresponds with each universe and there are several of them. What makes you distinct from the Platform is your coverings or embodiments, a lot like if you were to approach a huge ocean and you wanted to somehow make a little bit of that water distinct from that ocean.....how would you do that? well one way is to take an empty glass or container and dip it into the ocean and bring it out and now you have that bit of ocean water distinct from the ocean itself. You could also encapsulate that water within the ocean, by again trapping that water within a container and so you now have a shield or sheath that separates the ocean from the contents of the container.

The soul (individual) works the exact same way believe it or not, when the Platform wishes to make you or I distinct from Itself it simply covers us in an embodiment or uploads you into the multiverse with a body, then we appear to be an individual even though we are all singular in consciousness (Platform). Well in actuality you have several of these coverings not just one. You will probably think that is strange but not once you realize why, they are also called subtle bodies if you want to look it up. Some people call them spirit bodies it's the same thing. This is why you see so many testimonies about spiritual beings and spirits which some call ghosts, these are actually subtle bodies.

The reason for this is because you don't want to necessarily be present within the singular Platform once you leave this physical domain, it is your layers that keep this from happening....you could however, but for the sake of the soul and its journey it's incumbent that the soul remain distinct from the Platform, as some are not prepared for that experience. So there is a multiverse and corresponding bodies that make this possible.

Technically, you could shed all your embodiments and be completely unified with the Platform, because your very core (soul) is identical to the Platform, like I explained above with the water and a container. If you were to remove the container the water would just be an ocean again, a singular content. But if you had several coverings or containers it would require that you shed each layer before merging with the ocean.

In a way you could describe or envision creation as a multiverse much like a bullseye pattern. Of course the center being the platform, and all the outside rings are each layer of multiverse. The physical domain being the outermost layer, and each preceding layer coming closer or more unified with the Platform or center. It is the outer rings or layers that keep your experience distinct from the Platform creating the illusion you are separate from It. The cool part is that as you remove each layer you become less restricted, there is far less mass that limits your abilities. And the less mass or material you have covering you the more your abilities increase. Think of a balloon if you will, the more you increase the air within the lighter it becomes, as you peal away mass and matter your bodies become much lighter, eventually you would be able to fly, and your potentials increase greatly.

This is for more than one reason though, because it also enables your experiences to be endless because within each universe (or ring) there are countless galaxies, solar systems and planets and you could virtually manifest into any one of them. It is the multiverse that makes this possible and it's very interesting. You could view it as a simulation if you like too, because each layer or universe is a simulation you can upload yourself into. This is how the Platform manifests into any experience It wishes to have to forget what It actually is temporarily. So this actually makes the Platform sort of like a movie watcher lol like we talked about, because while it can experience anything It can never be anything but the Platform, it just experiences everything through your channel and my channel, your individual covering/vessel. It's actually genius when you think about that.

#422

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

05.18.2020 03:22PM

-->

@Outplayz

If you were to ever read a spiritual piece of literature just for the hell of it, I would recommend the Tiger's Fang by Paul Twitchell. It's very similar to my outline above, I was quite shocked when I read it how much it relates to some of the way I think. I know I've told you about it before but I doubt you read it lol, so if you get bored it's a great work of spiritual art. It will give you a better idea of what God means and how it fits into our Platform idea.

#423

Debates: 0

Posts: 112

05.18.2020 06:26PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

"We've been over this, it's not my position or argument that the definition of processes require intelligence."

The part before what you chose to copy (you really should take to copying my complete comments and addressing them as a whole, it might help you understand them better) points out that I'm addressing the issue in your

"The definition simply states what it means, not why it occurs. My argument has been based on correlation not the meaning of the word process."

And what is this correlation? Give details, please. I mean there are correlations between Natural processes and human-initiated processes, they're both subsets of processes and they both end with a change in their environment. Which of these correlations suggests that there is a creator involved in natural processes? If you mean another correlation, I don't believe I've caught it.

"However, the definitions I used in this thread show what I meant by a process and how I'm using the term. On the other hand, the definitions above do not negate my argument that there could be an intelligent Source since my position is that intelligence is using those processes to bring about results."

I never said it did, I mention it to make sure that we're clear that the term process doesn't presuppose intelligence.

"And again, inanimate forces don't have minds or intelligence to bring about particular results. How could they?"

Unintelligent processes would very reliably bring about a particular result, in fact logically, all things being equal (no alterations, additions or subtraction of other factors) they would logically always get the same particular result, because they would do the same thing every time until some factor changed.

But let us discuss in more depth your correlation claims and the argument you've presented. In our discussion you have only once directly addressed your claim of a correlation that suggests intelligence in design, so I'll grab that post and go over what my issues are with it and we can perhaps have a meaningful discussion where you, for one you perhaps consider what I present rather than simply dismissing it.

#424

Debates: 0

Posts: 112

05.18.2020 07:45PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

This was initially posted to @ATroubledMan, so I may not have addressed at fully as I would otherwise, I will do so now however.

I'm done with your nonsense. I don't care whether or not you agree with it but at least you could acknowledge it. Here is my premise one last time.....here is the explanations (a statement or account that makes something clear). to support that premise.

Proposition (inference)=
The universe is made up of intelligent processes that achieve a particular ends, it operates as an intelligent source, that source would be what we call God (Creator). God uses the processes we observe in the universe to bring things into existence.

Fair enough, it's a proposition, so not much to say in response to it.

"Rationale (reasoning)=
Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner. Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.

Let's break this down to the points that are suppositions.

'Processes do not occur all by themselves, it takes an intelligent source or operator to produce and direct results in a definitive manner.'

Can you support this claim with anything or is it just supposition?

'Nothing builds (evolves) itself into existence that has no way of planning, manufacturing or accomplishing that which would entail intelligence.'

I would say that to our knowledge nothing builds itself into existence. If you mean that nothing can make something without an intelligence involved then I would again say can support this claim or is it just supposition.

Common sense (explanation)=
It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience. To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.

This too shall need to be broken down further.

'It is irrational to believe and accept that inanimate (unintelligent) forces could ever produce anything let alone intelligent processes that manufacture intelligence and sentience.'

This is a claim, can you show any logical fallacy or argument that shows this to be irrational, or are you simply stating that it's your opinion that it's irrational? If the former, please present said argument or fallacy.

'To build or achieve anything means to have a plan and then to put that plan into operation, common sense would tell us that proposition needs first a mind involved, or an intelligent source behind that achievement or destination.'

Achieve here is a loaded term as it implies an intention, as does build, but can you explain why it's illogical for unintelligent processes operating without a plan, intention or goal couldn't have interacted in such a way that the universe would form as we observe it?

Correlation=
We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence. Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other. There is a mutual relationship between that which produces and that which is a production.

This is the most relevant part, so we'll take our time with it.

'We associate processes with intelligence or a mind, processes are always associated with intelligence.'

Claim, I don't (and don't know anyone else who does) associate the process of ageing with an intelligence (you have explained why ageing occurs, but not once why that suggests that it is associated to intelligence, I can pull the related posts if it would be helpful?), technically this alone is evidence that the above claim is false, but let us say a better claim and drop that we, can you show this is the case?

'Production is always associated with a producer, developer is required for something to be developed.... one requires the other.'

Production is merely the act of producing something, to produce something is 'to cause to have existence or to happen'. Why can't unintelligent natural processes be the producer for the production of things that aren't produced by human-initiated processes?

As for development, that would depend very much on how you're defining develop if you define develop as:

'to expand by a process of growth'

Then I'd ask how do you establish this? Can you show there is a developer involved in the growth of a plant or animal?

Evidence (which includes the above assessments as well)=
"that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof."
"something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign"
"information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
"something presented in support of the truth or accuracy of a claim"

=Observations of real life activities (independent of nature, since I'm arguing that those are the processes of a Creator), real life productions, real life manufacturing, real life creations (art), real life development, real life construction, real life building, real life assembly ect ect, we know from real world observations that all those things require there to be a source to begin, evolve and accomplish anything.
Every single result of a production (process) in our real world I can present the originator of, not a single thing that has been produced can be shown to have created itself.

This commits the fallacy known as no true scotsman, just because you're arguing that they're something doesn't mean they aren't themselves viable examples. Further your argument becomes invalid as it only leaves human initiated processes, a subset of processes that must by definition be initiated by an intelligence. I will put it to you like this, I will agree to discount natural processes if you can demonstrate that one natural process must be the product of intelligence with logically sound and verifiable arguments.

Can anyone show or produce evidence of anything in the real world producing itself without a producer, creator, developer, manufacturer, builder, designer ect ect?

This is a strawman as ATroubledMan never once made the claim that anything produces itself, however, can you demonstrate that an intelligence was involved in the formation of the earth? We can see processes in action in the formation of planets, we can build models of how it can happen, now can you show or produce evidence that it required intelligence to initiate those processes? Your entire argument rests on that.

Logic=
In our real life experience everything that brings about a result requires intelligence, so why when it comes to the productions of the universe is anyone willing to that fact?

The formation of planets, fires, the growth of plants, weather patterns. I see all these things in my daily life, they all bring about results, can you show an intelligence associated with any of them?

Conclusion=
Science doesn't claim processes occur all by themselves, it examines how things operate and reports an accurate depiction of that alone, it makes no claims or objections about a possible God.

No one to my knowledge makes claim processes occur all by themselves, some people claim there is no intelligence involved in some of those processes, some people (such as myself) don't accept either that position or the position that intelligence must have been involved.

Science is a method WE use, it has no mind or knowledge of its own, it just examines what we feed it and what we put into it. It reveals what ingredients are in a recipe but makes no reference to a maker because that's not a factor it can reach.

Can you show there is a maker in this case?

To make the assumption that the scientific method exempts God or a Creator from the equation is to abruptly inject ones own presumptions. Science is not atheistic, it is a neutral study meaning that it is not only compatible with Theism but it shows the processes of how God creates things.

I agree with this to a point. It would be presumptuous to say science in any way works to disprove a god would be true, though if science cannot answer questions related to god, then it is exempt, which isn't to say that god couldn't exist, but only that it would have to be exempt from science. However, the highlighted section is an unsubstantiated claim that I would say is equally presumptuous.

It is completely rational and logical to embrace a Theistic proposition of creation. Nothing ever comes from nothing since there was always something (intelligence/awareness) out of which all processes occur, this is a superior platform to any other hypothesis than to accept that somehow inanimate forces of nature developed intelligent processes.

Opinion and supposition, can you present any evidence to support your claim that there was always an intelligence/awareness? So far you've made a lot of claims, but not presented evidence for them. How can we know what is beyond this universe?

In a nutshell, all the things mentioned above have an intelligent cause and a rational reason why anything or any processes even begin and produce results. Evolution is also NOT an atheistic proposition even though it is presumed by atheists. Evolution too is a process that brings about a desired intelligent ends and results, it is by this very process how God plans and achieves that which It wants to create. It is by that very process why you even exist as a human, why we have the benefit of looking out into creation to observe the many beautiful species that exist as they do.

While I agree that evolution isn't an atheistic position, I would point out it's also not a theistic one. You follow this with a claim that Evolution brings about a desired result? To be clear here, I mean can you show that something initiated evolution wanting to get the results that evolution has got?

"Anyone willing to consider this as a legit premise feel free to engage and move forward. There's lots more to discuss, how God did all this and by what methods, why does God create anything...how does this relate to you personally, what is a soul, why do we need physical bodies, why are there many different religions, what is the purpose behind spirituality ect ect just let me know."

Still considering it, though I'll admit, I am seeing a lot of claims, not a lot to back up those claims.

#425

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

05.19.2020 12:08AM

-->

@Mdh2000

Okay before we get into anymore details or me try and elaborate more on what we went over why don't you explain what you mean when you ask...."can you back this up"...."can you support this", like in other words what are you expecting out of me in order to support my claims other than my own observations and conclusions?

Next, when you say supposition what do you mean exactly? because I don't share anything I believe to be uncertain, and they're not just beliefs. If you want to say anything uncertain about them I guess you could say they are educated guesses but even then I don't believe I'm guessing anything. You don't know me very well and probably don't have a good idea of my history and the reasons of how I've formed my conclusions so maybe you just have this idea I'm some hippie kid that likes to pay around with ideas. That would not be a good depiction of me, I've had a lot of experiences in life of the transcendent nature and this is the starting point of my observations, then I reach conclusions based upon my own observations along with others. It's also not a fair thing to claim confirmation bias because as you wouldn't really know, I'm very particular about examining claims and looking at all the angles involved and going with the best possible scenario and answers so I don't really care about my own biases, at least when forming beliefs or conclusions.

Having said that, I could back things up I share by presenting correlating sources depending on what you mean by support. Like for example if I made a claim involving a process of the universe like gravity or something, or evolution or maybe energy and perhaps I used a scientific source or scientific study to support what I was claiming about them, is that what you mean?

Let me save you the suspense if so, if I were to use a source to back up a spiritual proposition the source would have to correlate with that nature. For instance, if I wanted to claim something about the natural world I would probably use science to support the idea. Meaning a study or examination where it was collectively agreed on or where the study was conclusive. However, the same is true for a spiritual claim or transcendent observations, I would want to use a method or source that correlates with that nature so I would then move over to religious sources and spiritual observations to cross reference and support by cross examination and things like that. If I wanted to support the claim of a soul for example or that consciousness survives death I would look into NDE's as a direct method of study. So when you say can I support the ideas behind what I'm sharing I'm going to say the ideas have been presented throughout history, but through correlated sources.

But if you mean can I support the claim that for example....processes are associated with a mind or intelligence basically I'm just presenting what appears to me as a logical commonsense observation, but Theism as presented in the idea of creation has already been established, I'm just giving you reasons to consider it or even better believe it with confidence. If I see intelligence behind the processes of the universe and what it produces it is my opinion but not just an empty one, and other than making an attempt to say that processes can't and shouldn't occur on their own (because inanimate forces have no awareness or intelligence to form a process) I have no way to "support" that other than it's commonsense or what I perceive as rational, but if you don't feel that way I can't give you any consolation in that regard. These are my own opinions, but again they are educated conclusions based on my own logic. I understand if that's not convincing to you but as I said before, we could agree to disagree.

If we were to go back to the origins of my beliefs, which have been expanded on we would go back to my own experiences and observations of this world and beyond. For example I don't have to rely on NDE's do show me a transcendent realm exists or that spirits exist I've seen them myself. All I have to do to support that observation is collaborate with NDE experiences and cross examine religious sources. Now I have my own direct first hand observation along with millions of other testimonies and sources. Another example would be I don't have to read the Bible to believe that people have spiritual visions because I've had them, but I can collaborate with the Bible to cross reference them or understand them.

I wouldn't have to rely on hear say to know what spiritual principles are and what they mean I apply them myself and live by them and see what they produce, but I can also read them in details within spiritual literature ect ect...So really it all depends on what you are asking when you say "can I support" this or that and what it is you're looking for other than a logical premise.

If you're not satisfied with the opinions I share in our discussion I'm not really sure what you're looking for. These are MY ideas, albeit Theism has been around for a long, long time. I can support the concepts of Theism and the general claims about God using sources that correlate with that nature, in other words I wouldn't lean on science per say to shed light on spirituality and understanding about God. I would rely on a source that can reach that level of understanding.

#426

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

05.19.2020 05:24PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

That's what I think is interesting about you, I'm still fascinated by these higher Beings but you think they are boring lol

This was interesting, never thought of it this way-ish.

can all work and fit into the universal infinite platform it doesn't have to be one or the other, God vs the platform theory problem.

Yes, I've thought of the platform in every which way. One thing about the multiple gods in the platform that is sorta a paradox that makes me ponder is how can you have two defined gods, like the Muslim and Christian god, in the same platform? Bc by definitions, they are both the supreme. Not only that, would these gods know they are one of many? Or would they not know? If they do not know, how do they fit their definitions? If they do know... are they aware they are limited as a one god (therefore not a god by definitions)?

#427

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman

05.19.2020 06:18PM

-->

@Outplayz

Yes, I've thought of the platform in every which way. One thing about the multiple gods in the platform that is sorta a paradox that makes me ponder is how can you have two defined gods, like the Muslim and Christian god, in the same platform? Bc by definitions, they are both the supreme.

Because for one, they rule different parts of creation. For example a gang and a gang's leader, the leader may be regarded as the number one top leader in a particular region yet in another region the same scenario. Or a King in one country, yet in another country a supreme King. Now to step back a bit, I've heard people argue that the Christian and the Muslim God could be the same Entity, it's just that different regions of the world and within religious squares have different names for the same phenomenon. But I don't have to really argue that because I believe what I said about them ruling different parts of creation is legit enough, because if they own and rule a planet for example, they actually would be the Supreme King of that planet, what other planet would matter in that respect? basically they have their own world, same with other cultures and God concepts they basically have their own King ruler and own territory. The Earth would be more like a middle grounds or neutral territory. This is the fun dynamics of creation though.

The interesting thing about the Hindu concept of God is that it's universal, it actually by definition doesn't exclude all these different named Gods as separate, actually they define Brahman pretty much like we would define the Platform maybe minus a few things but certainly compatible.

On the other hand, both the Hindus and Buddhists have a good grasp on demi-gods and over Lords and incarnations, they understand that all Beings of form come from the formless and that when the Platform creates an embodiment they call that an incarnation, "God in the flesh". It's very possible that both the Christian God and the Muslim God are demi-Gods and it's just their followers don't know it and to them they are God, meaning these Beings could have come out from the Platform just like I said and these souls believe it's the final God...in other words they just are not aware of the Platform, and the Platform being formless is what makes it infinite and omnipresent while the Christian God is known to have a form. Anything that has form has first originated from the formless.

Not only that, would these gods know they are one of many? Or would they not know?

That's why I want you to read that book, you would be fascinated it actually covers this question. The answer is yes they know they come out of the Platform and that there are many beings or rulers, but they argue that they are the most High, each of them think they are the God everyone would want to parade under lol. They have a sense of jealousy, or they want to be admired as the final cause and the most High God. Since they do have very powerful limitless forms, I believe they think they are more desirable than the formless. So in a sense they ignore the Platform as if It doesn't exist or that It's not relevant. It gets very interesting I could break it down more but I don't want to get too into detail here. I could get into trouble with the information I'm sharing lol.

If they do not know, how do they fit their definitions? If they do know... are they aware they are limited as a one god (therefore not a god by definitions)?

Yes they are aware of what they are, they are the closest form to the Platform, they are at the very tipping point or edge of where form and the Formless meet as well they are true rulers. They are high and mighty and they carry the attitude of that with them, they are also very kind, loving and merciful to other lesser souls. The scary part is the duality of creation, that means there exists monstrous entities as well, they care very little for other souls that come out of the Platform and these would be the Gate Keepers of hades and hells things like that. But creation must be that way, because to have separation there must be opposing forces of all things that bounce between each other, without true duality there would be no creation. You must have light and darkness, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, love and hate, cold and hot ect ect...

What most people don't know, is that creation extends beyond these God figures, there's many levels of experience beyond them..... you can bypass them but it's not very easy to do because we exist in the areas of creation that they rule over and they are more like Gate Keepers. How we got here could be for many reasons, but you will know much more when you leave the physical body. A soul traveler is a soul known to traverse creation and the heavens basically where ever it choses to exist or visit. This can take place at anytime and anywhere, you don't even have to die to do this, they call that astral travel or what some call extending or projecting your consciousness to any area of creation or the multiverses. And since you have a corresponding layer of each universe you can traverse anywhere within all of the worlds.

#428

PGA2.0

Debates: 7

Posts: 3,179

PGA2.0

05.20.2020 06:59PM

-->

@zedvictor4

A challenge to atheists - can you?

#429

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,193

05.20.2020 09:31PM

-->

@EtrnlVw

The answer is yes they know they come out of the Platform and that there are many beings or rulers, but they argue that they are the most High, each of them think they are the God everyone would want to parade under lol.

Everything you wrote is an interesting perspective. The way i look at it is looking at the humans that worship such entities. I find it very interesting that they cannot, for the most part, empathize with their gods. Their gods aren't even well defined. I think that's interesting bc it leaves it open. They could be as you say, or maybe they don't know and are just creators of that world. I just find it interesting it is beyond the worshipper's to properly define the god they are in to... and even more interesting that they think it's absurd or impossible... maybe it's bc they aren't right so they can't comprehend it... for if they were able to comprehend it, it would lead them away from their specific god and get them closer to an infinite consciousness type platform. They can't do it bc their platform is their reality, therefore, there is this reason they are incapable.

#430

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,869