Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think it's the arrogant surety
It's not arrogant to be confident in the premise put forward. My surety is expressed through years of experience, observation and logic. At this point in my life there's no real room for any doubts, it would be silly for me to be unsure about something so well grounded. That does not mean I'm not a skeptic, don't make any mistake about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Start by demonstrating this to be the case
Demonstrate it for yourself, it is commonsense. It doesn't need to be demonstrated for you, that's how logic works.
A little humility and I probably wouldn't be bothered!
I'm only reacting to the arraogance of the poster, I have no problem with humility. Of course, I've been dealing with Zed for awhile so all this has already been gone over. So yeah, I get annoyed when I spend the time with someone in all aspects of their inquiries just to be ignored and the same nonsense repeated. This was not intended for you in other words.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Check out some of the links and rationale I posted in my original post if you're interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Am I obligated, but by point of law, to justify anything to anyone?
No, but if you wish to make a meaningful point in this topic you should consider what it is you're doing and why, or by what intentions.
I agree, fruits and vegetables have mighty good taste, which is the whole purpose of your invitation to me to join you in a vegetarian meal that, to quote you, "will knock your socks off." That is accomplished by taste, yeah? I rest my taste case as justification. To me.
No, my point is to first show what is fit for human anatomy/health and then to show how diverse and wonderful that source of food is. Meat heads usually assume a frugivore or vegetarians choice of foods are lacking. That isn't true at all.
Lining me and family up at a slaughter house would not change my opinion of a preference for an omnivorous diet. It may kill us, but isn't that murder? Flagrantly condescending argument.
I'm making the case for the animals that are butchered because you enjoy the taste of their flesh. Your comment that alluded you wouldn't care ("If some other species wants to eat e, so be it") if a superior creature decided it wanted you for lunch is BS.
Should any argument in which a difference of opinion relative to what one eats work in anyone's favor but the eater? Hell, I won't eat "anything." Milk chocolate, for example, is intolerable. To me.
That's because milk and chocolate aren't fit for human consumption. Your natural food source will always be your healthiest choice if you wish to live long and have vitality and great health and that source will always first be raw fruits and vegetables. Doesn't mean you can't eat them (milk and processed chocolate) of course, but there are consequences. Have you ever notice that nature mostly follows it's natural food sources? man should be no different. Cows milk is for cow babies not humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Eskimo culture evolved around what was available, and that didn't include a lot of fruit and nuts, and health and life expectancy were what they were. Eskimo's were driven by the necessity of survival and not by a constructed morality.
You missed the point here, which was....is the consumption of dead animal flesh designed for the human anatomy not whether man migrated to cold climates and was forced to adapt to it. Keep up. What follows then, is it necessary for you to be a meathead in your culture, and it is moral for you to allow the mass slaughter of creatures to fill your belly.
You live in a comfortable environment where you can afford to construct moral concepts, but not everyone chooses to adopt your personally assumed morality.
I'm discussing health and the anatomy of humans, I'm not making a moral argument with this content. Though the moral argument is relevant each person will have to figure that out for themselves.
First we should establish whether or not eating dead animals is fit for human vitality, not whether has man adapted to it.
And Chimpanzees love a bit of Red Colobus Monkey, brains first....No morality available.
That's aggressive behavior, monkeys, apes and gorillas are classified as frugivores/vegetarians. That's what our anatomy mostly resembles. Having said that, if you've ever watched chimpanzees chase down, capture and rip apart another monkey piece by piece it should paint a very savage picture for ya.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And there is no sound argument for theism either.
The universe exists through a succession of processes that bring about intended results, processes are associated with intelligence as it requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process to understand how the process should work and what is needed for that production. Inanimate materials have no ability to think, formulate a process or understand a desired outcome which requires a mind and awareness. Thought and intelligence are required to know how a process should unfold, a mind is required to understand how to make that work and what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be. Therefore an intelligent Agent (AKA God) is necessary for the evolution, construction, arrangement and formation of our universe.
How's that?
Though the theist does need to provide unequivocal evidence, whereas the atheist just needs to rest on their laurels until such times, when the theist can provide unequivocal evidence.
Lol what a joke, the Theist already figured out the truth using their brains, commonsense and evaluating the evidence and so the atheist sits back and waits for what precisely? should we give you brains and spoon feed you commonsense? the evidence has already been laid out, all the indicators are there. An Atheist can conclude the same premise the same way a Theist can given that they understand correlation, how evidence is defined, inference and have access to commonsense. You're making us do all the work because why, you're lazy-minded?
sceptical about the likelihood of fantasy worlds
You like to use such words to make your inferior worldview seem more plausible, but it doesn't.
mythological and supernatural hypotheses.
No mythological means necessary for such a hypothesis. You do need a brain though.
The onus rests wholly upon theists to prove their truth claims, with fact rather than with fiction.
Once again you have no way of determining what is fact or fiction about God, and because of your impenetrable pile of conditioned internal data no truth or facts could ever pass through even if they were presented. Basically you're screwed lol.
Me personally, would be just as happy with either an existent god or no god. It wouldn't make much difference if any at all, to day to day reality. Other than we would have to find something else to disagree about.
Then you haven't weighed and considered the implications for each worldview. They are night and day with enormous differences, this only shows me your limited capacity to think and elaborate on concepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Taste doesn't justify?
Not at all, at least not in regards to the question being asked. And as I pointed out above, personal tastes and preferences can support really bad habits.
In my republic, it does. Sorry about yours.
In my republic all the little animal parts you need are readily available through the mass slaughter of all the creatures flesh you wish to consume.
Yes, other places do have a variety of food sources. I've tried them in over 30 countries, including insects. Don't knock if you haven't tried it.
I'm not really "knocking" anything but I am contributing to the topic at hand with my educated opinion. I was an avid meat eater as well.
Besides, since rice paddies emit methane, as do all natural and cultivated wetlands, plus lakes, rivers, and oceans, and at a greater volume than cow farts, let's just leave it at this: you can have your rice, but leave my steak alone.Yes, to each their own morality. Leave it at that, too.
Seriously "rice patties" lol, have you never heard of fruits and vegetables?? you need to get out more or perhaps come on over to my house where I can make you some real food and some dishes that will knock your socks off. And guess what? none of them will include dead animal parts. You won't even realize you're missing your precious steak. But sure, I'm not here to take your meat.
If some other species wants to eat e, so be it.
You can say this here, but lets line up you and your family in front of a slaughter house and then we will talk.
I have been where I am no longer at the top of the food chain, in a Thai jungle with nothing of protection other than a good blade at my hip, and my wits. Sobering. But survivable.
I'm no one's mommas boy so don't lecture me about survival.
Until you have been at risk of your life by another species, you don't know what risk is.
You bring up a good point. It's not working in your favor though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
We are physiologically omnivorous
Actually physiologically we are much more like primates or gorillas. (Frugivores).
so the consumption of meat protein within a varied diet was obviously how our digestive system developed....
It's not a question whether homo sapiens adapted to eating meat, rather are humans designed to take down animals and digest dead animal flesh. And even better, is it truly necessary and healthy. I've put some good information and links in my first post but it seems no one bothered to read them.
The question is was man originally a tropical species where he yielded crops and picked fruits from trees. As man migrated he was forced to adapt to eating alternative sources due to the climates. A religious Joe could argue the Garden of Eden was a tropical zone where he was created to eat fruits and plant matter. But I'd rather not go there because it's not really needed to make the point I've made.
Back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the supermarket and pick up a pack of synthesised veggie protein....
Let's get something straight, back in the day you couldn't just pop down to the local supermarket and buy a nice little package of pre-slaughtered meat someone was kind enough to mass butcher for you. However, humans have always had access to farmland, veggies and fruits and where they weren't available is where man had to begin to kill animals to survive. In my links above they question whether or not dead animal meat is suitable for mans health.
I personally no longer eat meant, and I don't look for alternative protein sources I simply eat fruits and veggies as most of my diet and whatever else I feel like eating. The difference in health and stamina aren't comparable and since I used to be a meat eater I can say this from experience.
Back in the day you ate what was available, and if you didn't, you didn't survive for long (not that you survived for long anyway).
That's right, and take a good look at the life span of an Eskimo where the diet is primarily dead animal meat. And while you're at it, take a look at my post where I compare the lifespan of certain animals.
The "modern" supermarket is more driven to pander and pacify meat eaters than farm based food eaters by a long shot with all your packaged products of processed meats and TV dinners, hot dogs, thinly sliced animal tissue and all the little animal parts you think you need to survive lol.
The modern moral argument is simply the modern moral argument...Simply because some people can comfortably afford to be modernly moralistic.
Whatever this is supposed to mean, but it comes across as meat-headed. There is no "modern" moral argument and there doesn't need to be one, man has been foraging and eating fruits for as long as man has existed, there's always been non-meat eaters. Either someone feels disgusted by eating another creatures flesh, cells and blood or they don't. But as you always say, have they been conditioned to such a practice where being convicted by it is not even a thought?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Do you agree that a being that can convince X people is greater than one that can convince X - 1 people?
In relation to what I said above....what if part of the beauty was in discovering God, kind of like being surprised or opening an awaited gift...what if that anticipation (element of surprise) was what makes the discovery more unique? rather than such knowledge being automatically known by everyone to no real avail?
To "seek" God implies that you desire God, and to "find" God implies that you sought after such a Being and such a Being exists.
If we're going by the Bible....
Matthew 7
7 “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
Matthew 6
33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
in the context of the MGB, a being is greater than another if it can convince more people of its existence.Since the MGB is the "Maximally Great Being", it would have to convince the maximum number of beings of its existence.
This would imply that the objective is to convince people of the existence of a MGB, rather than the objective of the person to discover or yet even the intent of the person to want to discover such a Being. If no such objective exists then the point is moot of course and this is what happens when we begin to force objectives, terms and attributes on something where they have no real place in reality.
If a person has no interested in discovering the existence of a MGB and all that pertains to such an interest (spirituality) trying to convince people becomes a futile exercise of such a great Being. So, rather a MGB would want to confirm It's existence with those who desire such a relation and is then worth pursuing.
I would make the suggestion that there's enough clues and sufficient evidence to warrant such an interest and would also show why it seems only Theists (those who desire to know) have various experiences with such a Being.
However, assuming there's people who might want to know but upon knowing have no real desire to connect with spirituality or a MGB the same would apply because "knowing" would also be futile without the desire to want what follows with such knowledge. What's the point in being "convinced" without a desire to extend beyond just head knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Interesting. I've never actually considered the possible ramifications of God lacking omniscience (as I thought God's omniscience is commonly accepted amongst Christians). You certainly do make some credible points. I'll have to look into it further.
Thanks, yeah TBH God doesn't have to be omniscient, those are just made up terms and often times confuses people. It's not really lacking, only in terms of what we assert about God but God is not really lacking anything. God indeed is a maximal being but again these are just attributes we little earthlings like to force on God. God knows as much as can be known and God can do anything that can be done, God will always be God to us no matter what we believe God is lacking, the Creator is under no obligation to meet our requirements and standards.
If I had to evaluate each of the "Omni's" I would say God being omnipresent is probably the most accurate depiction, the rest are baloney.
Also, seeing as you believe the bible has faults, what would you say to those who adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or even the doctrine of Prima Scriptura?
I think it's cute but it gets in the way of reality, when people box themselves in with concepts like these they lose sight of the details and the facts. The scripture is a compilation of many different aspects and perfection is just not in the cards, it was written and recorded by fallible men living within imperfect cultures, ways of life and opinions and much of it reflects the age and culture of the time period they lived in.
There are things within scripture that are perfect and there are things within scripture that are imperfect.... there are things within the Bible that are useful and there are things that can be discarded. Learning to distinguish what is useful in scripture and accepting what can be discarded plays a big role in intellectual honesty and integrity and believing the Bible is a big perfect book is silly and immature. Often times it leaves people having to justify things within the Bible that simply don't need to be justified and no one is forcing anyone to accept that the Bible has to be perfect and if they don't they're somehow a heretic or an unbeliever that is nonsense.
I've been reading the Bible on my own accord since I was a young kid, I've been applying all things applicable since I was a kid and so I'm not condemning the Bible I think it's beautiful in many ways and many times you'll see me defend its contents when there is good reason to defend it. If anyone in this forum deserves to be labeled a Bible thumper it is me, I've put the time in and paid my dues but I'm not going to sit here and claim it's perfect and everything within it needs to be accepted as God's perfect word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Morality? Is that a joke?
Depends on how an individual looks at it, and do they see eating dead animals as an essential or not and is it immoral to slaughter animals to fill your belly because you like it. So to some it can be a moral concern.
After all, perhaps a more advanced species could come along and begin to butcher humans because they like the taste of your thigh meat and juicy heart and they feel no remorse because you're half the species they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I have incisors and canine teeth, both of which are essential in tearing flesh
You also have a round hard cranium, do you knock over bowling pins with your head?
I like the taste of meat.
That hardly justifies anything. However I wouldn't argue you need to justify eating dead animal flesh, rather is it essential or harmful. And have you truly educated yourself on the matter. Personal tastes and preferences rarely dictate anything other than form your habits whether they are good or bad....there's plenty of weird preferences in this world in case you haven't noticed lol. Some of which come with a stiff price to pay.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Does God care about everyone equally?
All souls come from the same exact Source, there is no other Source out of which souls originate. So I think that's a pretty easy answer. God doesn't create souls in a care-less manner.
It's not like souls just appear from some alternative source and then God judges them lol, no, all souls come from the heart of God as a unique expression of God's creativity. There's nothing outside of that Reality, nothing can be said to be distinct from the origins of God in other words.
Having said that, souls do develop their own individual perceptions through experiences and desires which creates unique personality types through the dynamics and creativity of the imagination. The pressures and trials of creation play a huge role in what the soul chooses to become. Essentially a soul becomes a co-creator in God's creation and God is pleased by this unique development as a means to obtain fresh observations or experiences. We've all seen the movie Frankenstein lol, where the mad scientist attempts to create this creature and it begins to develop attributes and qualities according to its experiences and reactions of life.
God is very much like the Mad Scientist that creates souls that take on their own personalities in creation.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Let's deduce your problem of RUNNING AWAY from your BIBLE STUPID POSTS down to its irreducible primary, okay? You will be BIBLE STUPID
Are you (Bible) STUPID, or just another obsessed (Bible) CRAZY person?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
@BrotherDThomas
How cute and sensitive, Brother Landover is going to place "Bible" before "stupid" every time he wishes to insult someone to avoid violating the COC lol! hilarious.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Trent0405
For starters we live in a culture where it's a normal custom to consume dead animal flesh so by the time you're old enough to walk most likely you've already been conditioned to it. So unless you've begun to somehow be convicted by it whether through alternative information or natural disgust there's no real concern to justify it, for most people it's simply a readily available "need".
I was the same way, I grew up eating dead animal tissue and was conditioned to believe it was a need, that I was somehow supposed to consume it to survive or be "healthy". The funny thing is, is that for a long time eating it grossed me out, especially if it had a lot of fat, gristle and cartilage however I enjoyed the taste so I continued eating meat until about a decade ago. Once I was educated in health and really began to contemplate what it was I was eating I could no longer stomach it. Now, I understand it is a myth that one has to consume it and the alternative food sources are of higher quality and far healthier. I'm not talking about fake meat either lol, or products that are being presented to substitute meat, I'm talking about alternative sources of protein or amino acids.
It's unanimous meat consumption is unhealthy, one can claim "well in moderation it's oaky" but even that in itself should alarm someone. In other words you can have little doses of such poison to where it doesn't kill you right off then it's okay!
Consumption of meat is associated with kidney failure, heart attacks, heart disease, inflammation, gastritis, colon cancer and a host of other ailments. It is acidic in nature, acids break down and deteriorate internal tissue they don't support tissue and cell health.
Meat s acidic as hell and very hard to digest, you don't even need a little bit of it. I don't consume meat anymore and it's been years, not only am I lighter....but faster, more energetic and overall very pleased and content without it. Heck , I can make just about everything I loved while eating meat without it, but even better and without being grossed out.
Did you know that dead animal meat putrefies before it leaves the human body? that the human gut has to break all that skin, tissue and cells down just to get to a little bit of "protein" you could have gotten from a cleaner source? the body is a machine and you don't want to burn dirty fuel, everything you consume there is a residual effect. They call that "ash" and you either eat something that leaves an acidic ash or an alkaline ash and the body doesn't want acidic ash foods because there are consequences. The body reacts/responds negatively (whether immediately or long term) to foreign substances and foods not in line with our natural sources of nutrition.
Every animal species has certain food sources it should comply with, and you see complications arise when that species alters that source. Just take a good look at the state of human health and look at medical and death statistics. Man really was never meant to suffer and be riddled with sickness of all kinds before he dies. These are the results of altered food sources believe it or not.
There's a big difference to the anatomy of say the cat family as opposed to humans and primates. Just looking at teeth structure and intestinal structure, cats eliminate meat from the gut much faster than humans due to the structure of that digestive system. Cats are also not associated with longevity and are notorious sleepers. That's because they need to rest long periods of time with such an acidic diet, the digestive periods are much longer.
The general lifespan of non-meat eating animals doubles that of meat eaters. For example the life span of a lion in the wild is an average of 10-15 years whereas primates (veggie and fruit eaters) live up to 40-50 years and even more impressive elephants up to 60-70 years. So you could imagine a human eating primarily meat would be a disaster, and plant based food sources are linked to longevity, health and vitality.
Power is also not just associated with eating meat (protein), as can be seen in horses, gorillas, rhinos, elephants ect ect and the power we see in big cats for example are more short bursts of adrenaline as opposed to the stamina of vegetarians and fruit eaters, a horse would be a great example of stamina.
The consumption of meat is more like an addiction or a stimulant for humans and when a person ceases to consume it they begin to withdraw from it, they feel weak and emaciated (at least for a time). This of course isn't because they "need" it it's because they stopped a habit the body became accustomed to or addicted to so the body is going through a state of crisis or detox. As the body adjusts it no longer needs that source of stimulation (as proven by myself and many others).
There's grounds to be argued that humans have had to adapt to eating meat according to where man migrated (from tropical zones to northern climates), but the true food source for humans was more tropical and jungle oriented. We're simply not equipped to naturally kill and digest animal flesh as can be seen in the anatomy of true meat eaters. So while man has adapted to eating alternative to fruits and veggies man has also paid a price for it as can be seen in his state of health globally.
Created:
-->
@Envisage
Again I have problems with the term "come to be".
It's pretty obvious there was a succession of events or processes that led to the current development of the universe, if there was a succession of events where the universe underwent a process of evolution there also was a point in time those processes began. In other words if we travel back in time there was a period where those processes had not yet began to take place. So technically (unless you wanted to be silly) we could say there was an "origin" (the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived) of those events, and if there was a point or place where those processes began or arose we could speculate or argue what that origin could be or what initiated those processes.
One of the things that might confuse people is using the words origin of the "universe" or origins of "existence" because you could argue perhaps the universe was always in a state of existence and that existence itself has no origin. But observing the things WITHIN the universe it's apparent what we currently observe was not there in the past and so it can't be argued or denied that there was a point at which events began to produce what we currently observe WITHIN the universe.
So perhaps it would be more accurate (for both parties involved) to ask "what are the origins of the developments within the universe" or better yet "how or why do processes occur within the universe". Basically the Theist is attempting to account for the development of our world experiences and what we observe within the universe. I argue that processes can be associated with intelligence and that inanimate forces may not have the capacity to produce intelligent results through such processes, that it takes a mind (intelligence) to understand and formulate a process and from a Theist point of view it's unavoidable there was agency involved bringing about the current state of the universe.
When we look at what these processes have produced including intelligent creatures and sentient beings, the end results appear to have intention and the processes themselves appear intelligent. Arrangements, sequences, patterns, order, structure, orchestrations, processes, construction, production, building ect ect can be associated with agency….the very development of this universe appears to be associated with intellect through thought or the products of awareness. The processes themselves and the forces involved act as if they are aware.
That is the basis of our inquiry, the grounds for our premise.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Zedvictor has become a compilation of conditioned ideas and thoughts, truth is just an abstract concept that is unable to penetrate his pile of internal data and objectivity is outside his scope of understanding. Why he visits a religion forum to repeat his empty mantras then is a mystery.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Is there a hell or just rebirth in your outlook?
Both, hells are prisons in the afterlife. It's the same concept we have here to keep criminal activity under at least some control. Souls that did wicked things here on Earth don't get to skip off into the sunset, there's many souls here so given over to evil they would simply commit the same crimes had they not been imprisoned, they carry that intent with them when they leave the body. Many serial killers are actually glad to be incarcerated because they admit they would kill again and again and so there are places for them to go to learn what they need to learn. But again, this concept that hell is designated for non-believers and atheists to be tortured for eternity by God is utter BS, that's where religion gets stupid and they need to be careful how they threaten others lest they be threatened with the same scenario.
Creation is driven by cause and effect not beliefs, and sentences in hell (astral prison) reflects the severity of crimes perpetrated.
Rebirth or reincarnation is of course an option that goes without saying. We rebirth every time we begin a new experience, many souls that either did not want to learn their lessons and adjust or just didn't care to know but weren't bad enough to spend time in some prison will most likely reincarnate from where they came. Once they progress in some way that's meant for their journey they move forward in creation to the higher realms. These higher realms are for higher advanced beings, one's that have much higher quality intentions, thoughts, motives and actions. So as you progress within creation you will notice the quality of souls drastically change.
Hells (prisons) in the afterlife are quite various as are heavens, if you study Buddhism they reveal there are levels to hell which makes sense because there are levels to crimes and various depths of evil related to souls. Basically a persons habitation corresponds with their deeds and mental states.
How exactly does afterlife work?
Once you leave the physical body you're present within the astral plane and as I pointed out above you'll be within another parallel universe full of galaxies and planets. From there you will have many options, and an individual is not always in control of those options just like we wouldn't give much freedom to an immature person neither will an immature soul get much freedom when they leave the body. So in that case they will have a few experiences and probably be taken through the Akashic Records and then be told what they must do and accomplish. They are rebirthed and wake up within a similar circumstance.
Souls that are advanced, did their time and were useful, helpful and enthusiastic about their world will get to inhabit a better planet according to their talents and what a particular planet needs. In other words you go where you're needed. A righteous devout Christian gets to go chill with Jesus (whom BTW is a magnificent Being), faithful Buddhists get to exist with their societies and cultures that extend beyond this one, same with Hindus and all else because there is a place for all of that within the multiverses. God wasn't that stupid to accommodate one culture, God is much more creative and in love with varieties as we are.
That doesn't mean all Christians go to the Kingdom, or that all Buddhists get to translate, or that all Native Americans get to be with their ancestors in higher planes not at all. This is all balanced between the laws of creation which again are Karma, sowing and reaping and cause and effect. These are factors that determine where the soul must go and what the soul needs to learn.
Higher entities that were sent to this earth to give the good news, to awaken people and to work with God while they were here get to create their own destinies, they are the Masters and true Masters have been through many processes and they are typically higher quality souls that care for others and what they need so these Masters hang around in the lower worlds for our benefit, even though they could be somewhere else. These guys are the types of souls that know how bad it would suck to come back to earth and possibly even be killed for their works and come anyways, they are the true bad azzes without any doubts.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Just to move things along here depending on which directions the interviewer wishes to take. This plays a big role in the observations and understanding of my "beliefs".
The multiverse theory or parallel universe proposition has been articulated and proposed through religious and spiritual sources long before it became an interest among physicists and scientists and indeed is a relevant concept and IMO everyone should be quite excited about it. It's also linked to the very construction and development of the soul itself from the Godhead all the way down to the physical layer, physical world.
It accounts for many aspects of religious propositions and experiences the natural world can't answer for including an array of spiritual experiences, encounters, NDE's and all spiritual phenomenon. It is through the multiverse verse reality that makes sense of how things work in religious concepts even though many religious sources either don't or can't elaborate on it. Nevertheless it fits within and accounts for every thesis of religious idea believe it or not.
There's many reasons why God constructed creation through layers and parallel worlds, besides the fact that you're dealing with an eternal creative Force that has more facets of imagination and creativity than anyone could conceive of. One of which pertains to the personal journey of the soul, this is where it becomes relevant to each and every one of us. What if you were to learn and discover that the physical world was actually just the very beginning of your journey as a soul? and among the least of all the extended worlds, the lowest part of your journey? and that this physical plane was not at all the end of you as a person or a soul?
You would be delighted to know that many, many souls have an observational basis to be able to present this concept as more than just a claim and that there is a place for all religious phenomenon (extended societies) as well as non-religious experiences. What if I told you that several of these parallel planes/universes were similar in structure as our own physical universe in that they all consist of an endless array of galaxies and planets, and that God's intentions is that the soul has access to virtually endless experiences? sound like sci-fi? even better because sci-fi films don't even scratch the surface to the extent of what exists. As a matter of fact experiences like NDE's 90% of the time only relate to the very next parallel dimension, and this is a place of unimaginable dynamics and beauty but not nearly the close of the chapter!
When God created you as a soul you left the Godhead as a seed like a baby to be sent into the first stages of creation. But in order that the Creator form you as an individual soul God had to cover you, isolate your soul and confine you to creation. Just like if you desired to separate a bit of water from an ocean you would have to of course encapsulate that water within a container to make it distinct from the ocean. God did this within several coverings not just one and each layer corresponds to each layer of creation or multiverse, this is so that as you leave say the physical world where your physical body corresponds to this physical plane you will be present in the next world with a body that corresponds to that plane of existence. This is so that as you leave each layer you are present within the next world so that you don't immediately return to your true Source. You're not meant to experience your true Source yet when you leave the physical layer so your experience must continue for quite some time.
This means that your embodiments are basically like a mask you wear or a cage you inhabit and you're looking through them. Your observational point is not actually these bodies, it's behind them or isolated within them but it's not who you really are the bodies namely confine you to each corresponding universe like electricity is harnessed and conducted/regulated by a circuit board. This also means that you have an outlet or vehicle to communicate between each layer, which accounts for the huge amounts of spiritual observations, experiences and encounters. And we see through NDE testimonies what one can observe outside the physical body.
The soul, as a seed leaves the Godhead and is sent into the womb at specific stages of development to become fixed within the nervous system and physical body and is confined to it until the death of that body, then the soul is released from the physical form and present within the astral plane where most people assume is "heaven". And indeed heavens exists but they (heaven) are actual planets, when you leave the physical body you could be present anywhere in that universe not just heaven depending on who you are.
The fun part is that the subtle bodies that precede the physical form are far less restricted, the atoms that make up your preceding layers vibrate and spin at much finer and higher frequencies and so the spirit bodies are much lighter, almost transparent in appearance. So even though you experience something within a hundred years here on earth your next embodiment can remain for eons due to the "lightness" and resilience of those subtle layers, as you exit even those forms the same is true, each layer has far less "mass" and becomes far less restricted. As you get to the very core of the soul it has no true embodiment and that inherently makes you one with God again, from where you originated as a seed that was covered. As long as you exist within creation or the multiverse you have a covering or embodiment, but the soul is eternal so look forward to your personal journey you aren't going anywhere anytime soon, you will simply translate from one world to the other.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
So where do you begin with morality?
Creation is driven by cause and effect and that includes at the natural level (natural world) and the moral level (mans intents and actions) and while the Creator establishes all things in creation it is man that upholds this balance of moral cause and effect. In this sense morality doesn't "need" to come from God because morality is left with man to uphold and determine which way he goes with it. Are there consequences for actions? yes, that is what is meant by cause and effect.
I don't base morality on Holy books, I base it on whether or not certain actions produce harm to either the self, others or nature and I believe we know when we are doing something that is causing harm. So actions can be negative, neutral or positive. Atheists have a hard time dealing with the claim Holy books or God are the source of all morals because they know they can lead a good life and know what it means to have high moral standards without either and that is true, the only issue becomes can an individual uphold those values and can they reach their full potential.
So I don't "need" God personally as a source for morality but I do need God to help me maximize the self and to assist with self control in the way I feel is most beneficial. So a person might not need a source like God to tell them what is right and wrong but they may need a higher Power to improve themselves or reach full potential.
How do you approach it, with regards to a starting point?
I personally look to God in all my quests to understand things that is my personal source but I don't need God to know right from wrong or how to lead a moral life. Rather I look to God to forgive my mistakes and help strengthen my weaknesses and reactions to certain circumstances. However, a non-believer might not have that outlook on life and so this is where cause and effect laws come into play and they aren't associated with personal desires, opinions and lifestyles they are associated with whether or not there is harm being done to the self, others or nature and in that scenario the person faces the consequences of such choices and actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
In every thread I can cite, you dodged questions, became vulgar and loud, and then ran away.
Ethang! good to see ya around...the loonies are getting too much free time and patting each other on the backs (pretending people are scared) because no one want to socialize with them due to their lack of intelligence, they delude themselves in their nonsensical posts. Don't be too hard on them, their a bit volatile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Number one I'm not a good proponent to keep within the fundamentalist sets of dogma within the Christian sphere. So if you want to battle this out with a purely Bible thumping believer that would be your Brother D.
I'm not the one to play these games with. However, I have a really good grasp on these scriptures because I have been studying them and applying them for a long time.
Having said that I could play the role of a fundamentalist because I see some holes in your conclusions.
To start with I don't think the first passage you quoted means God knows everything. It says His understanding is infinite, that's not the same thing IMO. There's a difference in the ability to understand something as opposed to having complete foreknowledge of everything that will happen.
One way I can show that God doesn't know everything using the Bible is the accounts of the OT. There's a passage that says God was grieved when Israel rebelled and forgot His covenant and actually this is the entire theme of the OT that His people continually grieved God's spirit.... in other words did the OPPOSITE of what God WANTED.
How could God be grieved if God had already known or planned for that to happen? how could they have done the opposite of what God wanted?
Psalm 78
When He slew them, then they sought Him;
And they returned and sought earnestly for God.
35 Then they remembered that God was their rock,
And the Most High God their Redeemer.
36 Nevertheless they flattered Him with their mouth,
And they lied to Him with their tongue;
37 For their heart was not steadfast with Him,
Nor were they faithful in His covenant.
38 But He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity,
And did not destroy them.
Yes, many a time He turned His anger away,
And did not stir up all His wrath;
39 For He remembered that they were but flesh,
A breath that passes away and does not come again.
40 How often they provoked[h] Him in the wilderness,
And grieved Him in the desert!
41 Yes, again and again they tempted God,
How could any of the above mean that God was omniscient? how could God get angry or disappointed knowing everything?
During the Noah's Ark account it is written that God was sorrowful (regretted) that he created man and that it grieved God's heart.
Genesis 6
"5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
So if you're assuming predestination how is it that God could be grieved at mans wrong doings and make a decision to wipe them out?
In James the first chapter it says this....
James 1
13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.
14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed.
15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.
16 Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren.
17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.
Again, this passage reveals Gods creation has their own will to choose.
So I'm going with God is NOT omniscient, and it's simply due to the way man is created. The nature of the creative imagination of man and the development of his perceptions are far too complex for even God to predict. This has no bearing on what God is of course, God doesn't need to control man like a Puppet Master to be God, or know everything man will choose, or predestinate mans choices to be God. It's a misconception, man becomes his own agent within creation and is subject to the laws and consequences of creation.
I don't care about whether or not God is omniscient it makes no real difference other than people get the wrong ideas about God. Now everything I said here all falls perfectly inline with mans salvation, there is no dilemma.
Having said all that we could also discuss God without using the Bible because the Bible isn't perfect either. It has errors and contains information that isn't useful.
A good way to perceive the God of the Bible anyways is to view His creation like having pets lol, He's in control of mans environment, mans world, mans provisions, mans surroundings but not mans decisions or destinies.
Kind of like when you have a pet, a dog or say a fish tank. You as the master (God) are in control of their environment completely, their housing, their food sources, temperature controls and all the little things they need to survive. So you take that pet and you place it within that environment and you can even predict what it might do in given circumstances, you know it might fight with certain other pets, you may know all these little things about them but the one thing you aren't in control over is their decisions, you might be able to predict some of the things they do but you didn't predestinate it. Once you place them in their environment they are free to act as they will, choose when and where they go therein and what they want when they want it. Your pet might even have bad or good predispositions but you didn't make it so.
All in all that pet views you as their God or Master despite the fact you have no real omniscience it doesn't negate the fact you are still their Master. God's creation is the same way, He can control everything within their environments but God doesn't predestinate what mans choices will be. And that's because God gifted man with his own mind, imagination and creative nature. Those are factors too complex to predict or foreknow.
God can predict certain things, but that's not the same as predestinate, two entirely different concepts. One is an understanding of something, the other means to control.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Alright cool, if you get bored in the future and are curious about anything we've discussed just pop back in. There's lots we could go over, heck we haven't even scratched the surface so I'll be here if you ever want to continue.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
When we sleep, where do we go?
You don't go anywhere, it's a state of consciousness but it's not your waking state of consciousness. This is a bit hard to articulate, but if you were to leave the physical body at night and look around at souls sleeping you would see their bodies laying on beds and you would also see there soul or spirit bodies hovering a little over their body. It's almost like a comatose state you aren't in complete control over.....Consciousness can take place of different levels of frequencies......due to the nature of consciousness being more like electricity or energy it can fit into any number of frequency ranges. When you dream, it's taking place at a specific range. it's a whole other experience altogether but it is not the waking state.
Oddly enough consciousness never "goes anywhere" lol, even though you think you are traveling around from place to place it's actually more like an arcade game, where you (the soul) is stationed or fixed and you watch the picture of the arcade game moving around and going from place to place but your consciousness isn't what is actually moving, kind of like looking through a mask in a way. I can get more into detail about this if you want, or if it doesn't make any sense to you.
Do you genuinely transfer our consciousness away? How about deep meditation and/or daydreaming where we truly forget where we are temporarily?
Consciousness is truly unlimited at one level it's just that your body is in the way, you could completely leave the physical body and traverse through the God worlds, they call this soul travel but again consciousness is stationary and I know that's a hard thing to grasp. Your conscious state is much faster than the movement of the physical body, when you're starving for example your consciousness has already figured out where it wants to go and what it wants to eat and if it weren't for the physical body you would be sitting in a restaurant and eating your meal as fast as you though about it. It's just being in a physical body you have to wait for it to get there.
When you meditate you are tapping into that part of yourself that has no real limitations, but remember you have to tango with not just the physical body but also four other layers. So to truly be able to freely conscious travel or soul travel you have to learn how to remove all obstacles. I'm going to try and keep these responses as short as I can because I could fill up a lot of space going into details but you're probably like me and have a short attention span reading someone else's material lol. Just let me know what direction you want to go with any of this.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In the case of energy, it can be measured in Joules and we observe that while things don't create it, they transfer it from one form to another.
Yes, you can measure energy but not that which precedes energy. Like I said it's like we are seeing the effects of conscious activity but can't measure it, however we can measure its effects (energy).
In the case of consciousness, how do you think consciousness arose?
Consciousness never arose, its a static Reality (backdrop) behind a moving picture play (creation/universe). Remember what I said about time.....?
At some point, there needs to be a place where everything stops which is why I dealt with the infinite regress problem. Perhaps go back and read that portion of my response, it ties into your question here.
Have you ever played with one of those old movie projectors? how you shine the picture play on a flat still wall? that's kinda analogous to what I'm getting at. Outside of the picture play time ceases to exist so the illusion of God having to have arose from something is a misconception. Like I said, if energy exists without being created then awareness exists without having been created, they co-exist.
One major issue I find with your theory is that while God's consciousness is said to always have been, how is it that you and I have our own unique experiences and consciousness where I can't feel your pain and you can't enjoy my pleasure in a conscious sense of the terms (not empathy based)?
While we are embodied we are separated and so are our immediate perceptions and observations. This of course is at the physical level, and four other levels (five levels of coverings). These are the levels that create us as individuals distinct from God and distinct from one another so you and I experience everything alone, just like God does even though we have the advantage of being in the company of other souls.
Now, this is not to say we can't communicate and share between us on a deeper conscious level, because consciousness has no real limits other than the bodies that confine and reduce our experience. But since you are first a conscious soul, we actually have access to that part of ourselves and if I wanted to I could tap into your consciousness (but I wouldn't want to freak you out lol). But we have our own unique experiences precisely because of our embodiments. These five covering are the physical layer (senses), astral (emotions), causal (memory), mental (mind) and etheric (intuition). These are the coverings God wraps around you to isolate you as a soul.
So apart from that to answer your question we inherently could meet on a purely conscious plane and communicate at much higher levels. But you have to be careful when you play those games. The only way we could do this is by letting go of those five layers of coverings.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
In the eyes of many scientists, your entire conscious reality and experience is 100% caused by your physical neural activity of the brain.
That's speculation and they would admit it, consciousness is still an open question in science so there is only a matter of opinions and observations here. The brain is nothing but a component, it's more like an electrical panel it doesn't create electricity it conducts it. The brain doesn't create consciousness, it's just a mass of flesh that conducts and confines your experience to a physical body. You come into the physical body as a soul, a being and during the processes of the womb you become fixed to the nervous system and the material form. Basically it's like being in a cage, once the physical body shuts down you are released from that embodiment.
But, it's a good analogy to conceptualize consciousness like electricity. The body, brain and all it's components simply conduct your experience, they don't create your consciousness. Look how electricity comes into your house conducted by the electrical panel.....operates all your appliances and equipment that need a power source. You can even hook an electrical meter to the panel and gauge activity and if you didn't know any better you would probably think that panel creates electricity simply because you can measure activity there lol, that's the same thing that happens in the scientific field and of course they have no way to measure what a soul is and where consciousness originates, they just see activity in the brain and speculate the brain creates consciousness.
This is why I use NDE's as a legit source to show normal perceptions through the conductor that is the brain, and that which is experienced outside of the physical body. When your fixed within the physical body all your perceptions are confined within that area, but during NDE's or death, your experience takes place outside that body and you can literal watch your self from away from the operations of the brain. That's because you exist independent of that body.
How would you suggest we approach this differently to identify the neurones as a result and not cause? Are they perhaps a catalyst/medium?
Exactly, again the brain is simply a conductor much like a component on a circuit board. What they see are the results of the conscious soul animating and powering the brain and body. Neurons firing don't create conscious beings lol, that's speculation of course. You could also compare consciousness to energy although electricity does the job well. Nothing creates energy either, but it exists within form right? well it also exists independent of form just like consciousness.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I am quite sure that this would imply to me that God at first was evil and truly merciless but over time gained a love for his/her/its creation and I deeply empathise with God's loneliness and boredom.
I'm not going to argue with your assessment (at least in my interview) just be sure you understand the terms you associate with God, it's not quite the same as you identify within individualized form where you are accustomed to having company within a dual environment. In a fixed state of existence where those things never exist boredom and loneliness aren't the same concepts really. Loneliness and boredom are associated with perception and emotions and limitations, weak psychological states of being...you lack those qualities where time ceases to exist and where no duality is present. If you were to become one with God, it would be more like rest, peace, surety, fearless, bliss...you have no one to bother you lol, kill you, no sickness, no such things as tired and sleeplessness, hunger, pain and all these feelings and needs created by the senses, mind and emotions within worlds you think you have no control over. Remember who God is, what that means...a King of its own environment. I could really elaborate more on this but for now just know that there are major factors you might not be aware of at first.
You have to have a thorough understanding of how creation is put together from the top down to where you experience such things as an individual in creation, in a little frail body in a huge unforgiving universe, basically it's not the same experience.
On the other hand God does need outlets due to the very expressive nature of consciousness, and you see Gods intentions and desires within creation. Yes, at one level I certainly sympathize with God...even though God's state of Being is not quite the same as mine it's a harsh reality in fact.....that alone exists. Actually we all exist alone on one level, we come here alone and we leave alone. We experience all our own observations and perceptions alone, we come from a Reality where we are singular in one state.
We can get deeper into this as we go on...
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you literally stating that if there were no conscious activity, electricity, light, sound, heat (thermal energy), kinetic energy and all other such forms wouldn't run?
Electricity, light, sound, heat, kinetic energy all have causes. Conscious awareness does not have a cause, it is the static backdrop of the stillness of eternity. I'm stating that nothing preceded consciousness, everything else had a cause.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Where does your God's morality come from? Does God care about everyone equally?
God's morality doesn't come from anything, in a unified singular Reality morality is nothing but a human concept relevant to creation. It's only relative where duality exists, because then you have cause and effect where they didn't exist prior in a singular Reality.
That's not to say God doesn't have thoughts of good and bad, or expressions of divinity, goodness and evil. It's just that they don't matter, because there's no opposites to bounce between. So those terms are irrelevant.
It would be more accurate to question what motives God has toward creation rather than attempting to define Gods morality. Because they mean nothing to a singular state of being. Imagine yourself existing entirely alone, no momma, no daddy, no brother, sister, friends, kids and no good guys vs bad guys....just one Being with no other sources. What then would morality mean to you? who could you articulate that to or express good and bad to?
So basically morality is only relevant to us in creation, where cause and effect exist and where we have the capability to create actions (cause) that have consequences (effects). Only within duality we have the ability to observe opposites and separation and opposing forces.
Does God then judge us morally wise? in one way yes and in one way no lol. Yes in the sense Karma exists precisely for the reason God knows within a dual environment there must be consequences, and God wants the individual soul to progress and learn from its mistakes. It's through pressure, trial and error that one can learn anything about themselves. So creation is driven both by cause and effect and the law of Karma, which is also cause and effect. Only you have a natural system and a moral system, and these systems create stabilization.
During the journey of the soul, that God watches and observes, all these factors play a role in the souls development. It is what gives the Creator pleasure, because God only has that experience through you.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
If God is energy itself
We could say that but it's not the most accurate depiction. God is consciousness (awareness) first, that is the backdrop at the furthest point where nothing precedes it. Now follow along because this should piece things together for all readers. It is the conscious ACTIVITY (vibrational movement) which generates energy. So even though consciousness barely precedes energy...energy is not created it is generated so essentially energy and God co-exist. Not that God is energy per say, but they co-exist. There can't be one without the other, due to the fact that energy is the effect of conscious activity. Remember both energy and God have the very same attributes, meaning they are both eternal, both omnipresent and both exist within form and independent of form.
This is where it gets very interesting, now God has a tool (energy) to manipulate to where using it makes it possible to bring things into existence even on a massive scale....this is where science is able to pick up the ball and reveal how these processes work. Now, every time you see energy act as an intelligent force it is precisely because there is an intelligence Source controlling it.
Just before the creation of the universe was this omnipresent field of consciousness which had no boundaries, simply just still awareness. This massive field of consciousness generated megatons of energy that no one could comprehend. We're talking about limitless space generating limitless energy. This energy was condensed, compressed and released and brought forth what science labels the Big bang.
God knew what this would do, by the flash speed and ignition of such great force it manifested new materials to utilize. Creating extreme sudden temperature change and fusion of chemistry which brought forth the elements we now observe. Now God begins the processes of isolating energy and nuclear fusion to birth stars which seed the planet continuously. This is when God gathers stars, forms planets, arranges solar systems and begins to focus on certain parts of the universe where life is soon to develop through the processes of evolution, and all this takes billions of years.
what then is space, time and mass/matter?
Space is simply the fabric/expanse of the universe, what areas are between objects. Science believes that it is unoccupied territory but really if you study quantum mechanics everything including the fabric of space is interconnected and while it may appear unoccupied awareness (and of course energy) are still present, only awareness cannot be detected by any physical medium, only the effects thereof. So while we can't pin point awareness we observe energy, what consciousness produces. It's like we're seeing the effect of conscious activity but don't know it. It's actually quite funny. Well, only funny because this is kept secret. I'm probably one a few people in this world (at least that I know of) who can articulate this.
Time is only relevant to matter so in essence it's simply an illusion. At the backdrop where only awareness is present it is a static Reality where there is no passing of time. Another secret....while God is eternal it's not relative to an endless linear time frame. Rather time ceases to exist so there really is no infinite past and never was, better put eternity is cyclical. We see our lives pass on a linear time scale because we are the moving picture play that rests on a unified fixed state of existence. What happens is matter itself is what is on a time scale, all that means is when matter appears it has an expiration date because it deteriorates, likewise whatever forms God brings into existence through the isolation of energy which creates forms through processes exists in a state of birth and death, but not a static Reality. In this scenario there is no problem of infinite regression because eternity existing as time is a misconception.
Would you say everything is fundamentally fields of energy? I think that Tesla was the person who first suggested that even time is somehow linked to energy and fields.
I don't really know what Tesla suggested but energy is everywhere, and everything is generated from the manipulation of energy. But it's not energy that is alive, it's awareness, which in turn USES energy. That's why you see energy operating like an intelligent source but more accurately it is just a tool. It in itself has no life, it's the awareness that precedes it that give it life.
There is nowhere where something exists where energy is not present, likewise there is nowhere where energy exists where awareness is not present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
What I'm tryin to get at, is to associate God with intelligence (possibly sentience) without associating God with religion. In other words religion doesn't own that conception, religions are just an interpretation of that Reality. So, do you see God as an intelligent Being or a Thing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Tesla and Einstein had tried to give one force that explains all phenomena, and the closest answer they have found is electromagnetism. I think God is just what they are trying to find, and once such force can be found, we have met god. If we are enough to manipulate it, we become god.
But there are some things to consider, and remember I'm not advocating or supporting religion. If the universe is capable of producing intelligent processes and intelligent beings, wouldn't it follow that God is also an intelligent source? if God is an intelligent source wouldn't that follow that God is also conscious, alive? if God is conscious and alive wouldn't that necessitate that God is being-like?
So, does electromagnetism really qualify as "God"?
I think there is good reason to speculate that the universe is constructed by an intelligent Source, I think that is a good starting point, would you agree?
Personally, it is either deism(God does not intervene with humanity), pantheism(God is the universe itself), and agnosticism(IDK).
Okay
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
God is just a force field
Like for example....is it conscious? is it intelligent? does it desire? does it have intentions? is it sentient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Fair enough, is there any qualities or description of this force field that qualify it to be described as "God"?
Created:
Posted in:
reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to establish the existence of a Supreme Being or creator of the universe.
This is true
Deism is the philosophical position that rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge
My question would be (and not that I disagree with it in some instances) how does this follow, why couldn't both work together would be my main thought here. In other words why would it have to be one or the other rather than both things being possible?
One doesn't need to be an advocate of religion to believe there is a Creator, but there is a connection between God and the soul that is unavoidable. And I'm not advocating religion to make that statement, but religious revelations exist because of that very factor. However that doesn't mean all proposed revelations are true either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
What do you think about Deism besides it's rational? do you have opinions or ideas about God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
Sure. Deism is rational as it deals with why the universe exists and accounts for how processes can occur, and we can conclude that without any religious claims or dogma. The only thing I find strange is the claim "does not intervene in the universe", I'm not sure I understand that completely or why it has to be so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
I can tell from your responses you aren't getting it at all, perhaps it is my fault.
Created:
Posted in:
Do you mean brain waves? Brain waves are what we detect from the electrochemical impulses of the brain. Higher frequencies mean higher brain activity. Abnormally high brain wave frequencies aren't associated with higher cognitive powers, however, and are instead indicative of stress, anxiety, and possibly hyperactivity disorders.
Lol, this is all analogous. No, I don't mean brain waves. I'm not talking about anything literal, though there is some truth behind this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
So basically, there's not just one thing that gives me confidence that God exists, or that supports my conception of God. It is a myriad of various factors that all intertwine and come together. Spiritual experiences (my own) and testimonies of others is only one of those factors.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Let me speed things up here a bit, my perception of this world and how I interpret it is the foundation or starting point of my confidence that a Creator exists. This stems all the way back to when I was barely old enough to walk. Let me put it to you this way and it's going to sound strange especially to an atheist lol. There was never a time I didn't believe in God, somehow I understood the concept even while I was in diapers. So I can't really give you any timeline or reason I went from not believing to being confident, rather my confidence continually progresses the more I perceive and the more I learn, the more I think about it all. The more I formulate my perceptions.
Having said that, I've have spiritual encounters over the years which solidified my thoughts about the world and how it got here. As I got older is when I began correlating my observations and interpretations with other sources and with other testimonies which lends evidence to my particular worldview. While I had understanding of God at a young age I of course didn't know how to fully articulate that, so as I began putting more pieces together is how I arrived at my current conception of God, which I shared in my OP. If you want to discuss more of that idea you'll have to further the interview and ask questions that pertain to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
1) How does a great number of reported supernatural experiences support your belief in an all-present consciousness you described at the beginning of this chat? Could another person look at the same body of evidence and come to a different conclusion about the divine?
It supports the fact that there is a transcendent reality. I only correlated this type of evidence for the proposition that the soul exists independent of the physical body, or that spiritual beings exist. However that IS a Theistic proposition to begin with, but it's not an argument necessarily for the description I gave of God. We went off track from that when I made reference to spiritual experiences I've had.
2) If you were to lose confidence in the veracity of these supernatural claims, how would that affect your belief confidence?
I already said in one of the posts above that these are not the reason I believe in God, I'm using them for you (as an unbeliever) to see there is evidence for supernatural claims. My confidence in God started way before I started researching evidence for NDE's and the paranormal. You gotta keep up bro lol, we need to tread some new grounds here soon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Please clarify what the "frequencies of Earth" and the "human range of frequencies" are.
Well they are the range of frequencies occurring in our world, lets say our (human) frequencies occur at a specific range and the alternative ranges occurring are at higher frequency ranges. Thus the hypothetical equipment is picking up ranges that are occurring distinct from ours.
Ranges of frequencies are being used to describe our activity, like lets say for example every time you think, act or say something it produces a vibrational frequency that can be detected. If it helps at all, we could say "pitch", like detecting various levels of pitches on a scale from lowest to highest. Our pitches produced occur on the lower end of the scale and anything unassociated with that range is something entirely different.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Could you explain what NDEs and OBEs are?
Just to elaborate a bit more, an NDE (near death experience) is basically when a person has had some type of accident or ailment and the body basically loses its normal functions and becomes clinically "dead". Meaning the heart stops beating and the brain shuts down. So after this takes place an NDE basically describes what a person experiences after physical death but because of one thing or another the person has regained consciousness and are able to relay what they observed after that moment. Obviously had they fully crossed over to the other side it wouldn't be called "near" death, so these are accounts and testimonies of what they saw and went through from the time they left their body and then were able to come back.
Interestingly these aren't religious people so there is no motivation to sell any particular ideas, it's just people who have experienced life after death.
OBE's (out of body experience) are basically the same concept except that there wasn't a death involved, somehow leaving the physical body was induced by another means.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yeah, I was attempting to use this analogy to portray that there is a tangible range of communication within spirituality that eludes the immediate physical sense perceptions and how it could work. Whether or not frequencies are the most accurate description regardless it is something an individual can observe, experience, feel or discern in one way or another. This range of communication varies greatly nevertheless is still very much effective, that is between the participant and the Creator and using the analogy of us being "receptors" it paints a pretty clear picture that there indeed may be an interrelated tangible method of receiving that the average person never thought about. It isn't just limited to the Creator either, this includes everything that exists outside the physical domain and there are gateways to transmit information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
"Across thousands of years and in cultures around the world, people have described powerful experiences"
"An NDE may begin with an out-of-body experience—a very clear perception of being somehow separate from one’s physical body, possibly even hovering nearby and watching events going on around the body."
"No scientific explanation so far has satisfactorily accounted for all aspects of NDEs or their effects."
"Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by an estimated 200,000 Americans a year, and studies around the world suggest NDEs are a common human experience."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
A new study of 2,000 people found that most people have a stronger connection to the paranormal than one might think - 60 percent of those studied felt they had seen a ghost in their lifetime.
Created:
Posted in:
"According to the survey, a whopping 60% of people believe that they have seen a ghost."
Created: