Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Creator...Might be the reason for the cause of our existence.
That's a very good position to have, I'm impressed you have flexibility on this issue.
I prefer to think that creation just set the wheels in motion.
To a point but it's an incomplete assumption. I believe it's more like a guided process and the universe itself is responsible for nothing other than being a canvas for the Creator.... I don't think God would just set it in motion and then somehow all these processes begin to act on their own, that's not a very logical proposition. I think the universe is the way it is because God wanted precisely the way it is, and used these processes as a means of achieving it. Once we get the misconception out of our heads that God is some embodied Being somewhere out there that exists somewhere within creation then this becomes much more clear and easy to understand. Creation is actually within God not outside God or somewhere beside God, the universe would conceptually be much more like the mind of God and everything that exists, exists within that conscious Reality. So God essentially manipulates energy and the elements within the universe and uses processes to generate and create forms within it.
Energy co-exists with God, which is conscious activity so while energy is not created of course, it is generated. God in turn uses energy as means of creation, and everything that follows. Both awareness and energy are eternal and omnipresent.
Had things occurred slightly differently, this might well have been an advanced species descended from dinosaurs, discussing the GOD principle.
TBH, I don't believe it's possible anything at all could have occurred without intelligence it's simply a ridiculous idea. In other words there's zero chance anything could have spontaneously occurred and for that matter worked. I'm not being close-minded of course rather it's just obvious to me personally.
Which may well be the case elsewhere, especially if evolution progressed similarly, but without the extinction event.
I made a post about dinosaurs in this thread ironically, check out post #17
Advanced Alien Lizards or Birds is not as unlikely as it might seem.
Lol, anything can exist within a Reality where a creative Entity is responsible for what exists which makes giant lizards and aliens life much more in favor with a Creator. As a matter of fact, the more things we find that exist the more I believe it favors a Creator. I'm not one those guys who thinks we're alone in such a grand universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I consider myself a DEIST but I'm not convinced "intelligence" is a concept that applies to "the unknowable" "source".
You should be convinced, intelligence is the single most common denominator that makes any Supreme Being what It is. Unless of course you want to go out on a limb and say God is a thing. Consciousness/awareness can be deduced as a prerequisite for intelligence and without conscious awareness you're no longer talking about an Entity. Once we agree on that intelligence is a no-brainer, as intelligence would be required to have an ability to put together a universe that operates and functions.
I see.
Good.
So, I'm guessing you KNOW "the unknowable"?
That's your claim not mine. The argument wouldn't be that God is unknowable, rather how much do we know, or can know. But it's not really that complicated, we know a lot about God through our own direct experiences and observations. We are of the very same nature as God.
Are you neighbors perhaps?Do you invite them over for a chat, perhaps?
Lets not get stupid. When you converse with me, you'll see everything makes sense. You don't have to invite God or visit God, that Reality is very much already connected to you as God is within all things, present and pervasive. As a matter of fact you could never escape that Reality, there's no where you could ever go where God is not present. Communication then becomes a misconstrued concept between the soul and its creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So, "unknowable" would be perfectly acceptable to you?
What I'm getting at is that any personal description of the Creator is not relevant to the topic. If a Deist accepts or interprets our universe as a product of intelligence then the Deist fits into the only other one of two categories. I don't know why you are pressing the issue, obviously a Deist is not a materialist, that leaves one other option. Deism is defined as "belief in the existence of a supreme being"....any other description beyond that is unnecessary for this evaluation. I've made no claims or correlations of God with religion.
Even if you claim a Deist to be a materialist that still renders only two categories to choose from.
If you create a topic I'd be glad to answer that in detail, because to claim a Reality that we originated from "unknowable" is rather stupid. We are a part of that Reality and It will always be a part of us whether we realize that or not, which means at some level we have a access to that Reality as we are connected to It (I'd be glad to elaborate on that). I'm not even proposing any specific conception of God either to make that assessment BTW, my arguments are always compatible with Deism 80% of the time anyways. I don't have to use religion as a means to support the reality God exists, the soul exists or that creation is a product of intelligence. I'd rather not derail the subject matter and argue about conceptions of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, the Creator was Bumba. According to the Boshongo people of central Africa, in the beginning, there was only darkness, water, and the great god Bumba. One day Bumba, in pain from a stomach ache, vomited up the sun. The sun dried up some of the water, leaving land. Still in pain, Bumba vomited up the moon, the stars, and then some animals. The leopard, the crocodile, the turtle, and finally, man.
Well stated.
What exactly was it that he stated? I'm curious because it was completely irrelevant to my topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not arguing for any specific conception of God, so how I define God is irrelevant to the topic. Here though, in this topic I would define God as Creator, as in the cause of our existence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You forgot to include DEIST.
Deist fits in to one out of the two propositions, either God created the universe or God did not. One is called Theism and the other materialism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Its not my (or anyone else's) fault theism has to be taken on faith - which isn't a pathway to knowledge. Theism is simply a weakly evidenced position propped up by a tradition of emotionality.
Wow, so suddenly your interpretation is exempt from assuming things without justification and our interpretation is all about "faith" which I'm sure you're going to define as belief without facts or evidence lol? Interpreting the universe as a product of intelligence has nothing to do with how you define faith. Which BTW is a useless definition of what spiritual faith is but either way it's besides the point. This is not about faith but about following the logic, using commonsense and putting together the evidence, which is the indicator of what is true. I've made this topic to show you how both materialism and theism are thought through and faith was never even an equation. I will have to admit thought, that is requires much more "faith" to believe that processes began producing products all by themselves then to believe that they are the products of intelligence, ironic isn't it?
Name any position which can't be held "on faith" - there isn't one. Absolutely anything can be believed if 'faith' is the only prerequisite. You'll need to do better than that if you mean to sway others with rational argumentation.
I think you've came in to this topic believing your own presumptions about what you think Theists do and completely missed the fact that our interpretation is based upon solid reasoning not faith. Our position is not held by faith anymore than your own interpretation. Somehow you think your personal interpretation meets all these requirements you believe satisfies a fact based belief and ours doesn't, you're quite a comedian in this thread. You've basically admitted you have an incomplete system of thought "that can answer all the questions we either haven't figured out yet" and then claim it's our position that's based on how you define faith.
If we were to even have an intelligent discussion about faith at all you would have to ask me how I DEFINE faith before you begin to make assumptions about what I believe and by what methods.
our beliefs should be apportioned to the evidence.
You're just preaching to the choir materialist. Why would you make any assumptions to the contrary, I've made this topic specifically to show how our interpretation IS apportioned to the evidence. I even showed how it would work, given that God exists and created the universe....which harmonizes with a scientific rendering.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Materialism starts with the assumptions that reality exists and we can learn from it.
I believe that begins with any philosophical inquiry of questioning the origins of our existence. However materialism has its own presumptions it and of itself. That reality ~begins~ with an assumption that matter is the primary force of origins, and that we can learn from that assumption alone. Materialism doesn't just start with the assumption reality exists, it starts with the assumption that matter is the fundamental substance of existence...of that reality. That puts a stamp on your quest for truth, and if that satisfies your intellectual needs that's your choice.
Theism assumes reality exists
Agree
we can learn from it
Agree
and some sort of super-reality exists that can answer all the questions we either haven't figured out yet
This is not a God of the Gaps argument, I've presented nothing here based upon whims or guesswork. Theism is a well thought out, intellectual proposition based on sound reasoning and evidence. It's also an intuitive response which if true, means we would have an innate connection with it (because we are apart of that). Which also adds an extra layer of consideration and why I believe it has been proposed since man has existed essentially. You might label it outdated but I call it classic and timeless...how long the obvious has been presented works in its favor.
I don't know what a "super-reality" is supposed to be but God would simply be apart of the construct of our world, and everything would flow naturally from that origin, and make sense. No need for some "super reality", that's just your way of adding terminology to what you believe doesn't belong in the picture.
Number one, if there are gaps or unanswered questions we need not be simply satisfied with materialism and pretend no further thought is necessary and anything proposed beyond that disqualifies it for Occam's Razor. Any reasonable premise that answers real questions is not unnecessary just because you deem materialism as a solution you personally accept.
Number two if God fits in any gaps it's because it works, it's missing pieces to the puzzle. That's exactly what we are looking for right? Just because you're satisfied with an incomplete proposition doesn't mean we all need to shut down our intellectual gears. If you read through the thought processes of the OP then you should be able to see how our logic follows, and of course how it fits together. Those thoughts would be the precursor to what is most likely true, a very strong indicator and that is what we want to build on.
Given that there really are only two options to begin with, either God created the universe (Creation) or God did not (materialism) it's not a hard determination but rather how any individual interprets our world in one of two ways. But only one can be true and I'm going with the superior option.
or answers questions which assume a super-reality to begin with (eg. "why do processes occur?")
Again this super reality thing is nonsense and I'm not making any unnecessary "assumptions". We have two propositions being made, there's our universe as the subject and two premises being offered as an interpretation and I'm making an educated assessment based on what we have to work with, what we observe. You can make up little cute names for it but what I find funny is that you guys make a big deal over questioning what we observe as products of the universe and how they occur (which is great) but when someone presses the same fervor and extends that to the processes themselves you begin to get all silly and squirmy.
It's a legit question 100%! Why would processes begin to just occur all by themselves and start to produce things as if the processes themselves had minds? and somehow inanimate materials know how things should be constructed as if they had intelligence? I'm not presenting this question to play dumb, it's to get you to look further into what you've accepted. I've already looked at the question and I've weighed the evidence and coupled with my own spiritual experience and observations it's more than a solid worldview.
Occam favors the former.
Sure pal. I'll remind you again....
Materialism doesn't get a free card because it skips out on important questions making you believe you've made less assumptions lol...that's really hilarious. Theism fits in perfectly with Occam's Razor as there are absolutely no unnecessary premises being offered and zero assumptions being made that are not of importance. You ignore those questions and then pretend it's unnecessary to answer them. When we're trying to solve the problem of the origins of our existence we need to answer as many questions as possible, we don't stop at the recipe and then make the assumption that all the ingredients produced a product on their own. We know that ingredients are the product of a recipe and that a recipe is the product of mind and thought (agency). This is completely necessary to look at and question.
The fact that intelligent processes occurred at all is the indicator that intelligence was involved, it's not an assumption anymore than when you see a beautiful building or house you've made the obvious assessment some genius made a blueprint, gathered the right materials and began a process to construct it. This is a Theists interpretation of what we observe in our universe, it's one out of two interpretations so we don't have to search too far to make a conclusion.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
In the beggining , not 6 billion ( or whatever the current age is supposed to be) after the beginning.
There's nothing about "In the beginning" that conflicts with a rendering of the earth's age. If you were actually making sense, or bringing up a real contradiction between the Bible and sources that date the earth then there could be a legit debate. Or one worth at least looking at.
If the Bible has no conflict with a scientific rendering of the age of this planet then there is absolutely no reason to begin a conflict. If you don't know how old it is, and the Bible doesn't state how old it is then there should be no problem with considering an expert on the subject matter so why instigate a problem? This is exactly the kind of nonsense that causes unnecessary friction between Theists and unbelievers, why would you even care if the earth is billions of years old? what's wrong with that? it makes no difference to your personal beliefs.
All evidence is open to interpretation so it's just a matter of which interpretation one chooses to believe.
You can "choose" to believe whatever it is you have reason for. But there is no conspiracy against the Bible when experts are dating the earth's material.
Christian use the geniology list in scripture to estimate how long human life has been around.
Two different questions here, the age of the earth is irrelevant to how long human life has been around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The razor is becoming as tired an excuse as blaming God for everything.
Lol, Skeptical has made the assumption that there were unnecessary assertions made. But not so, Theism doesn't make unnecessary assumptions rather it deals with all factors involved, there's a difference, we're not adding anything that is not necessary. Theism doesn't give unwarranted answers where necessary questions are posed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Occam's razor is plenty sharp enough for this discussion.
Occam's razor can be applied to both sides. Materialism though fails to account for obvious factors. That doesn't mean it gets to slide though the cracks as a more simplistic option and then you claim Occam's razor favors you view because your view fails to address all questions. That's not how this works, Theism addresses all factors AND it's simplistically necessary. In other words there are no unnecessary assumptions being made, sorry.
The question must be asked, why do processes occur? how do you account for that problem? if you want to be intellectually incompetent then sure, you could just sweep the question under the rug and claim Occam favors materialism but just as long as you know it's your claim and not a fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Occam's razor prefers materialism.
Not if we're approaching the subject matter from a neutral standpoint. Materialism doesn't get a free card, it's not a default position rather it's an interpretation. If Theism and materialism are the two interpretations with our universe being the target of that evaluation both propositions fit fine with Occam's razor. If you've read through this thread there were never any unnecessary assumptions, not if you're following my premises.
Theism puts (unnecessary) assumptions on top of a material reality.
Not at all, rather it accounts for factors materialism has left out. Try reading through more carefully.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Hey....Am I spoiling the theists pat on the back party.
Don't play dumb Victor, we all know which group likes to pat themselves on the back and smack their fellow henchmen on the hiney.
Allow me to pat you on the butt Stephen.
LOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Read University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne's book
Some of you atheists think you're so smart but all you do is constantly absorb other people's ideas and thoughts. Ironically, as yal are the ones who mock religious folk for being "indoctrinated" and parade yourselves as the "free thinkers" when in actuality you're guilty of the very same thing. Some of you all don't think for yourselves you simply accept what other atheists believe. This explains why most of you assume the same things and repeat the same things. Read post #16.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Faith Vs. Fact
I'll stop you right there, there is no faith "vs" fact, they work hand and hand not contrary to one another. Stop being silly.
Why Science and Religion Are Incompatible
Theism and science are most certainly compatible, they both study two different natures of our experience. They don't conflict rather they work together, they work in harmony with one another as they each examine parallel realities not opposing realities. Try again.
Actually I'm getting quite sick of being pegged as anti-science and having to constantly defend such an absurd notion, because quite frankly it's immature and untrue. Had you read my post (#11) I show you how they ARE compatible and how they fit with one another. I can tell your little mind is a one way dead end though.
is really only compatible with atheism.
Lol Sorry Bubba, atheism does not own science. I'd hate to be the guy that burst your bubbles but science is a neutral study, it is not atheism and atheism is not science. It's funny though, I was just arguing with somebody that says atheists never say this. Atheism is not a study of our world, it's not even a study...it's feature is that it lacks belief in God, that's it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes. I have seen it from both sides. As a materialist AS SOON AS you start delving at least a tiny bit below the surface, you begin to suspect what is really going on. Most materialists will ignore that. They will accept cognitive dissonance over facing that reality may not be what they want it to be.
I don't see why any rational person would ever want it to be that way, especially if there is sufficient reason to believe otherwise. The reality of God should be the most fascinating thing, to me it is anyways. If I were an atheist and I had good cause to ditch such an absurd belief I would want to learn about God as fast I could! and everything that pertains to that Reality.
As I've spent most of my life as a Theist I've still not had enough time to learn as much as I would like and I'm obsessed with learning about God and creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Hey EtrmlVw, I think our boy may be suffering from slight autism. It's hard to explain his posts otherwise.
If I've learned anything in these forums over the years, its never to doubt Mr. Ethan's looney radar. As usual you're probably right on the money.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
Actually you provided more stories, based on one interpretation of the evidence, in fact most scientists use tentative language when reporting their findings, which many, including the media, ignore.
But what problem is it that you have with them reporting an estimation through dating? why do you have an issue with the earth being perhaps billions of years old? I don't understand your opposition here.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
Actually, it says, "in the beginning"
Since when does "in the beginning" tell an age of the earth?
if God wanted to indicate deep time, he could have, but a plain reading of Genesis indicates otherwise when taken in context unless one ignores grammatic rules and tries to for long periods of time into the narrative.
You're completely missing the point, if there is no record or passage that gives an age to the earth then there is no reason to assume one. So there's no issue with letting experts give their accurate advice.
More story telling, saying it's so, doesn't make it so.
Story telling? what problem is it that you have with an expert showing the estimated age of the earth? you're not making a lick of sense. You are causing a conflict where there doesn't need to be one, that's part of the problem here.
Created:
Posted in:
Dinosaurs! yes God created the dinosaurs isn't that obvious! you really believe that evolution produced giant reptiles through a random process lol....and then gave way to the human species? come on seriously? that's like believing in a dramatic fairy tale.
If you understand the creative ability of God then it would make more sense to you why such things existed. Giant lizards right? Creatively speaking God is much like a kid, in that there are no limits in what God might create, the only factor is time itself and that's irrelevant to an eternal Creator. Processes are the doorway in the physical realm to manifest ideas into reality but the processes and results themselves signify intelligence and creativity.
There are realms that exist where physical processes aren't a factor in that a succession of time plays no role because the laws of physics have no relevance in the way we understand them. Ask me how that works!
Dinosaurs had more than a creative role though....these lesser conscious creatures were used like that of a science project, where they were observed in how their physical systems reacted to their environment. God used these creatures as a means to develop the proper functions of more advanced species. When their creative and observed role was no longer needed God destroyed them to make way for what God ultimately desired for this planet.
Most people would assume God and perfection would have no need to employ an observation of testing but that's BS, creation is as much of a testing for God as any newly constructed idea and desired manifestation. God has to put ideas into effect in real time, and while God may have perfected an idea in one thought and one sweep of a process each idea and production must be tried and perfected through observation, whether it fails or prevails.
Those who study planetary science and the fossil record of earth should be as interested in God as any pulpit preacher.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
If God couldn't not exist in the state God exists in (alone), God would create alternate realities to exist simultaneously with other objects, persons and places to experience something other than being alone. To accomplish this, God would have to create a type of simulation and reduce/confine Itself to form within such a simulation. The reduction of Itself confined to specific forms would be called a soul, and the simulation a game, possibly a movie. And that souls perception of reality would be restricted to the confines of that form and that simulation.
This simulation would be our universe but not limited to our universe as there would be parallel worlds/simulations beyond what the physical universe experiences. God likes games but likes more than one game lol....the poor souls (players) subjected to God's simulations (games) would be us, and God would have access to each player (soul), would observe the moves of each player as a fresh and unique experience. God would simulate two opposing forces to make the game much more realistic and interesting....
The magic of the game or simulation would be different from any ordinary game where the controller is completely aware of each move....the player (soul) within the simulation gradually takes on its own perceptions through each experience within the game, and the player within the game begins to act independent of the Simulator. Thus the Simulator has no need to control each move, the player begins to move on its own accord within the game! since the player is equipped with real life consciousness and intelligence it can begin to act as an independent agent unlike the video games as we know them.
This would mean that while the Simulator (God) would have access to each player, the Simulator could observe each experience within the game as if It were playing the game independent of Itself! through each player....God could create endless simulations while the soul plays endless roles within those simulations. There could be no limit to the simulations, there could be multiple simulations for billions of players within a matrix of layered realties.
God decides to make the game more interesting, more than just experiencing each simulation through individual players. God decides to give the game an objective, but the objective only begins as any given player wishes to advance from the game. The objective appears in stages as each soul moves from one simulation to the preceding simulation until it reaches a climax of experience and knowledge. The objective for each player would be to uncover what its true origins are through a myriad of complex simulated games. Each player would advance at its own pace, unaware of its reality independent of its own observations through a confined and limited perspective.
Once the soul reaches the objective and uncovers and defeats the "Boss" (knowledge).....its allowed to become the Simulator once again. As the gamer understands what the objective was, the gamer is allowed to enter the simulation to begin a whole new quest.
Created:
Posted in:
Is it okay or acceptable to maintain a materialistic perspective of our universe? certainly, I'm not knocking that or putting it down. It certainly is natural to perceive that which is immediately in front of our faces with no further recourse and simply leave it at that. However, upon looking deeper into the equation it should start to become obvious that reality as we observe it is more than just a mechanical material and inanimate process of events. Intuition at some point should kick in and the gears should be allowed to turn. I'm not talking about wishful thinking or what a person wants to be the case, not at all. Creationism can be accepted without either of those factors just through observing reality independent of guided knowledge.
Academics is a beautiful thing but when a person is subjected to restricted/limited ways of thinking, or controlled by someone else's ideas it can make a person who appears intelligent become more like a robotic mechanism that simply processes information but is devoid of the ability to simply absorb truth as it exists independent of another persons input. The practice of observing rather than chasing thoughts or what we perceive as some useful source of information is very valuable. Young vulnerable minds can get lost in a web of restrictive usage of thought. It's kind of ironic that we put so much emphasis in thinking that we forget that many times thinking is nothing but a conditioned process, and for those who are subjected to continuously absorbing other people's rationale and beliefs they become essentially victims and victims of ignorance.
This applies to religion as well not just secular academics! the same can be said for those who follow religious institutions, and while creationism could be an absolutely true proposition their own belief system could be responsible for the indoctrination of false ideals.
We need academics obviously, we need access to knowledge that has an objective basis but the truth be told truth exists as it is independent of who said this and who believes that no matter where that information is coming from. A further problem is that a study like the scientific method could be completely misconstrued as something other than what it is and what it's limits are.
For example we use such a method to determine how something works, how something occurs and then we assume because we have that ability that it accounts for every factor involved. If you wanted to know how this delicious cake I produced was made I could give you the recipe for the cake and show you what process was used in making it. Would you then assume that the cake made itself or produced itself? of course not, that would be stupid....this is the misconception of how the scientific method works, that we can show the materials of how something was put together and by what process and then assume there was no maker of those ingredients, and something produced itself independent of agency. So in essence we manipulate what was once a neutral study by adding an unnecessary component, an ideology and assume a worldview.
I bring this up because I observe it all the time! I see atheists using science as a means to reject the idea that creation was put together through agency, all because they can show how a process works or how something occurred. But a recipe does the very same thing, showing us the materials and process by which something is produced but never do we make the assumption that the recipe alone is enough to produce something, there needs to be someone who puts it all together, who had foreknowledge to create the recipe.
I'm just rambling here but I'm rambling because I see a real problem taking place and it's very obvious to me. It would be beneficial for anyone to not place such barriers in the path of their revelations about what they are and where the came from. The same problem we have with the theory of evolution as a process, it's NOT a worldview or some ideology it's simply a process that occurs to bring something into existence from nothing and this is compatible with a Creator in the same way I explained with recipes. Someone added an unnecessary component to the equation, people became conditioned to believing that and now there is a misconception about that process. Now it is taught and accepted as a materialistic approach to understanding our origins and that is very unfortunate.
Created:
-->
@ronjs
And nowhere in the bible does it say the universe is millions of years old.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about the age of the earth, so in relation to that book the question is redundant to begin with.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
I've already addressed this, you had no argument (as usual). So when you repeat the same stupid things over it just makes you look like an idiot. I'd rather you not comment at all unless you have something of value to write.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I think God likes wealthy stupid people.
If you're always going to use only stupid examples your perception will always be stupid. Some men can't adapt and learn new things, it's almost as if they're intellectually impaired so they regurgitate the same stupid things regardless if they are relevant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If your soul was within God, it would be like pouring water back into the ocean, they essentially become like one, so even communication is somewhat of a blurred concept between God and the soul. Only when you leave God you enter a dual environment where the barriers of communication and separation become a reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
The soul was within God, so there are no barriers of understanding, it's just being. God does not communicate through human language lol, that is a human creation so that we have means of communicating what another person may not know. With God that problem does not exist. When you entered the world you then required to learn the ways in which these people communicate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
What language did the soul speak with God before it learned a language in a human brain?
Why did it need to speak like a human would need to speak?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
If you want a more realistic idea of creation here's my post in the topic....
"What's your best argument for God's existence?"
This is a universal conception, you may have already read through it IDK but it has no need to rely on any particular religious ideology. Religions are just mans way of expressing the same overarching observation or innate feelings about the universe. Descriptions vary but the concept of a Creator is universal so while not every attempt from man is an accurate description of creation it's still the same basic idea.
"Be open-minded about it though, think about what I'm going to say here before you spontaneously reject it because of your preconceived notions, just give it proper thought and see what fits and makes sense.
Without the existence of God you must account for the processes of our universe and why they occur, meaning reflect on and articulate (think further on) how inanimate forces begin to produce intelligent productions on their own will. If you do not, or you simply ignore that you're essentially skipping a very important detail and not being intellectually consistent, you must ask the same questions about such processes as you do the results of those processes! why does it occur, how does it occur?
I'll have you consider your own assumption about our world. That's just to get you thinking about what and why you believe what you do without any real objection to it. And that the alternative might just be a better proposition or a more logical premise.
I can lay out that there really are only two options available in regards to the existence of the universe just to make clear how simplistic this really is. Either God created it, or God didn't. This means that either theism is true or materialism/atheism is true, and if I can get you to see that materialism is an absurd conclusion I have a shot at getting you to consider the only other option.
I can do that by correlating the processes of our universe with intelligence, or correlating productions with a producer, that construction is always associated with a constructor. To do that I have to convince you (have you think through) that inanimate materials cannot begin to generate desired outcomes and intelligent beings by themselves and I do that simply through commonsense. We know through our own world observations mind and thought (agency) are always associated with processes and productions. To understand the mechanisms and materials involved in the manufacturing of something there first needs to be foreknowledge, to have understanding of how a process can work to create a usable product there must first be awareness. And so this would indicate very convincingly that Agency was involved in the production of our universe through the factors of mind and thought (foreknowledge).
We know that inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves in the same way bricks don't construct themselves into buildings alone, materials are gathered and utilized as a means to produce a desired outcome first through a user, by thought and mind (intelligence). Foreknowledge is necessary to understand how a process should begin and unfold, what materials are needed and to achieve a particular product or result. To believe the alternative is to accept an absurdity, something that is not believable.
I understand that a person becomes accustom to a certain way of thinking and what they believe, which is why I would want to get them really thinking about what they have accepted as true.
Only one of two options is true, only one fits with reality as we know it. I would argue for Theism obviously as being the superior option.
I start with the processes of the universe and how things are produced through those processes within our universe. Being that intelligent processes (productions that produce a desired outcome) can be seen through intention and foreknowledge by thought and mind (AKA agency) such processes indicate those very factors themselves.
The actions of energy are the key element to observe and consider this. How anyone could accept or believe without question that inanimate forces and materials could begin to produce/generate processes as if they had minds is somewhat unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult anyone that's just my opinion on the matter, but it is an educated assumption not just a bare assertion. I've thought about this for a long time and rather than just believing that these processes generated themselves because no one knows why they occur I've made a better estimation.
Knowing that God exists it's not just a matter of me dismissing this objection rather I just have to show how it works instead. If it's true it should fit and the logic should follow simply and smoothly correct?
I can answer for why energy exists at all and why it acts as an intelligent force within our universe using the eternal conscious awareness of the Creator. Energy itself is accepted as being neither created or destroyed and exists both independent of form and within form. In other words it is considered omnipresent and eternal both of which are associated with the attributes of God coincidentally. Isn't that interesting and ironic? the properties or attributes of energy are expressed the same way as the qualities of God! so now we have a fact and a proposition, so the question is how do they come together and fit? that's the easy part...we start with observing how the universe acts as a whole and make correlations.
Awareness exists wherever something exists, there is no place something exists where awareness is not present that is what makes it exist. Consciousness is proposed within spirituality as being uncreated and eternal, that is....the conscious awareness of God and my premise is that wherever you observe energy you have the presence of awareness and wherever you have the presence of awareness there is energy as well. I can logically make this determination by observing how energy acts within creation and so it fits with the attributes of the Creator. In other words it works.
It is the very activity of conscious awareness that generates energy, it co-exists with conscious activity and therefore energy co-exists with the consciousness of God. Did you know that your thoughts and activity of mind emanates/generates energy? The conscious awareness of the eternal God emanates and generates the same presence of energy on a mega scale. So energy is not a created thing rather it's generated, it exists simultaneously with consciousness. This is the first step in the utilization of an inanimate force to create form within the universe, to begin the very processes of constructing our world. Basically energy then would be the first accessible tool to begin creating.....
Before the Big Bang was conscious activity alone with the co-existing presence of energy, this conscious activity was omnipresent and without a localized point of reference as it is with energy. This massive Reality generated megatons of energy no one could conceive of. This incredible force of energy was condensed and released to produce what we call a Big Bang, (the moment our universe began to expand at such an accelerated pace). God knew this would produce even more elements to begin utilizing through the fusion and chemical changes of force and heat generating new materials.
God used and initiated the very processes of the birth and death of stars to generate light, heat and elements that would continually seed our universe, this is the very foundation of making it inhabitable and usable as a place to create physical bodies for souls to experience life. God uses the processes of creating stars and the formation of planets then establishing arrangements, solar systems, galaxies and ecosystems that would be suitable for many forms of life known and unknown to our planet. God develops the processes of evolution to transform inanimate materials into something usable for life and the soul. These worlds, planets and embodiments are created for the purpose of the soul having experience within creation.
It is through the very processes themselves that I can support such a premise through correlation, logic and common sense. The evidence, or indication is strong and lends to conclude only one answer for our existence. When it is all said and done there is only two options but only one that truly works. God created our universe through intelligent processes or God did not, which would indicate inanimate forces began acting like animate mind and thought, which of course is ridiculous.
In the end one view is superior to the other but only one can be compatible with commonsense.
The argument does not end though, that's only one angle of thought to begin a solid premise to start with. The evidence that correlates with a transcendent (spiritual) reality is overwhelming. There's more observations and experience of spirituality than any other single topic known, combine that with allowing for more thought on why processes occur at all and you have a decent starting point."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
It doesn't matter which Creator you point to, names are irrelevant, names are just mans way of giving a thing description. How God created it is another matter, some men have a better sense of logic than others. Either way mans descriptions have no relevance to the reality we're existing within a created universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I highly doubt that this ummmmm, " universe " thing was here before me.
Lol, if we're talking about your intuition that would be correct.
If we're talking about your entrance into this particular world and your perception of it, it would be incorrect. The universe definitely existed before your physical body...
But if we're talking about the soul, you might be correct again. You might even instinctively know that. Before the world your soul was with God, that's the Reality you came out of, though now your perception of reality blinds you to that, while you would innately feel it, you may not understand it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nice ontology
Thank you, maybe it will help people think more what they accept about our existence from either side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I find it easy picturing things but ummmm , intelligence.
I'm basically correlating intelligence with the productions of our universe. As it requires intelligence to manufacture something to generate a usable result or outcome, foreknowledge is necessary for understanding how something should work. Therefore correlating the processes of our universe with foreknowledge and that would indicate the universe was established though an intelligent Source, which of course could only be the Creator (God).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
If God built this universe and put it right here. imagine what else he would of built over there.
Exactly, why limit the eternal creativeness of God? why limit it to what we only have the ability to observe through a restrictive medium? I like your thought there!
The labels. Materialist and Naturalist , Theist, creation bloody ist. being by how broad it all is. I just don't like it.
Ehh, they're just terms used to express different view points about our existence.
Materialist-
a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained
Naturalist-
a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance
the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena
Theist-
one who believes in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source
What the hell is this intelligence thing you are talking about?
It just describes consciousness really, which is the preceding factor of intelligence. It's what you are, it describes being.
God is a conscious Being, therefore intelligence follows.
Intelligence-
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Consciousness-
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings
the awareness or perception of something by a person
awareness of one's own existence
Yes I know they are generic terms sorry about that, but until I find some other terms to illustrate what I mean they will have to suffice for now.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'll try this a bit differently, rather than just presented some generic argument for God that's been used over and over only to be shut down by an atheist such as yourself let me give you an alternative way of viewing your own assumptions about the universe and about how God created the universe. When something is not working we need to try and push the envelope. I took these bits from other topics of the same nature and I'll just post them here. Be open-minded about it though, think about what I'm going to say here before you spontaneously reject it because of your preconceived notions, just give it proper thought and see what fits and makes sense.
Without the existence of God you must account for the processes of our universe and why they occur, meaning reflect on and articulate (think further on) how inanimate forces begin to produce intelligent productions on their own will. If you do not, or you simply ignore that you're essentially skipping a very important detail and not being intellectually consistent, you must ask the same questions about such processes as you do the results of those processes! why does it occur, how does it occur?
I'll have you consider your own assumption about our world. That's just to get you thinking about what and why you believe what you do without any real objection to it. And that the alternative might just be a better proposition or a more logical premise.
I can lay out that there really are only two options available in regards to the existence of the universe just to make clear how simplistic this really is. Either God created it, or God didn't. This means that either theism is true or materialism/atheism is true, and if I can get you to see that materialism is an absurd conclusion I have a shot at getting you to consider the only other option.
I can do that by correlating the processes of our universe with intelligence, or correlating productions with a producer, that construction is always associated with a constructor. To do that I have to convince you (have you think through) that inanimate materials cannot begin to generate desired outcomes and intelligent beings by themselves and I do that simply through commonsense. We know through our own world observations mind and thought (agency) are always associated with processes and productions. To understand the mechanisms and materials involved in the manufacturing of something there first needs to be foreknowledge, to have understanding of how a process can work to create a usable product there must first be awareness. And so this would indicate very convincingly that Agency was involved in the production of our universe through the factors of mind and thought (foreknowledge).
We know that inanimate materials don't produce things by themselves in the same way bricks don't construct themselves into buildings alone, materials are gathered and utilized as a means to produce a desired outcome first through a user, by thought and mind (intelligence). Foreknowledge is necessary to understand how a process should begin and unfold, what materials are needed and to achieve a particular product or result. To believe the alternative is to accept an absurdity, something that is not believable.
I understand that a person becomes accustom to a certain way of thinking and what they believe, which is why I would want to get them really thinking about what they have accepted as true.
Only one of two options is true, only one fits with reality as we know it. I would argue for Theism obviously as being the superior option.
I start with the processes of the universe and how things are produced through those processes within our universe. Being that intelligent processes (productions that produce a desired outcome) can be seen through intention and foreknowledge by thought and mind (AKA agency) such processes indicate those very factors themselves.
The actions of energy are the key element to observe and consider this. How anyone could accept or believe without question that inanimate forces and materials could begin to produce/generate processes as if they had minds is somewhat unbelievable. I'm not trying to insult anyone that's just my opinion on the matter, but it is an educated assumption not just a bare assertion. I've thought about this for a long time and rather than just believing that these processes generated themselves because no one knows why they occur I've made a better estimation.
Knowing that God exists it's not just a matter of me dismissing this objection rather I just have to show how it works instead. If it's true it should fit and the logic should follow simply and smoothly correct?
I can answer for why energy exists at all and why it acts as an intelligent force within our universe using the eternal conscious awareness of the Creator. Energy itself is accepted as being neither created or destroyed and exists both independent of form and within form. In other words it is considered omnipresent and eternal both of which are associated with the attributes of God coincidentally. Isn't that interesting and ironic? the properties or attributes of energy are expressed the same way as the qualities of God! so now we have a fact and a proposition, so the question is how do they come together and fit? that's the easy part...we start with observing how the universe acts as a whole and make correlations.
Awareness exists wherever something exists, there is no place something exists where awareness is not present that is what makes it exist. Consciousness is proposed within spirituality as being uncreated and eternal, that is....the conscious awareness of God and my premise is that wherever you observe energy you have the presence of awareness and wherever you have the presence of awareness there is energy as well. I can logically make this determination by observing how energy acts within creation and so it fits with the attributes of the Creator. In other words it works.
It is the very activity of conscious awareness that generates energy, it co-exists with conscious activity and therefore energy co-exists with the consciousness of God. Did you know that your thoughts and activity of mind emanates/generates energy? The conscious awareness of the eternal God emanates and generates the same presence of energy on a mega scale. So energy is not a created thing rather it's generated, it exists simultaneously with consciousness. This is the first step in the utilization of an inanimate force to create form within the universe, to begin the very processes of constructing our world. Basically energy then would be the first accessible tool to begin creating.....
Before the Big Bang was conscious activity alone with the co-existing presence of energy, this conscious activity was omnipresent and without a localized point of reference as it is with energy. This massive Reality generated megatons of energy no one could conceive of. This incredible force of energy was condensed and released to produce what we call a Big Bang, (the moment our universe began to expand at such an accelerated pace). God knew this would produce even more elements to begin utilizing through the fusion and chemical changes of force and heat generating new materials.
God used and initiated the very processes of the birth and death of stars to generate light, heat and elements that would continually seed our universe, this is the very foundation of making it inhabitable and usable as a place to create physical bodies for souls to experience life. God uses the processes of creating stars and the formation of planets then establishing arrangements, solar systems, galaxies and ecosystems that would be suitable for many forms of life known and unknown to our planet. God develops the processes of evolution to transform inanimate materials into something usable for life and the soul. These worlds, planets and embodiments are created for the purpose of the soul having experience within creation.
It is through the very processes themselves that I can support such a premise through correlation, logic and common sense. The evidence, or indication is strong and lends to conclude only one answer for our existence. When it is all said and done there is only two options but only one that truly works. God created our universe through intelligent processes or God did not, which would indicate inanimate forces began acting like animate mind and thought, which of course is ridiculous.
In the end one view is superior to the other but only one can be compatible with commonsense.
The argument does not end though, that's only one angle of thought to begin a solid premise to start with. The evidence that correlates with a transcendent (spiritual) reality is overwhelming. There's more observations and experience of spirituality than any other single topic known, combine that with allowing for more thought on why processes occur at all and you have a decent starting point.
Created:
Posted in:
Some random thoughts....this is not an argument, just comparing thought processes.
Proponents of a purely natural and materialistic means of the universe appearing tend to look at the order of operations backwards compared to the Creationist.
Materialist/Naturalist- processes= results= intelligence. (Matter over mind)
Theist/Creationist- intelligence= processes= results. (Mind over matter)
The Materialist sees intelligence as the results of processes whereas the Theist sees that processes are the results of intelligence...(intelligence as to why processes occur.)
The Materialist sees the results (of our universe) as a byproduct of the process, the Theist sees processes as a production intended for the results.
To the Materialist the outcome is secondary (incidental) to the process, to the Theist the process is secondary to the outcome.
The Materialist trusts that the processes are why the results occurred whereas the Theist believes that the results are why the process occurs and intelligence as to why there is a process.
Processes are obviously why we have the results of our universe, only the naturalist puts a question mark before the results to understand why and how they occurred whereas the Theist puts a question mark not only before the results but also before the processes to understand why and how processes occurred.
The Naturalist sees no reason to question why processes occur, the Theists sees reason to question why processes occur.
The Naturalist sees no intention in the production of our universe whereas the Theist sees intention in the products of our world.
The Materialist affirms no intelligence in any given process but the Theist affirms that the processes are intelligent.
The Materialist asserts no intelligence is needed to generate a process compared to the Theist who claims intelligence is needed to generate anything of a process.
It is apparent to the Naturalist/Materialist that processes and inanimate forces can spontaneously generate processes to bring things into existence whereas the Theist asserts that a mind (intelligence) is mandatory to understand how something should work/unfold that they may exist.
The materialist believes that what is needed is secondary to what exists, and the Theist believes that what exists is secondary to what is needed....(what is needed is foremost to what exists).
The Materialist believes that there is first "light, heat and element" and then the byproducts are the resultant of what needs them, as opposed to the Theist who believes that light, heat and element are what exists to support what needs them.
What is needed are the effects of what exists (materialist) whereas what exists are the effects of what is needed (theist).
The Materialist asserts that the earth and its relative position is why bodies exist as compared to the Theist who asserts that bodies are why the earth and its relative position exists.
So the Materialist accepts that an ecosystem exists due to the arrangement of planetary forces while the Theist accepts that an ecosystem is why a planetary arrangement exists, that it may flourish.
So the Naturalist assumes that a planetary arrangement has zero intention and the Theist assumes it exists as it is because of intention.
And the Naturalist assumes that the fundamental forces of nature determine all that exists as opposed to the Theist that accepts the forces of nature exist to support all that exists.
Created:
The question is not "how old is this planet"...it's...."was it created", or "was it formed, and then processed/produced into an inhabitable planet" more accurately. How old it is, is simply irrelevant to that question.
So in other words, even if the earth is billions of years old, it's still compatible with the creation hypothesis. This whole ongoing battle about YEC vs materialism is really besides the point. The productions of the universe give it away that intelligence is a key factor. Creationism is therefore an unavoidable conclusion. Given that there are only two options, only one of those options aligns with commonsense logic.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It must be more anoying when people assume that you think the universe is under 100,000 years old.Eternal?The earth isn't over 100,000 years old is it ?
Why do I need to claim how old an earth is? for what purpose? why would I even need to address such a question? since I have no idea, other than what's been presented I really don't care except that it would be interesting to know. So in all honesty I don't need to be associated with any claims of it whatsoever. Thanks Deb!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Absolutely, and the multiverse theory coincides with the proposition of the afterlife although most religious proponents may not define it that way. There are several parallel universes beyond the immediate physical universe. This has been proposed in religious circles long before philosophical inquiries. Check out "subtle body", Buddhist cosmology and the Godworlds (Eckankar). Check out the book called "The Tigers Fang" by Paul Twitchell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the government provided some of the videos we're talking about. Cover up? Uh huh.
Yes cover up, there is a conspiracy to keep such information from the public, they only agree when their asses are on the line. If the Government provided some of the videos then why are complaining that no documented evidence has been shown?
Again, testimony is quite fradulent without other evidence
Which is why I presented this documentary, to show there is documented evidence ALONG with testimonies (which is what you asked for). Your very own government officials have documented accounts of UFO activity. I don't care what you believe about testimonies, they are included as evidence, that is how they are defined.
You have failed to convince me here
While I wasn't exactly trying, that doesn't surprise me in the least.
Surprise surprise, whenever someone provided the evidence, as I already addressed, and again, it doesn't seem to support what others think, the entire portions of it that make it "alien like" are all details that can't even be confirmed, so.... that's a dead end until further research is developed, and I agree with the guy in the article there should be more scientific testing there, but simply yelling, "ITS AN ALIEN ITS AN ALIEN!!"
You have numerous people that witnessed alien bodies, they were recovered and removed from the public eye. You have no idea what the hell they did with those remains, and there was no further open study that was allowed to show what they actually were (besides the fact they were not human, otherwise there would have been no cover up). Put two and two together, there was a UFO that crashed, beings that WEREN'T human were recovered, what the hell do you think was the alternative outcome? only a real dumbass would not be able to identify humans as humans or an aircraft that was not of this world. Skepticism can only go so far before it just makes a person stupid.
I require more evidence to declare it true.
You state that s if you're the only one who thinks that.
whenever it comes to things they want to be true, conformation bias and all that.
Are you fcking kidding me? you think this has anything to do with what I want?? I'm still considering this as a possibility this has nothing to do with what I want. What an insult, do you have any idea how often I remove myself from the core of my own beliefs to follow evidence? how many Christians do you know of that would present evidence for aliens lol? Roderick might be the first that I personally know of. This has zero to do with what I want, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend there is no documented evidence and testimonies that show otherwise. By now you should have realized how open-minded I am, my beliefs are rare and my posts are unorthodox to say the least. I don't give a shit about what "I want", that has never been my motivation, not at anytime in my life. That has no influence on my decisions. I'm interested in things outside of my own knowledge and experience, now that is what gets me going. But as I've said before I'm not stupid either, I wouldn't have presented this if I thought there was good reason to just sweep it under the rug.
, if you had actual arguments here
What friggin arguments would you be looking for? you asked for documented evidence and I gave it to you. The only arguments I have in favor of this discussion would be from common sense, and I don't see you being open to pretty much anything at this point. Sorry.
instead you assume your conclusions to be true, and laugh off anyone who disagrees,
Again are you fcking kidding me? is this supposed to be a joke because you have no idea what you are saying. What conclusions have I assumed to be true? have we ever discussed this? if not, then why would you be making any assumptions? I'm not a close-minded little brat, so I'm willing to look at the evidence and make adjustments as to what I may have thought was true. If you had asked me about aliens five years ago I would have probably laughed, but I'm willing to incorporate such a thing into my worldview because of being open minded about it. It actually works believe it or not, and I've given it quite some thought along with judging the evidence.
its quite common in your little tactics
What tactics? I don't have an agenda, I don't have any motives other than sharing what I believe to be the case. I don't use tactics I use logic and evidence as a key factor.
and your framing has become apparantly deliberately manipulative, cutting out large swaths of context in order to make something seem worse than it is, that's pretty suspect to me.
WTF are you complaining about? I have no idea what you are going on about. But to sit there and try and frame me as someone who believes what I want or that I base my beliefs around confirmation bias makes you an ass. At first I thought maybe you were a bit more intellectually open than some of the others, but after reading through your responses more it seems you're just another biased, rigid brainwashed little prick. You need to grow up some, you really have no place in a forum tailored to spiritual discussions or anything outside the realm of atheism. We need folks willing to follow logic, evidence, commonsense and those who have no bias and preconceived ideas. You're a dime a dozen, get in line and don't accuse me or project on me I'm a guy who has no care in the world about the way I want things to be. That's never been the life I've lived or the path I've taken. If you believe I'm being manipulative in any of our discussions you are a poor judge of character, I won't even bother engaging you anymore.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I have no idea what you're talking about, I have no knowledge of an UFO documentation, because no valid documentation exists.
There's tons of documentation for this subject, the one above has some pretty good information to get your foot in the door. The problem... is that if it's a phenomenon trying to be covered up or suppressed then there's going to be some controversy surrounding it. The bottom line is that there is plenty of evidence. Watch this whole documentary without the assumption people are nuts and or lying. Since you have an issue with testimonies you're probably going to fluff off most of the video but at some point you should consider most decent people just want to tell the truth.
Give your sources or let the claim be unproven
When have you looked? what have you done to evaluate the subject? there's tons of information and sources you could investigate, then again you're distaste for other witnesses will make this very hard to accept. However, this goes beyond just people's testimonies of actually witnessing UFO's.
Our US air force is in control of most of the events/sightings as they are the source that has the most observation of what comes in contact within our atmosphere and they are the same source that has the say whether or not it is disclosed. But there are those who have had access to this information who have come forward. Beyond that, it's just your average Joe who may see something in the air, maybe report it and then they are most likely mocked and told they are "frauds". Sure, there's going to be some idiot that develops a fakery here and there but you should look much more into it.
, again, I have never heard of whatever you're talking about. Now, people have sent in doctored videos claiming that the sources are offical, and the fraud has always been discovered false
This is where it seems you don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know there is credible documented evidence that shows they might exist, then you claim they are all false lol. Wow.
but again, aliens would not be "unnatural", we have no current evidence of intelligent et life, but it wouldn't be unnatural if it did exist.
This I agree with. Although I certainly believe in spiritual entities, which are spirit beings...."aliens" are beings still within the physical universe. Just in different parts of our universe.
Created:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
I get what he's saying, and all this is over a simple misconception about the Genesis creation account. The whole "6000" year old earth is not a Biblical record, it's an unnecessary assumption and yes it's the fault of religious proponents who endorse it and challenge unbiased scientific studies. That side of it is an embarrassment because it makes it appear the religious are in opposition to science or facts when that is not the case about every Theist. That includes people like me that have to constantly defend a strawman unbelievers always stick in my face.
It's really annoying when the person I'm conversing with assumes I believe that the earth is 6000 years old and that I'm some anti-science guy. It's a joke. Whoever started this whole ridiculous idea needed a good spanking. If the Catholic Church had anything to do with it that whole system needs to be overthrown anyways and trashed, as they are the primary reasons the teachings of Jesus became so twisted and distorted from what was to be a beautiful thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm curious as to the thoughts on atheists on this subject.
Lol, you should probably pretty much guess what an atheist is going to believe about this sort of topic. It's certainly not going to be anything productive or open-minded...
I never practiced the art,
The term itself is not one thing or another, or synonymous with any particular branch of spirituality/religion though at the same time can be applied to ANY specific belief system because the term is contingent on participation and then observation which is interfacing with a reality that correlates with that which exists beyond the immediate physical world. Mysticism, clairvoyance, spiritual practices and or abilities are available to any spiritual participant whether that's Christianity or any other religious practice.
It could be argued that Jesus was certainly a Mystic, certainly clairvoyant and certainly had spiritual abilities one could label "magic". The OT prophets were certainly into spiritism/mysticism and the like....There's somewhat of a misconception or this idea that supernatural ability belongs to witchcraft or dark forces but that's most certainly not so.
There's more occult activities and supernatural practices in the Bible than any other book. I was always prone to clairvoyance even as a young kid, and I was very interested in that side of the Bible with being able to observe spiritual beings, having visions, laying on of hands, spiritual gifts, fasting, intersession, tongues, prophesies ect ect so it was very clear to me that Christianity was not just about beliefs but certainly about interfacing with that reality from application and observation. At least that's how I always saw it.
As a matter of fact that's one of the things that began to turn me off about the general organized church system is that it always seemed so dead to me, in other words not alive and active and I never understood that because my relationship with God was very active.
In terms of interaction with spiritual forces, that doesn't just apply to the dark side, not in any stretch of the imagination. So it's kind of funny these terms are considered heretic by any Bible follower, or maybe they just believe that spiritual ability and observations just apply to those characters in the Bible which I find absolutely hilarious. That reminds me of the Baptists who assume spiritual gifts no longer apply to God's people lol. And anyone who happens to have clairvoyant abilities are considered demonic, how very unfortunate that is because IMO Christianity should be the forerunner of all spiritual power and force, which includes spiritual gifts and abilities. Perhaps that will come back in full operation but right now the Church is in many ways dead. It's all about the politics instead of the active spiritual force that it is, and many unbelievers want to observe something real! Jesus was the perfect example in bringing an active relationship to this planet with maximum abilities and what did He say? that we would do the same and yet greater?? what happened with that??
Sorry to ramble there, this topic is an interesting thing for me so I'm glad you brought it up.
Created:
-->
@Wagyu
One difficulty with taking such "revelatory" experiences at face value is that they're not restricted to one faith.
That is exactly the point I was making, what I wrote was intended to show you how that's possible. Read that again, this time without the assumption I was supporting any particular religious conception of God. Some of you posters here have serious comprehension issues. It makes it near impossible to have any sort of intelligent dialogue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Just trying to elaborate some here, so you have clear idea of what is going on. Awareness exists as it is completely independent of any other components so that no matter where you are, you are still there. You can't go anywhere or lose any body and not exist anymore...that's not how this works unfortunately.
Once God desired to send your soul into creation apart from Itself to experience life, God wrapped your conscious soul in layers to confine you to locations in creation. These layers include the etheric layer (intuition), the mental layer (mental), the causal layer (memory), the astral layer (emotion) and finally you were given a physical body (senses/physical perception).
As you leave each layer of form or covering you are present within that corresponding plane of existence. Yes, that means there are several parallel layers of existence cut out as individual universes which are known as the multiverse hypothesis. These preceding worlds are known as the afterlife, the spiritual domains but they are just parallel worlds. So that means that there is an etheric universe, a purely mental universe, a causal plane, an astral dimension and finally a physical universe which is the outermost layer.
If you were to leave each layer starting with the physical you would literally experience everything you thought was forwardly orderly, as reverse lol, materialists have it all azz backwards, it starts with consciousness, then to the mind, then to the emotions and finally to the physical experience sense perception. You would start with the physical experience and observe preceding levels in order as I presented them. This renders the physical layer as the least consequential in the reality of what you are.
As you are present within one of these corresponding universes outside the physical layer the dynamics of what you can experience is dramatically different because the laws of physics change, each layer is less restricted by the restraints of physical laws because of the properties of what makes up your external experiences. This is why when souls leave the physical body they report themselves as "floating" or hovering, that's due to the lightness of the spirit body. When you get to the mental worlds, you literally experience everything through thought without having the limits of the physical and astral body. You do suffer the limits and consequence of the mind though, which is why you can't enter these worlds until one learns the destructive nature of the mind and thoughts.
The fun part is when you get to the pure conscious realms, even these are independent of the mind and you experience everything by intuition alone. Your experience becomes created through dream-like qualities, which is wonderfully creative and blissful yet also very dangerous. Only souls who have learned complete discipline and control can enter such realms of existence.
Anyway, before I get too far into this just consider that the order in which you perceive to be the order in which you exist, is actually the opposite. It should instinctively resonate with you if you set aside your preconceived ideas. Creation can get really fun, but the physical world is but a flick in time compared to what you will experience on your journey.
And yes, that means that your spirit body, your astral body will exist much longer than the physical body due to the ratio of matter vs prana. Which is cool because the astral world, which most souls think is heaven, is astoundingly beautiful and far less inhibiting. The planets that exist in the afterlife and the places within them are unimaginably wonderful.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
.Definitely no floaty about bloke that looks like Gandalf..
Lol, the conceptions of what God is is lost in the misconceptions of incarnated Beings. I'm assuming you're talking about spirit bodies. Anything that takes on form within creation is a created thing whether it is a human or some spiritual entity. Consciousness independent of form obviously has no form, so consciousness exists outside of form just like energy. Energy exists within form and independent of form, consciousness is the same only it reflects self-awareness whereas energy is inanimate.
Spirit bodies are not the soul itself, when you leave this world you will be present within your spirit body which is also called the subtle body. This body still confines you to the after life, but it's not your consciousness (or soul). Your forms within creation are what you are observing through to have a point of reference that you are somewhere within a created world.
If you left creation entirely you would still be conscious but you would have no point of reference in existing somewhere, you would simply just be self aware. This is the state of being in which the fulness of God exists as. When someone or some piece of literature expresses God in form, that's an incarnation, as in God existing within a bodily vessel. These types of Beings can have many different looks and have many different expressions.
In order for God to confine your soul to creation, God must cover the soul and reduce your experience to points within a created realm. And God does this by covering you in layers of form or embodiments...When you leave this level of existence you will be present within the next parallel world where you will have a corresponding form that becomes your point of reference.
Your spirit body is made up of atoms that exist as much higher frequencies of vibrational states, and the ratio of mass is far less dense to the point where it has a transparent quality to it and virtually evades the human sight perception. These bodies are much lighter due to the difference in vibrational qualities (so they do in fact "float" or seemingly float), they call this form the spirit, or subtle body (look up that term)...
A soul must have a form or a body to be confined to places in creation, but it does in fact exist independent of anything developed or created within the created realms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So, self awareness relative to what?
Relative to its surroundings (within creation), or simply itself (within God). Self awareness is an observation either within creation or as its own awareness or point of observing. Consciousness is your observation point whether you exist within the body or independent of that body. Consciousness is neither created nor destroyed (only manipulated/reduced/confined) so you will always be self aware no matter where you go or what body you inhabit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I said to Mr ETRNL....And so are you saying that a body is a vehicle for a soul.....Rather than ones body being the vehicle for ones soul.
A body is a vehicle for a soul, a soul can exist as it is without the physical body.
This seems to render the self as irrelevant....An inconsequential existence, as if ones gathering of life experiences is meaningless.
Does not follow, either that or I don't know what you're getting at.
In fairness, I do understand where you are coming from....And I do run with the idea of residual energy or data left over as the body is rendered to it's component parts, and I can see also how this might serve a universal or evolutionary purpose.
No, the soul exists as it is, that is as a being who experiences, observes and reacts to its surroundings. Your soul is not the residue of what you are now lol, you will be you when you leave the body. You're still holding onto the materialistic idea of consciousness, I'm talking about something entirely different. Maybe reread what I wrote.
I can also run with a HEAVEN principle as a collection point for the above...And as I have stated for along time I run with the notion of a GOD principle as an ultimate evolutionary goal.
Evolution as a process (the formation of the vehicles for the soul) is entirely distinct from the existence of God and the soul. I can elaborate on it more but you're going to have to ditch the preconceived notions and trust I know what I'm talking about.
In these respects, I can see that the self would be irrelevant and the body would be purely a vehicle for a soul in the form of residual energy or data.
Again, this is not residual energy and the brain does not create anything, it's simply a conduit for the energetic presence of the soul...which exists independent of the physical components. It's a vehicle (the material body), do you exist independent of your vehicle? same concept easy to grasp. Your vehicle is simply the tool you use to navigate this world, when you leave this world you leave behind that vehicle but you still exist as who you are.
But I must stress...Definitely no floaty about bloke that looks like Gandalf...And the bible is still, just a naive fantasy version of the the same old hypothesis....That is to say, creation and evolution with a purpose.
As long as you hang on to your fantasies about what consciousness is you might as well not ask questions about the soul, unless you're truly ready to investigate it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
And I like to point out that DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM.
I know why you're saying that but it is contradictory. I disagree with that but I'm not up to arguing over what atheism entails anymore lol. Two totally contrasting definitions of meaning to begin with. A Deist is specifically one who accepts the existence of a Supreme Being, the other does not. I like simplicity. I get that someone who rejects the conception of a particular religious idea about God but not the concept of God on it's own would be considered an "atheist" of that particular conception but if we stick to the immediate articulations of the terms they are in contrast to one another, so there is a distinction. If you disagree with that then fine, make your argument but I'm not responding to it ;D
Created: