Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
- Could you explain what NDEs and OBEs are?
They are an example of the literal soul leaving the physical body. Under normal operations the individual perceives everything through the confines of their body....experiences within the body are perceived through the perceptions conducted by the brain. During NDE's (soul released from the physical body) the observers experience leaving the body and are able to effectively communicate what they observe up to hours after brain death. Their experience takes place outside the confines of the brain and body (away from). This supports the Theistic proposition that the soul exists independent of the material body.
Can you provide a specific example in which you experienced one of these things? Or, if you prefer, could you share an instance of one of these things occurring to someone else?
I can send you a link where there are countless testimonies recorded on a program that shares these experiences along with correlating medical facts. With such a large data base it's probably best you do your own research. If you've never heard of Testimonies that are affiliated with NDE's you should probably familiarize yourself with it.
The experiences I have had personally prove to me that souls exist independent of the physical body. I cross references those observations with what I have listed in this thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
At this stage, I understand that you think there is a massive body of evidence supporting your belief. I understand this evidence is based on observation. But I don't yet understand what the evidence is exactly. Has someone seen a ghost? Do things move without any apparent physical cause? Basically, examples would help me to better understanding what this evidence is that has you so convinced.
I'm using the term observation (testimony) and evidence synonymous, as they establish the same thing.
Testimony-
"evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something"
"firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence"
Evidence-
"something that furnishes proof : testimony"
"one who bears witness"
"A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment"
" ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood"
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
Observation-
"the action or process of observing something or someone carefully or in order to gain information"
"a record or description so obtained"
"the ability to notice things, especially significant details"
"a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed"
"an act or instance of noticing or perceiving"
"an act or instance of viewing or noting a fact or occurrence for some scientific or other special purpose"
Religion for example is based on observations usually by an original individual source that has been either agreed upon or collectively confirmed. Hinduism for example, is based on their perceived observations of the nature of consciousness and has been successively studied generation after generation through their methods and practices. Buddhist cosmology for example is based around their observations of the cosmos transcendent of the physical realm and is successively examined for generations under their methods of study. Eckankar for example is based upon their observations of the inner soul and soul travel and how that relates to both God and the soul, and they base this under their observational method of study. Native American spirituality is based upon their observations of the spirit worlds which include their observations and communications of ancestral spirits and the societies that extend beyond the physical planes.
Christianity for example is based around the observations of Jesus which include the Kingdom of Heaven and the Father, his knowledge of that Kingdom and all who dwell there and inherit it. Jesus' observation of spiritual principles which form a systematic matrix of laws one can interface with and observe.
NDE's for example are individuals non-religious first hand observations of the soul leaving the physical body which supports the idea that the soul exists independent of the physical body, likewise OBE's and soul projection. Paranormal activity and ghost sighting are average people's encounters with spiritual entities which also support the proposition that souls exist beyond the physical plane. I could go on but perhaps you see where I'm going....this all falls into the category of testimonial evidence which plays a significant role in considering whether or not there are just claims of ideas or if there is claims supported by evidence. Since we are dealing with basically non-physical based phenomenon we would have to consider observations that transcend the physical sense perception and there are ways to achieve this.
Now just to back up a hair, none of the above examples are my reason for believing in the Creator, but in such a discussion with a non-believer I'm presenting this as a means to communicate that spirituality and Theistic propositions are based on observation not thoughts or people's personal opinions.
People have observations and from that there exists a trail of information and facts for people to research and look into. Ghost sightings can come across as a comical source or consideration but if you want to be certain that these types of beings DON'T exist you have to be mature about it and realize that even though it may sound silly the evidence, or amount of encounters is quite astounding. This isn't just limited to people who have seen spiritual beings, this spreads into all the various sources I mentioned which presents a huge data base of testimonials both religious and non-religious. I think it is important that I highlight the fact there are non-religious observations because it paints an unbiased picture. The thing is most average non-religious people don't really understand what they are observing, they don't know what spiritual beings are or what that entails they just know they witnessed something.
Besides this there are other ways of determining logically if a Creator exists, not sure if you read through the "A Challenge to Theists, can you be honest" thread but I presented what I thought was a decent premise. Of course, my opponent wasn't impressed lol but that is besides the point. The part that makes such a thing difficult in the first place to "prove" is that we are dealing with a transcendent Reality and trying to show it exists by means of physical explanations or methods.
To answer your question though, the evidence IS the observations so you have to understand how evidence is defined and what it entails. My experience has been people don't really know how evidence is defined and what is included as evidence. What usually happens is I reveal the definitions and then the argument switches to whether these types of things are strong or weak evidence lol. Nevertheless as you add up the amount of observations it becomes unavoidable and apparent that there is supporting evidence for Theistic propositions, mainly that souls exist or that consciousness survives a physical death. From there we can begin to put things together from more than just an idea.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Would you say that the entity is conscious? Does it have an actual personality or is it a fabric along which we all exist and vibrate as particles and souls?
It is indeed both, imagine consciousness disembodied. It would be akin to an ocean of consciousness rather than an embodied individual consciousness. But yes, consciousness can only be what consciousness is, and that falls into the category of personality. Its just that you can't really define that personality because the moment you do you put barriers on that Entity when in fact it contains everything within creation. It is all an expression of Itself, God is not one thing or the other even though God is a conscious Reality. It is not a Him or Her, God is simply existence or Being. Him or Her are only relevant in creation, outside creation there's only one singular ocean of awareness.
The very nature of consciousness is creative, It always seeks to express that which it desires and that which it wants to communicate or experience. The harsh reality is that the Godhead exists entirely alone, but within creation God can experience whatever God wants, whatever God wishes to express. The magic of creation though, what gives it true dynamics is that we become like co-creators with God. This enables God to have unique observations from Itself.
But God can also be considered the very fabric of the universe, which I would call awareness and this awareness co-exists with energy. Interestingly both energy and God have the same attributes, they are eternal, omnipresent and exist both within form and independent of form. God is indeed the fabric that envelops all of creation just like energy. You and I would be the isolation of that energy which creates form within that fabric. This is done through layers, and at the physical layer it is the process of evolution that God uses to create embodiments for the soul.
There are actually several of these layers that confine you to creation, so that when you leave the physical body you still have a layer that covers your soul.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
At the very, very core of your being, you and God are one and the same (surprise), God is the Watcher of all your observations.
and it is to the very, very core of his beliefs that we wish to get!He seems to believe that God is essentially the head of a complex web of heirarchy of conscious entities and within all, at the core of it all is God pulling the strings... Alternatively, is God the one inside going along the ride and we are the ones experiencing it for this entity?
I would go with the latter, God is more like along for the ride. Like if you were to go see a movie, you would want that movie to be as genuine as possible. Even though at our core we are one with God, we develop our own egos and perceptions through our experiences in creation. So we leave the Godhead as an individual soul made from the very same substance as God and are sent into creation as a seed or like a baby. It's magical actually what happens, we become basically what we want to, the dynamics of the imagination, consciousness and our creative abilities are far too complex to ever predict by God. So God enjoys what we become, and is able to have fresh experiences.
Having said that, the only thing that separates you from the Godhead is your embodiments, minds and perceptions. If you were to step back completely and pull yourself out of your embodiments you would be one with God again. If you wanted to isolate water from an ocean to make it distinct from the ocean what would you do? you would encapsulate that water, you could put a bit of that water in a container to make it distinct from the ocean. The soul is the same way, if God wishes to make a part of Itself distinct from It's true Source God would have to encapsulate that soul, wrap it within an embodiment.
So while you as an individual soul exist in creation, you will always have a covering in some form or another. This confines you to each experience you have and why you are able to perceive yourself as an individual.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
To begin with, would you like to introduce yourself and the path you went through in life in terms of faith?
Sure, I'm a pretty normal guy in terms of my relationships, family and work. Since the only thing portrayed of me in a forum such as this is unorthodox beliefs/observations people probably think of me as anything but normal lol, but actually I live a pretty simple life. I'm a good dad of four children and a wife that I consider one of the best people I've ever met, she truly has a pure heart of gold.
I grew up with somewhat of a clairvoyant type of observation, I was already thinking about God at a very unusually young age so by the time I was introduced to the Bible and the Gospels I really related to Jesus and his message, or at least his passion for God and for others. While most of my friends were selfish and pretty unruly I was already practicing leaning my heart towards God and applying anything I thought was applicable. Most of the people around me at that time had somewhat of a Christian background so it was pretty typical that people labeled themselves "Christian", it's just that no one really meant it lol. My parents had become Christians later in life but they had really unfortunate upbringings and struggled in their attempts at being parents so they weren't really the best example of anything spiritual.
So I had a natural curiosity and interest about God and religion without any real influence, and my own experiences and observations of life always pulled me in that direction. What interested me was things that were tangible and applicable, while someone may interpret my "beliefs" as extreme I'm really not into the whacky side of religion and that actually turns me off. However, given the nature of Creation and an eternal Godhead spirituality can be quite diverse and exciting, and even extreme. But all things come together and make sense, fit and are logical albeit very dynamic.
Like all of us I learned through making mistakes in life and learned everything the hard way but I always made God my anchor and my foundation. By the time I was a teenager I really began to put my energy into everything I learned about God. Even though everything I learned about God was primarily through the Bible and through Christian sources I decided I wasn't going to put any limits on my understanding about God, so I allowed God to give me all of who God is and I gave all of myself in return. I consider spirituality a give and take relationship at the very heart of it.
So this led to the expansion of my once limited set of beliefs to a whole new level of insights, facts and information. This in turn helped me see a much larger picture to where I could really make sense of things as a whole. So by me putting less limitations and restrictions on God it put less limitations and restrictions on what I could receive and learn. I've held true to my love for God all my life and still have a great passion for this topic and for other souls. My wife and I have the same nature about us, we don't discriminate, judge and hold others back in their pursuit or interest in the Creator and we have very personal relationships with all our friends, we have no enemies or people against us. We allow our children freedom of choice, we don't push our beliefs on people unless they are interested, we let our children have natural curiosity and grow from that. And we don't have to, the way we are naturally attracts people to our beliefs and insights about what we have learned so we believe in freedom to know God and to have freedom to approach God.
Nowadays I don't really label myself anything other than to show what my beliefs consist of but I'm not a religious fundamentalist. I believe the whole of religion and spirituality has many things to offer obviously but I'm an Omnist in terms of religious sources. I have favorites but I don't label myself anymore in that way.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Name you want to be addressed with (including Mr/Mrs/Ms etc): (it can be your username)
Mr. Eternal lol
Religious label I affiliate with: (if you don't, state such)
Spiritism/Spiritualism/Spiritual Christianity
Motive to engage in the interview: (being understood, showing off, entertaining the audience, learning as you're asked to explain etc)
To Bring more clarity to spiritual concepts within Theistic propositions as well as to learn more about what I want to convey
In your opinion, if God/s is/are real, is/are he/she/it/they good, evil, neutral or a complex combination?
Incarnations and or gods can take on or develop one or the other or traits of either but the Godhead contains all things so I would say a combination. The Godhead has no specific gender as well and male or female only exists in embodiments and corporeal entities where duality is present. To point out, no duality exists in a singular Reality so within a singular unit the concepts of "good and evil" have no real relevance and no longer a factor. Since good and evil are only relevant where duality exists, as those concepts apply in relation to our affairs with others, the Godhead can't be labeled.
What is the Godheads intentions toward creation? I would say probably neutral leaning more towards good but since God experiences everything through your individual channel of experience it doesn't matter to God because the Creator experiences everything through all individual channels, what you experience is what God experiences. Since the Godhead has all sides to Itself God wants to express it all through each channel whether negative or positive that's the investment the Creator has in creation. At the very, very core of your being, you and God are one and the same (surprise), God is the Watcher of all your observations.
Created:
Posted in:
To continue a topic created by Roderickspode,
Let's say there was a piece of hypothetical equipment created and designed to pick up information, communication or general activity at various levels of frequencies like a radio receptor/receiver would pick up on radio waves and we discovered incidentally that there were continuous levels of communicational frequencies taking place that transmitted independent of the operations and frequencies of Earth. We could hypothetically hone in on these frequencies and discern that there were intelligent communications occurring all around us that were happening distinct from the human range of frequencies.
At first this discovery was kept hidden from the general public but was then later revealed and uncovered, would you consider this evidence that 1) God exists...... or that 2) A transcendent reality exists?
Why would we assume God exists or a transcendent reality exists? well if you pick either option or both it would be a case of deducing.
A) there's activity occurring around us independent of the human range of frequency
B) if there's activity occurring around us at different ranges of frequencies then there must be another channel/reality existing
C) if there's another channel/reality existing independent of our own then it is true a transcendent reality exists
D) if it is true that a transcendent reality exists then it must be so that God exists
Of course these wouldn't be the only options that one could speculate on, but just as a thought experiment....
Here is what I would like to correlate this hypothetical with in our own observations of spiritual experiences as a whole....
What if we associated our conscious activity with radio wave frequencies that occur at varying levels (physical sense perception level/channel and up...)
What if we associated ourselves as actual radio receptors capable of receiving various frequencies
What if spiritual communication/encounters were simply taking place at another range of frequency
What if we were capable of adjusting our receptors channels to pick up on different ranges of communicational frequencies
What if prayer, spiritual practices and or meditation was a form of adjusting one's channel of receiving various ranges of frequencies
The point I would like to make here to tie it all together is that there's an obvious range of communication and activity occurring within the spiritual domain that takes place all around us since man has began to articulate. Could this explain or be a good analogy of how it is possible there's an independent wave of communication and experiences that take place within ranges of conscious frequencies apart from the physical frequency? maybe if we desired or learned how to change channels on this wavelength of frequencies we could pick up alternative stations. If we always focus in primarily on the physical channel we opt out on all other possible channels of communication.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
I assure you it is not my intent to selectively quote and/or mock you.
So far I have not had that impression yet.
If at any time you feel disrespected, you are of course welcome to simply stop participating. I will not harass you about.
Cool, actually I really like this approach, I hope you take complete advantage of it. You should feel free to explore any and every idea which is what I was hoping you will do, anything you ask I will give you what I believe to be the most accurate answer worth considering. Be creative!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
The main point I'm trying to convey is not that I've had spiritual experiences per say (even though it's relevant) but that there is an available body of facts and information indicating whether the belief or proposition is true or valid. There is correlating evidence that supports the concepts we hopefully will get into. If we want to have a meaningful conversation about the proposition that the soul exists independent of the physical body for example we would want to justify it by considering the type of evidence that correlates with that claim. So spiritual experiences, religious sources, NDE's, OBE's, paranormal activity and even ghost sightings would fall into that category. It may sound funny but when you examine the amount of evidence that mounts up it is astounding. When you examine it as a whole it is overwhelming to say the least.
So at the very least we could say this particular proposition isn't just a claim, we have something to build off of. Ideally you would at least acknowledge it and then we move forward exploring other aspects involving the same proposition. I'm just trying to give you a starting point.
Assuming I'm not batshit crazy you should give me the benefit of the doubt I know what I observe, what I observe isn't hazy or mistaken it is very clear and unmistakable. It just so happens to line up with a huge amount of the same observations of many others.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Assuming you'd like to continue, I'd like to dig a little deeper into this idea of a) first-hand supernatural experience and b) cross-referencing with others' experiences.Would you mind providing a specific example of a) and b)?
Well I gave you an example, is there something you are unsure of? I could give you more specific examples but as of now I'm not sure if it will be relevant to the point I'm making.
A) would be something I've had my own experience with. This would pertain to application, observations and encounters of my own.
B) would be examining other claims or testimonies of the same nature, to cross reference those experiences with my own. This would include religious sources, non-religious sources, studies/programs that handle these types of experiences. Teachers that are capable of articulating such phenomenon is also a good way to get insights.
I study religion as a whole, so I evaluate a ton of material and literature on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
We'll see. I'm willing to let him have his way, I got nothing to run from. BTW you should unblock me, not sure why you did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
observed a spirit that lends support to your belief?
To put it more simplistic, if I have a proposition or have been presented one I need to be able to support that idea and there are several ways of doing that. One way would be to see if there's anything I have personally witnessed or observed that lends weight to that proposition. That would be a no-brainer and in this case there would be a match, so to add another layer of confirmation I could use other people's observations or witnesses and cross reference those experiences. Now you have first hand experience supported even further by a large data base of observations.
Created:
Posted in:
Well hopefully he is more well rounded in his approach, one has to consider witnesses though as a means to understand the spiritual nature of our experiences so I don't mind as long as it doesn't become a fixation so we might as well get it out of the way lol. There's lots of factors to consider beyond that not just this one and I'll get to them all if he wants to. If he mocks people's observations that would be foolish at least in this category, especially with the numbers that are involved and the type of nature we are dealing with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
1) Is it possible for a person to be mistakenly convinced that they have observed a spirit?
Mistakenly convinced? lol, that's like me asking you if you were mistakenly convinced someone stomped on your foot after you witnessed someone stomp on your foot. An observation is an observation, sure there maybe some factors involved when considering other people's testimonies but when someone has witnessed something and to not take it at face value is somewhat strange TBH. With the amount of spiritual observations involved one has to consider there is relevant evidence, if you were to ever see a spiritual being there's no "mistaken" it. They exist, people see them all the time and did you know about one out of three people have either seen a spirit or had a spiritual encounter? that's an impressive percentage to consider and not just something to sweep under the rug.
One thing I find curious is when people have spiritual encounters why is it always assumed everything but the person encountered an actual event and or being?
Having said that anything is possible I guess but why ignore the obvious? why would I discount my very own observations?
2) Assuming you answer "yes" to Q1, what makes you confident that you are not mistaken about having observed a spirit that lends support to your belief?
I'm not mistaken, I've had several spiritual experiences.....and this happens worldwide which is why I said cross referencing is a powerful tool to understand the spiritual side of our observations. Now, I could blow off my experiences as something other than what they were but how does that deal with the fact that these type of observations have been going on since humans have existed? wouldn't we apply Occam's Razor rather than assuming all these things are anything but what they claim?
There is no reason for me NOT to be confident knowing what I experienced and having huge data base of evidence I can support that experience with, that would be quite silly no?
Sorry about all the questions, my point behind that is so you could consider that it is not very intellectually honest to discount something that is pretty obvious because it doesn't fit in with a materialistic worldview. We should consider all propositions if they have good reason and evidence to back them. Souls either exist or they don't, we would know they do by the amount of eye witness accounts, sources and observations including NDE's or the lack thereof that's how we would judge whether or not something exists....by the actual evidence which in this case would include my own.
Keeping in mind you asked for only one example, so I wouldn't entirely focus on this as a means to get where you want to go although it is relevant. My point here is to show there is reason to consider that the soul exists independent of the physical body, and that falls into the category of Theism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Just to add BTW for your own curiosity. My platform here is universal, I know we haven't got that far yet but this idea isn't necessarily "mine is right and everyone else's is wrong" type of argument. Other people's experiences and ideas could fit into this proposition because it is all generated from the same Reality. Essentially the very idea or concept of God or gods originate from this Source. So basically there exists a hierarchy of many levels of creation that spring forth from a singular incorporeal foundation. So to back up a hair, when you asked what is my "God belief" I'm starting at the Platform out of which all spiritual beings come from including Gods, rulers, demigods ect ect. And I'm willing to articulate that just wanted to clarify I'm not arguing for any particular God per say. But, there is a singular Source and that is where I'm starting this.
So while I am labeling this universal Platform "God" I'm not talking about embodied Entities or Beings that people have experienced within creation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
Would you mind providing a salient example in which observation/experience made an important contribution to your high confidence?
Sure, since it is my own observations and experience that propel my surety and interest in spirituality I can take those observations and cross reference with a wide range of sources. For example I have encountered spiritual beings myself and what people may refer to as ghosts or spirit bodies. Since I have seen them with my own eyes I can cross examine other religious or spiritual experiences as references. A legitimate way to confirm that souls exist and exist independent of the physical body which has been a religious proposition for ages for example.... would be to confirm that through NDE experiences, OBE's and soul travel/conscious projection.
The interesting thing about the nature of consciousness and the soul existing independent of the physical body is that people can experience things outside the physical sense perception and there's more evidence for spiritual experiences than any other topic period.
So basically when you have your own direct experience and then can cross reference that with many other encounters or witnesses one can have at least a good level of confidence in what occurred. I think cross referencing is one of the more convincing methods to approach spirituality with and whether or not there is anything worth considering. And one thing to be aware of is to correlate with sources that identify with that very same nature.
So with that being said I can piece together a pretty viable platform to build from, and deduce from there what could be possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
What is your main reason for holding such high confidence in this belief? Note that I encourage you to keep your answer concise. This is an interview and not a debate, so you do not need to go 'all-out' in supporting all your contentions. Ideally, just stick to summarizing the main reason(s) for your belief.
My beliefs in general (if you wish to label them beliefs) are combination of observation, experience, cross referencing and commonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
So, on a scale of 0-100 (with 0 meaning "not at all" and 100 meaning "without a doubt") how confident are you that this belief is true?
To leave room for whatever the case may be I'll say 90%. I'm pretty confident about it. I don't want to come across as close-minded so I'll leave the wiggle room. I've put a lot of thought and references in this. The ten percent wouldn't be because I doubt myself but because there could be slight variations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
You believe God exists, with God defined as an omnipresent awareness (i.e. consciousness) from which all reality flows.
Correct
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jeff_Goldblum
My God belief is pretty simplistic to begin with, it basically starts with God as the foundation of all that exists or the "backdrop" behind all of creation as everything originates from that Reality. I like to use the term Creator it seems to relay the point pretty accurately, unlike most depictions of God I begin with a Reality (God) with no embodiment. As God is known as being omnipresent I will depict God as more like an ocean of awareness (which everything exists within), consciousness with no specific boundaries. It would basically be akin to energy, actually in my belief it is the conscious activity of the Creator which generates energy, in other words they co-exist.
So obviously my God belief is that it begins with awareness, that being the awareness of "God" and everything from there follows whether it be creation, the universe, souls ect ect.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
or maybe at some point in their evolutionary line, a neutral genetic mutation occurred which produced the compound.
Sure we could assume or use evolution and mutations as the means of thinking or producing benefits but what makes that anymore plausible than God as an intelligent factor involved? how would the evolution of a plant know or understand that it needed to produce medicine that corresponds with human and animal ailments? unless you're making the claim that it is simply coincidence that it produced variations of healing compounds associated with humans? I don't know if I could ever assume that it's the result of mutations, I think that is pushing the boundaries of silliness. Not when there is a more plausible option.
I would say it's less likely, simply because I'm not willing to just give inanimate processes the ability to formulate that which requires intelligence, thought or a mind to understand something so correlative. That's not to say I haven't or won't consider it, it's just I don't compromise on something that I feel is more logical and why should I? I tend to follow logic and rationale rather than assuming less likely scenarios or just some random mutations happened to produce very specific things for an entirely different species.
Now just to back up a hair, I'm not saying God exists because plants have medicine lol. It's more like using the observation as a means to show the Creators hand in creation, giving you yet another reason to consider a Theistic proposition. It's just another way of adding plausibility to the whole scenario. Actually the reason I believe in God has nothing to do with this topic but it is useful in making the case for God in smaller details. Ain't God in the details or was that the devil lol?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
You bet, thanks.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Ok, so you're saying you're not sure why certain plants have certain medicinal properties and that God is just one possible explanation, right?
No I'm not unsure why plants have medicinal properties, however it's just one possible explanation.
Maybe the plants with medicinal compounds evolved to have them because it evolutionarily benefited them too, or maybe at some point in their evolutionary line, a neutral genetic mutation occurred which produced the compound.
Maybe, I guess we could make guesses all day...at what point could we ever agree on the obvious? or that God is a viable option? plants don't have the anatomy of the very curative properties they contain to use on themselves. If a plant contains a cure or remedy for kidney stones for example, how does that benefit them lol?
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
So how would you respond to something like this?
Who comes up with this crap anyways? I bet there's some Atheist sitting at home laughing his arse off that he created so many "fallacies" in relation to the God hypothesis that a Theist can't even have an opinion or make a statement without someone claiming fallacies! lol. I've had conversations in forums where the other party claims so many fallacies not a single point can be made in favor of Theism... "Fallacy this and fallacy that", I mean at some point it's just a pattern of behavior to avoid addressing content, or to shy away from a viable option.
"The Divine Fallacy" seriously? is that supposed to be a joke?
"When People Assume that ‘God’ is the Only Explanation"....
what about when people assume that God is not a viable explanation? what is the name for that fallacy? what about materialism being the only explanation, or using science to support a materialistic worldview what's that fallacy?
"The divine fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone assumes that a certain phenomenon must occur as a result of divine intervention or a supernatural force"....
What if a phenomenon DID occur as a result of Divine intervention? what is the name of that fallacy when someone negates that possibility? or uses a made up fallacy like this one to avoid a legitimate proposition?
"because they don’t know how to explain it otherwise, or because they can’t imagine that this isn’t the case."
Lol this seems to be the case on both sides of the equation not just on the Theistic side. So what is the fallacy called when someone who negates the possibility of a Creator yet can't explain how and why something occurs?
If one can't imagine that this isn't the case, what if it isn't the case? if no other explanation is available why is it a fallacy to have an explanation lol?
"if I don’t know how to explain a certain phenomenon using science, then it must occur as a result of some divine intervention."
This assumes that we can't use science as a means to explain how God does things, which assumes science (as a neutral study) supports atheism. That is ridiculous. What do you call the fallacy that the method of science can't be used to support Theism rather than atheism?
"I don’t know how to explain this phenomenon using science."
Who says science and Theism aren't compatible? on the other hand even someone using science can't always explain why something occurs, such as intelligent processes and medicinal properties in herbs and plants.
"this phenomenon must occur as a result of divine intervention."
That's called a viable option, materialism and atheism aren't the only viable propositions...this article is so biased it's absolutely hilarious. I almost can't believe someone intelligent wrote it.
"For example, if someone doesn’t understand how evolution works"
You mean won't accept that evolution happens purely on its own accord? evolution is easy to understand but it doesn't have to be primarily a product of materialism that's two different things entirely. Why would anyone assume evolution is not a process God uses to bring things into existence? why does it have to be assumed that evolution is only compatible with atheism? what should we call this fallacy?
let me be more blunt, both science AND evolution do not belong to atheism. That is a fallacy of its own. Science is a neutral study it just shows the processes involved in the manifestation of the universe, it doesn't make any claims about God or why these processes occur. Evolution is perfectly compatible with an intelligent Source, materialists and atheists don't own it as their own they are neutral studies.
"It’s important to understand the divine fallacy, since people frequently use it in an attempt to discredit scientific theories"
Bullshyt, no one is attempting to discredit science I'm sick of this fallacy being rehashed. What people oppose is what I just pointed out. We oppose the assumption that science equals materialism or atheism or that evolution is only compatible with Darwinism.
Lets not get this confused, it is a battle between worldviews not between Theism and science itself. No one is allowed to hijack science to support a worldview and claim science supports only that proposition, again science is a neutral study, any worldview can interpret it how they see fit, and what seems more logical and or rational to them.
It is more important to understand the anti-Divine fallacy rather. Which attempts to discredit God being associated with scientific theories.
"The divine fallacy is frequently used in an attempt to discount various scientific findings and to support pseudoscientific alternatives that revolve around divine and supernatural explanations."
Yes, yes of course! its an attempt to discount scientific findings if the "alternative" is in favor of God lol, can you believe this garbage? I love how anything to do with the Divine or the supernatural is deemed "pseudoscientific alternatives" what a joke. Yeah I guess this article doesn't see how Theism could be a viable option, it doesn't get anymore biased does it? on top of that any opposition to their worldview is considered a fallacy, wow is all I can say here.
“Human beings are too complex to have evolved by chance. We must have been designed by God.”
Again, they make it sound as if that is absurd to claim when in fact it is a viable option not a friggin fallacy. What's absurd is to believe that somehow processes occur all by themselves and that inanimate forces can think, act and produce things without an intelligent Source and that we must have been designed by an inanimate process and chance....what fallacy is that?
What they call a fallacy is really a legitimate opinion, an educated premise, it's no more a fallacy than it is to believe that it could have happened by chance, they are both opinions albeit one superior to the other. Human beings certainly evolved, but IMO the process didn't occur by itself. That isn't a fallacy that's a proposition. Why is only one proposition viable and the other a fallacy? I believe they call that bias.
"The God of the gaps fallacy"
Oh I love this one...God forbid any related God hypothesis fits somewhere within the gaps of our knowledge to assume there isn't a God. Oh yeah it must be a fallacy! like I always say, if God fits in the gaps it is viable to believe it's because God exists, don't they call that commonsense? oh excuse me, commonsense can't be utilized in relation to any Theistic concepts therefore it's another FALLACY! Give me a break, again the attempt to discredit any Theistic notion at all here is astounding. Even when God fits it's called a fallacy rather than a legitimate option, it's an assumed fallacy rather than an intelligent proposition!
"Arguments that are based on the divine fallacy are inherently fallacious"
For the love of God I can't read anymore. What's fallacious is the reasoning and brainwashing of this article which poses itself as some authority on what constitutes viability. None of this was aimed at you Press4, I'm just amazed at the insanity of this link. I was going to just ignore it but since you asked I replied to it.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Here's a few links just so you know what I mean by the lymphatic system and the role it plays
This would be the system you would want working at optimum performance relative to viruses, germs, cancer, bacteria ect ect and all the symptoms that are labeled "diseases". The kidneys and skin would also be very important in the role of elimination. You wouldn't want to consume pharmaceuticals to suppress symptoms related to poor elimination rather you would want to support the bodies natural defense systems with foods and botanicals. I can link you to dozens of sources that show you the relation of good foods and lymphatic system health, the health of the glands and organs as well.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
If you're really curious about this or want a good source to educate yourself with I have a legit educated teacher that can relay the value of good foods and botanicals. They're not all on the same level, the guy I follow you would probably like a lot. He doesn't use drugs and pharmaceuticals to deal with mans suffering, he puts people on the right diet and uses herbal formulas to support and strengthen cell function. This way there is no need for prescription drugs, dangerous side effects and fear....one can use what God gave to master their own environment.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
While it is true that some plants do have some medicinal properties, that a healthy lifestyle is important to maintaining one's well-being, and that some medications do have potentially severe side effects (some are also ludicrously expensive, mostly due to certain pharmaceutical companies having monopolies over them), one cannot entirely discredit the role that pathogenic microbes play in causing diseases. These germs are tangible (visible through a microscope) and are responsible for most of the diseases that plague humanity.
But the same thing applies when you understand the role of the lymphatic system, the body in its healthy state of being always seeks to eliminate that which it is infected by, when that system is compromised the body cannot eliminate. Germs, pathogens and viruses stay in the body when the body can no longer eliminate them. They aren't "diseases" in the way people understand that term.
In other words germs, viruses and microbes can be cleaned out and eliminated naturally given that the individual is eating correctly and then using the right herbs to strengthen and support cell function. Another way to look at it is that if the terrain of the body is dirty and unkept it attracts these types of things, you could use the analogy of running clear water as opposed to a stagnant cesspool where bacteria and germs can fester.....in a smooth running system where everything is "moving" and eliminating these problems don't thrive and possibly never occur at all. On top of that clean water would never attract germs and fester unwanted bacteria. All these things are not diseases though, that's a fabrication to induce fear and control...just take a look at the system as a whole and look at mans condition within that system worldwide.
Besides, how would a perfectly healthy human become sick from transmission (say, COVID-19) if diseases are simply the result of a deficient lifestyle? How come life expectancy a few centuries ago was significantly lower than it is today, despite all of the "remedies" being natural? Why were illnesses such as measles, polio, and even diabetes (which were rampant and almost always fatal before the advent of modern medication) not being cured by herbal medication? Why did the various plagues throughout history cause so much death when pure and wholesome treatments existed to supposedly eliminate them?
One of the main reasons is indeed the condition of the physical body and even "back then" the lifestyles weren't always healthy so you have to take that into consideration as people's eating habits especially in European countries have been poor for awhile. One could make the argument that many indigenous groups have no access to modern medication and have survived without it even to this day.
The body is equipped with multiple elimination systems....the kidneys, the skin and of course the lymphatic system. The lymphatic system is the system that handles viruses and things the like. Modern medication has no curative properties so your point is moot, people with diabetes always have diabetes, and I'd rather not open up a can of worms trying to break down vaccines for you at this moment. But most of the things vaccines are used on the body develops natural immunity to. The funny part is even the very people who undergo vaccinations still get measles, chickenpox, mumps and other such symptoms from viruses so where is your point about modern medicine curing things? have you done your research? what does it actually cure? suppressing symptoms is not healing or curing.
Only eating good foods and using botanicals cure, reverse disorders. Because they don't treat symptoms they address the root causes. Many other symptoms the human body faces as a result of acidosis is not from diseases, it's poor eating habits that inhibit the body to properly clean itself and maintain itself. The symptoms that arise as a result are labeled diseases and then a drug is sought out to deal with it, this is the cycle that produces and supports a big money making operation that has no real basis in healing.
The truth is, pathogens exist, and they do cause diseases.
Again, these aren't "diseases" they are conditions that the body suffers as a result of not being able to eliminate properly. It is cause and effect.....they label those symptoms diseases but they are just symptomatic responses. If the body was operating at optimum performance there would be no real problems.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
So how would you respond
Lol how would I respond? I would say it doesn't in any way negate that it could very well be the case, does it? I mean I could make up a "fallacy" called "the assumption that a Divine origin could never be the case Fallacy" and ask you how you would respond to it. I'm not assuming that God is the only explanation (although the only one that seems plausible), but unless you have an explanation as to why plants have a curative value maybe consider it as a possibility.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Every... single... disease in existence?
Remember "diseases" are what the medical community label symptoms that arise in the human body, to make this real simple there could be the same cause for many of the various symptoms people face. So whenever they see a symptom it is then labeled a "disease" with a big fat name slapped on it and then a drug used to mask those symptoms. It's a fabrication used to make people believe that there are all these "diseases" running around waiting to jump on ya and infect you lol, then the concept of diseases makes you believe you need the prescription drug to deal with the attack. In the meantime there are no real curative value in manmade drugs and in fact a lot of times causes other serious conditions. And to make matters much worse these drugs make huge amounts of money, people have greatly suffered at the expense of enormous medical bills and many die in their conditions never to see the face of true healing.
People have become so conditioned that even by me saying this would seem absurd, that's how powerful propaganda and the conditioning of the mind are.
It has people actually believing all these different "diseases" exist, when in fact they are just symptoms someone labeled a disease relative to the same causes. Instead of looking at the health of the body and the root cause of any condition it has people focused on diseases and subsequently some drug needed to treat it, it's pretty crazy how the machine works and how folks buy into it. No one wants to associate their ailments with what they eat and how they live their lives, it's much easier to ignore that and use drugs to mask symptoms rather than to address the causes because that would mean making changes to ones lifestyle.
Herbs aren't used to mask and suppress symptoms, botanicals are used to support cell structure and function so they do their jobs more effectively. It's actually the human body, the glands and organs that deal with causative factors and when they shut down herbs are used to get them up and running again, but when the terrain has been compromised (through dirty fuel) and the body can no longer perform these tasks it's time to target health. Parts get dirty, they get worn down, they need to be cleaned so they can function normally and effectively handle poor conditions.
So if you look at the body more like a car or the vehicle you use to get around, and the maintenance involved in caring for that vehicle you can have a more clear understanding of what I'm saying. Cars don't get "diseases" lol, they malfunction due to improper care and the eventual failure of parts. What happens when you try to mask a problem when your car malfunctions? it usually doesn't go very well and could end up in the death of that car. If the maintenance of that car is properly performed, the car runs smooth and it lasts a long time, if maintenance is ignored and is run on dirty fuel that's when things begin to break down and malfunction. Unlike the medical community there is no fabrication of "diseases" in the repair shops, they deal with the failure of parts and the maintenance thereof to prevent eventual termination of that vehicle.
Created:
Yes God put medicinal value in plants, the botanical Kingdom is far more powerful than people realize and is definitely an indicator we have an intelligent Maker, I mean there are herbs for specific organs for God's sake! You can really see the difference in God's knowledge and use of healing as opposed to the medical community, with the right herbs there is no fear of death and severe side effects or any at all for that matter. Just take a good look at the warnings and possible side-effects of your next dose of prescription drugs.
I had a toothache a couple weeks ago and hadn't been to the Doctors in forever (as I've been mostly utilizing holistic practices and eating) and everyone wanted to scare me in to taking antibiotics or I could "die" lol, so I went ahead and visited the Docs and of course they prescribed me a good ol round of antibiotics for my stubborn toothache but when I read the precautions I said to myself "ef that crap"! wtf is this baloney?? I mean are you serious? the very warnings are telling me I could die and that I could undergo complications and symptoms that could never go away. Basically it scared the shyt out of me and I decided no way I'm taking those.
So I decided to really focus in on what I'm eating, researched natural remedies and got myself some clove oil, used coconut oil and baking soda as a tooth paste. Long story short the toothache is gone and I never had to take life threatening drugs and I've done this with several problems that have arisen. The thing about botanicals though is one needs to be practicing good eating habits (raw foods, fruits and veggies), that goes hand in hand with the usage of herbs because we are really addressing the actual terrain of the body and the conditions we set up within it.
The biggest difference between drugs and botanicals is that one targets symptoms while the other targets the causes, one allows you to continue bad habits while the other corrects bad habits. In other words you can't take herbs and eat ice cream, pizza and junk food all day and expect good results or ailments to go away. So a lot of people rather just take some prescription drugs powerful enough to mask their symptoms and continue their lifestyle while never addressing the causes, and this produces serious long-term issues.
Anybody taking prescription drugs long term knows their problems never go away, there are no curative healing properties in them. Only nature knows how to heal properly and with the most efficiency. The issue with most situations and symptoms is the terrain of the body and what condition we have created therein. "Diseases" are a fabrication of the medical community in that we categorize any symptoms as a disease where some drug is supposed to suppress those conditions and people rely on that and big money is made. Holistic healing and the usage of botanicals deal with lifestyle, health and the reversal of sickness, it doesn't mask and suppress symptoms it deals with the real causes and supports health and well-being without long term issues. It is a vicious cycle as the human body begins to rely on prescription medication rather than targeting the health of the individual. In a perfect world we would be using the very foods we eat and what we consume as our support for general well-being and if and when sickness arises we would be using herbs and botanicals to support cell function and rejuvenation.
There doesn't need to be a curative value in EVERY plant for the point of the OP to be true, reading over some of the posts it's kind of missing the point to make that argument. One should be asking themselves why would a plant contain medicinal properties? how can herbs target specific ailments? it is a good indicator that there is a higher hand involved.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
But there is no point in any further discussion really
You're right, because your intransigence is crippling to the utmost.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you not aware that everything you and I say in this discussion is subjective.
Lol, you would be glad then to know that the word and meaning of objective exists, get yourself familiar with that no wonder you think everything is just thought processes and internal data.
I am aware that neither you nor I have a solution to the universal conundrum.
Wrong, but thanks for the opinion. Did you not know that both you and I come from a Reality that has all knowledge, information and solutions? never mind obviously you don't know that.
If there was an unequivocal solution, then this discussion wouldn't have been ongoing for the past million years or so.
Um are you serious? there is a solution Zed, it's arguments of opinions that have been going on not the lack of solutions. The only issue is not everyone interprets the same worldview, not that there isn't solutions and answers.
I respect your faith and your internal certainty, but that is not proof of anything, other than proof of your faith and internal certainty.
Looks like this conversation is at an end already unfortunately. Too bad, if God exists I guess you'll never know because you don't know the term objective exists.
Personal experiences and observations are internal data processes, which we are able to formulate and output as subjective data responses.
Go back and read those definitions again. Geezus, it seems this place is filled with people that don't understand what words mean and how they are defined.
Let me know if you ever want a discussion so you can know there are solutions and objectivity. Not sure what the point was in you asking questions just to ignore the answers.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Sorry. The discussion is interesting, but I haven't had a lot of free time in the past few days to carry on with it.
No problem just get to it when you want, at least you find it interesting that's about all I could hope for lol.
So for now perhaps you would explain as concisely as you can what you mean when you refer to objective reality.
Objective as in not influenced by personal feelings and opinions, spirituality actually opposes what we personal feel and what we wish to think. It is in fact not some subjective whimsical experience, spirituality can be cross examined, referenced and confirmed.
Reality as in actual, a system/matrix you can interact with. You need a material body to interface with the material, well it is the inner man (soul) that interfaces with the spiritual domains.
Given the nature of human function and thought processes how is it possible to be sure of anything, let alone a hypothetical creator.
Let's pretend God does in fact exist for the sake of this inquiry. Number one we're not approaching this from just thought processes but again....observation, experience and as I said this has nothing to do with people just making stuff up because it sounds cool. Hopefully you read through my posts because I went over that.
If God exists, if spirituality and transcendent parallel worlds exist as a result of God existing then they are objective and can be experienced as well as articulated. When you have an objective experience it isn't just thought processes you are dealing with rather you are interfacing with an observation, not a thought or an idea. So just as you can experience something in this world you can experience spirituality in the same way and because of this there are people on this planet that can give you sure facts and information.
Personally I care little about my own feelings and opinions in relation to spirituality and the Creator, that is not what interests me. I get off on objectivity and things that are tangible so at least when you're in a discussion with me you can be very attentive, I'm not here to BS with you.
The tradition and popularity of some religious hypotheses doesn't make them any more likely to be correct than my ideas of a god principle, as both ideas lack unequivocal proof...Hence, that is why I was hoping that you would at least agree that all creation/purpose hypotheses could only be regarded as speculative.
Well had you paid attention to what I said about religion not being based on ideas but experiences and observation this is untrue. Personal experience and observations ARE proof, at least they fall within that category. Have you ever examined the term "testimony"...?
Testimony-
"evidence or proof provided by the existence or appearance of something.
firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence"
Evidence-
" something that furnishes proof : testimony"
Witness-
"evidence; proof.
have knowledge of (an event or change) from personal observation or experience."
So I cannot agree with something I know is untrue, you're not listening to me or taking what I'm writing seriously. Rather just to think I should agree with your assertion tells me you have your mind made up. I was hoping you wouldn't come into this with your mind made up that's why I wrote everything that I did, come on man!
And god principle, because god is a traditional representation of a universal purpose and principle simply refers to a basic belief that the universe and the role we play within it is has some element of purpose to it.
Okay, I'm not here to argue for religion, I was just making the point that you have no way to confirm what is true and what is not, others do. I'm not here to tell you that you need to follow religion, I'm here to say though that there is a body of information and facts at your disposal, you can use it or not it doesn't really effect much other than if God does exist you would want to learn as much as you can about that.
That doesn't mean it is all true, and I explained that previously how that works. So all in all I'm hoping you will be a little more open-minded and flexible here. Not naïve of course but willing to empty your cup.
We can have a talk about the Creator wherever you want to begin with that proposition, you have complete freedom to do that and I could probably even learn something from you about God because you too are a part of that Reality and so you have a voice here.
What I want you to consider, is that God could be an objective Reality not just ideas and thoughts. In other words if God exists, then God exists independant of our ideas and thought processes. Then God could be defined as an objective Reality, only we are dealing with a Reality and nature that is transcendent albeit an existing one. When understanding God remember too that we are dealing with a domain that exceeds or extends beyond the immediate physical sense perception boundaries.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I will get back with a fuller response when I have a bit more time to digest your last post.
Yeah sorry about that, believe it or not I try and tighten up my posts as much as I possibly can. Its just that some of these things need a lot of clarity, I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone with monotonous posting.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
A good thing to consider as well is that you came from that Reality (God), nothing is kept hidden from you that you can't obtain or know. It's more about your willingness to let go of your presumptions and conditioned ways of thinking, all the information and facts are there for you to have.
It is your right to have everything that God has and to know everything that God knows you just have to get your hands dirty and when dealing with the Creator you always have to position yourself, you can't hold onto things if you want to gain new things and if you want new experiences you have to apply new things as well. If you want all of God you have to be willing to give all of yourself it is a give and take relationship. I'm not talking about brainwashing yourself either, I'm saying you have to empty your cup. This is not conditioning the mind rather it is more accurate to say you are emptying the mind, loosening the grip that the conditioned mind has on you.
You are essentially trading what you have for something much more real, much less inhibited and more truly what you are and where you come from. In this sense spirituality is more of a cultivation and application which is why I impress upon you that this isn't based on speculation or assumptions.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Wouldn't you agree that all our ideas regarding this subject, are just speculation?
No sir.... no speculations and assumptions needed with such an objective reality, a lot of this is not just ideas but observations. Not all, but many Theists can argue their thoughts and concepts from experiences and observations. I mean we could argue about what "firm evidence" is but the fact of the matter is that religious propositions are not ideas people just made up lol, these origins are from those who have witnessed things. And in post #15 I explained why there are so many variations of testimonies and religious concepts/cultures.
There's lots of ways to prove or at least have solid evidence when considering religious propositions and one way is cross referencing. But with cross referencing it's always better if you actually have your own experiences to collaborate with. The thing about spirituality is that it's not just right in your face, you have to participate in different ways to be able to have experiences or observations. You can't just sit back and do nothing but judge others and expect to get anything out of it, that's not how this works.
So I cross reference my own observations and experiences with spiritual sources that way I'm not just banking on my own encounters or my own witness. This is more powerful than you realize because you have the witness of yourself (first hand witness) and the witness of others or better yet many others.
And when you have a culture like the Hindus or the Native Americans for example, who base their whole lives around spirituality you better believe they have something of value to add. Because it is like anything else we put value and trust in, for example do you want to go to a Doctor related to your problems or concerns from someone who has never yet had hands on experience or from someone who's been in the field working with people for many years? or would you learn how to play the guitar from a beginner or someone who has been practicing for many years?
The same thing applies within the arena of spirituality, you want to take notes on those who have the experience. Not all spiritualists are loonies, and some are the most grounded intelligent people you will ever meet....you have to be willing to at least consider those who have put the time in and can articulate knowledge in meaningful ways, albeit they are few in relation to all others. Jesus would be a great example as well, someone who had the passion and first hand experience and who paid their dues and put the time in to know what the hell they are talking about. Because I've spent so much time in this field of knowledge I know how to spot the good ones, the teachers that have become Masters. I know and confirm what they teach based on my own observations, and sometimes I have to listen and apply and be a student too. I could recommend Teachers and sources whom I feel are the most efficient and accurate and worth considering and while each has something unique to offer they all have the same qualities as teachers I look for.
But to answer your question spirituality is not based on speculation or personal ideas, rather it is based on experience and or observation and there are many levels of this. So remember that when approaching the subject don't just assume this is all about someone's imagination running wild. Spirituality is much more objective than people realize even though it covers such an incredibly vast range of information, knowledge and facts. And that's because Theism IS such a vast reality so one has to be prepared for that.
Just to add, spirituality and or Theism is also based on things that make sense, things that are logical and things that work. But you have to remember the dynamics involved, so no one has to accept absurdities or stupidity or things that just don't make sense. Spirituality is incredibly dynamic yet it still has a logical reasonable basis. So in other words there might be some wild ideas or concepts but they work in the broader sense, they fit together and they follow logic and commonsense. So if you have yet to have your own experiences follow logic and commonsense when considering what someone is saying even if it sounds fantastic. It will click with your rational mind so to speak. So never throw out ideas that come across as far fetched but make sense just because you're an atheist, never assume everything is crazy just because you're a materialist ect ect.
Remember that like many fields of expertise there are Masters of the trade, those who have put the time in to bring you facts.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep....My assumption was definitely an assumption and I'm happy to admit that.
Okay, but I'm not assuming anything especially related God or creation. I base what I share from observation, experience, cross referencing and the best possible conclusions based on gathered information from many sources. My question to you would be why assume that God is an assumption rather than a legit, thought out or even experienced phenomenon? That's partly what makes the confrontation between Theists and non-believers frustrating is that it is always assumed we know what we know because we have assumed it for whatever fill in the blank reasons or that it's because our mommies told us. Why can't it be based upon an intelligent well thought out observation based on facts?
What exactly is the god principle?....I don't know, (though I do have some basic ideas)....But a god principle is that which I assume gives purpose to the universe.
Just wondering why you are coupling God with "principle". Nothing wrong with it but curious of your intention using it. How about we just use the term Creator? to me it makes the most sense plus I love Native Americans lol.
Certainly in some very basic respects I share an idea with all that afford the universe purpose. Though I do not share the fantastical ideas offered by popular religious conditioning, these are just unnecessary tales based around naïve notions of imaginary humanoid or animal creators or overseers.....
I repeat my question to you then, how do you know what are naïve notions about God? not that I particularly disagree depending on what we are discussing specifically but the problem arises, how do you know where to draw the line between good information and facts and what you label imaginary?
Remember that a Creator wants to create and experience every role possible, Gods and overseers play a role in all of this.
So we can perhaps attempt to update these archaic hypotheses, and make them more relevant for today, but the fantasies still have a tendency to persist.....That is not to say that I am against the bible either, the bible is a good insight into the recent development of pseudo-scientific and more rigorous scientific knowledge and also a good indicator of how conditioned information (Christianity for example) was and still is, transferred from generation to generation.... Also I do not doubt that the bible probably contains a good deal of historical fact, somewhere amongst all the fantastical embellishment....Hence, I often refer to the bible as a mythological pseudo-hypothesis.
But what are the fantastical embellishments? anything related to God lol? come on man, I hope you answer the above question....I always state there is good information in Holy books and there is information that can be discarded, but I've spent the majority of my life applying, studying and observing this arena so I'm inclined to know the differences, but are you?
As I see it:The development and transference of knowledge is the key to understanding and achieving the purposes of a god principle. (No deistic worship required)
How do you know what to look for is the question? to you anything outside atheism or materialism could look stupid or foolish. You have to understand when you bring a Creator into the equation everything changes, the dynamics change drastically and even the suggestion of fantastical ideas are a potential. With a Creator as a Reality anything becomes possible and there's a reason for that. It's not because the God idea is magic, not at all it's that the limits of what God can bring into existence are sky high, we are talking about an eternal creative Being (Genius) not Pee Wee.
The very nature of consciousness as distinct from a limited form is in itself dream-like, imagination if you want to use that term. It is the nature of consciousness that is extremely creative, the only thing that stops humans from creating a fantasy on Earth is our current limitations. But as technology advances look how our imaginations in what we produce advance. Now imagine an eternal (forever-existing!) Creator that does not have those limitations in place!
Worship could be a subjective experience but really all it means is reverence and adoration for a thing or person. Certainly having reverence and adoration for God could be a natural thing, perhaps you just don't like the idea of it being forced worship and I would gladly relate to you on that. But what is it about the concept of adoring a Creator that you don't like? what is wrong with that scenario? you have relationships with others that you probably adore, why not with God?
The sequence of creation and the ongoing ability of matter to evolve and develop into information and knowledge enhancing, bodies and systems. (Which may or may not exceed the capabilities of organic bodies and systems).
But they don't just develop information and knowledge along the way, that's looking at it azz backwards. In process, the information and knowledge was there at the beginning, that's what enables a process to occur and unfold and produce what was intended.
The purpose of which may simply be the perpetuation of a universal sequence.... In so much as the ultimate knowledge is the god principle which we assist in the creation of, which consequently facilitates the rebirth/re-initiation of a new universe.We create a god that recreates us.
Maybe you're missing the point a bit. For there to be a creation of the universe that requires an intelligent factor. From there it is obvious that God is a Being, and if God is a Being then God is also sentient. In other words there is no way you could deduce that God is a thing rather than a type of Entity. If the Creator is a type of Entity then we can relate to God on a level that resembles our relations with other beings and entities. In other words there is no real reason to depersonalize God. You, I and everyone else come out of the heart of God, that is where you originated as a soul. While you are lesser being in a limited form the very core of you is identical to that of God. You can be nothing else, you are made from the same attributes or nature of the Creator. You don't know it yet lol, but you are one and the same. The only thing that distinguished you from God is your individualized forms in creation.
In that light the idea of worship may seem a little strange but not really because right now you are restricted and confined by your own perceptions and experiences/knowledge. So admiring the origins of the Higher state of knowledge and wisdom from a lesser state of knowledge and wisdom is perfectly natural. You look to God as the guiding light and greater Ruler of yourself, in other words the relationship between the soul and the souls Maker.
No worship required, because the god principle is... A. Not something that requires worship.... B. Something that has not as yet been achieved.
I'm not sure you know what it is you're talking about. I'm sure you have ideas, but I don't see how you could know or understand from a place of complete ignorance. You look at God as an assumption from what I can tell, you've never given in to the notion that there is an objective applicable reality, without participation I don't see how any of your presumptions about this are relevant. You should be asking questions, as from a state of ignorance which you basically admitted. I'm not being mean either, I'm being serious and objective.
Even if all religions were incorrect (which is a ton of information BTW) that doesn't negate the fact that God is not a Thing, the Creator can only be a sentient, intelligent Reality. Basically the truest form of God doesn't change only the forms of embodiments. So even at Gods most formless state God is still a Being not a thing, a pervasive omnipresent conscious Entity so no matter how you look at it you cannot rob God of that attribute and if you were to, the term God becomes no longer relevant because you're talking about some other thing entirely.
Even though you're used to looking at conscious beings within form, God is more like a conscious ocean (which creation exists within)....in other words a you without any embodiment. Most people from what I've seen can't conceptualize that but it's not that hard. You are a conscious being without any embodiment every time you dream or imagine something. You might be confined to a material body currently but just imagine yourself with no body by closing your eyes and observing, that is basically what God is or the state in which God exists in.
Created:
-->
@User_2006
Oh, so I will take that as a no.
Lol
Created:
-->
@User_2006
Spiritual principles yes..... cultural outlines, opinions and laws no. People should learn how to distinguish what is useful in scripture, it would make a big difference.
What's the difference? one reflects the time period in which it was written and the cultural influence and the other reflects a constant universal system of application. One is subject to change and the other is time-less.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Thanks! feel free to ask questions though...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
A god thing wouldn't of made things need to breath. ( I reckon )
Why? it's important that air reaches the internal cavities because it is a vital life force that maintains function of cells, can't have a material body without the circulation of oxygen however oxygen is no longer needed in terms of the soul itself (because it doesn't rely on a material body). But to experience things in a material world through a material vessel the body must have an oxygen supply to exist in the physical domain.
Basically the soul must have a body/vessel that corresponds with its surrounding or world. Picture souls (beings) coming in and out of bodies that correspond to each environment to be able to interface with that world. Kind of like a vehicle, or better yet picture an astronaut how it needs a "suit" to be able to survive in space and think of the physical body in relation to the soul the same way. The astronaut would be the soul and the suit would be the material body. The astronaut (soul) doesn't need a suit (material body) unless it were to interact with space (Earth/material world).
I'd like to talk about the god thing creating stuff.Creation.
All you have to do is picture the processes of the universe occurring the way they do, only God directing or using those materials to form things. That's why inanimate materials create stuff, not because they just do but because there is an intelligent source utilizing those materials. God bringing stars into existence through a process of the manipulation of energy and elements enables the universe to be continually seeded. Why do you think PLANETS form lol?? think about that...a PLANET (a place/world for inhabitants). Why would they just form on their own? why would galaxies cluster, solar systems arrange themselves in such ways where planets could develop eco-systems so that embodiments could flourish? do you really want to give dead materials that much credit?
Now, to make some sense out of this. One way to envision God creating is to discard the concept that God is a body or a being that has an embodiment. Rather picture the awareness of God akin to energy, where God is still conscious but not in a material body and everywhere in all places (more like an ocean). So that makes God, being awareness or intelligence akin to energy where God is omnipresent, meaning a non-located intelligence or one that exists much like a mind without a body.
Picture the universe as the space inside God's mind or thoughts, or go back to the ocean analogy where everything that exists within that ocean exists within the omnipresent water of the Reality of God. Now pay attention, in this ocean of conscious activity (universe/space) you have the generation of energy, it is the very conscious activity of God that generates energy. In other words energy co-exists with the intelligence of God so that every time energy acts as an intelligent force that is the manipulation of that energy by God controlling it. So that is how things happen on a massive scale, God is not restricted or limited to a little body somewhere in space rather God is a massive omnipresent Reality controlling massive forces to create objects within the universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope.Nothing strange about a religious forum....I never said there was...That's your own inference.
Then what is this?
"It's people that think and do strange things.....Things like gods and praying"
"Strange" was simply presented as a description of the Sun's activity.
Sure okay, sorry about the misinterpretation there.
I merely attempted to point out that "strange" is a human descriptive and not the ongoing activity of the Sun.
I'll admit there are some strange things and ideas that take place in a religious forum. But out of all propositions and worldviews the God hypothesis is the least strange.
As for the intelligent design argument, which I think is what you are alluding to.....I have never disagreed with this hypothesis....Considering the nature of the question that we are attempting to address, it is just as possible or impossible to assume purpose over chance as it is to assume chance over purpose.
The intelligent design argument kind of messes things up a bit IMO, although not a major difference at first glance I think it is more meaningful to say that the process of creation or the universe in association with intelligence is an unavoidable conclusion. One deals with design, the other deals with results and production of what we observe. In that light I don't think one is just as possible as the other because only one answers how and why things could act intelligently. Since inanimate materials have no minds or capacity to know anything or how something should work. Purpose without a doubt overshadows chance, to say it doesn't I think is just avoiding the truth.
Though one does find popular theistic hypotheses somewhat harder to swallow.
Okay, but in relation to Creation as a proposition I believe it is irrelevant.
Nonetheless, the god principle is a valid option....But I prefer something a bit more logical than the myths and legends of the Bible.
Okay, but you never explained to me first what you mean by "god principle". You can find something a bit more logical in what I've presented in your topic about "Theists...can you be honest" as I've been dealing with the premise of creation without using the Bible. Yet you never engage...
And "mind" as far as we can be minded is the physiological condition we attribute to ourselves...The condition that allows us to create more or less fantastical but unprovable hypotheses.
I'm only using "mind" as a term to describe the attributes of being able to think and use intelligence. In other words a word to describe the processes we observe in the universe in relation to an intelligent Source, how the mind specifically works in relation to how creation is set up I'd love to get into. But you don't seem particularly interested in getting too much into detail about creation. You come across as liking to keep a good distance between any insights about God, creation and yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
I know this is off topic. But this is what i was trying to say with the apple thing and body parts.The inanimate object act as if it has a mind of it's own. A germs enters our body.The body see's the germ.The body has knowledge that the germ is bad and create's a defense to it.In this instance the body part acted as if it had a mind of it's own. It saw a problem and fixed it. Apple's when eaten feeds good germs but not bad germs.The apple acts like it has a mind of it's own.It could tell the difference between good and bad germs and fed only the good germ. But not the bad
Yes, I call that awareness. How could anything have awareness coming from supposed inanimate materials? the whole of creation acts as if it contains awareness by what it produces and the evolution of things in relation to one another. Its as if the forces of nature and the very cells that make up our bodies have minds themselves lol, but the only way that could be possible is if there was an intelligent Source using those materials and or is alive within those materials. In other words awareness is present within energy or even energy and awareness co-exist. Now we have a realistic proposition and an answer for why and how our universe acts along with all the things within it. Just looking at the eco-system of Earth alone is mind-boggling to any intellectual yet even more so extending beyond Earth to observe the interconnected relationship it all has with whole of the universe, it's astounding. And like you said, the physical bodies are like computers there isn't a doubt in my mind that every single cell that makes up the organs and material form have awareness behind them.
It's as if they know what they are doing, what they are producing and how to maintain it. How does DNA contain information and instructions for Gods sake lol? it screams intelligence! and materialists don't blink an eye it's absolutely crazy IMO.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
What's god?
An assumption.
Lol is your assumption about God being an assumption an assumption??
A god principle is nonetheless a realistic hypothesis...
Whatever the "God principle" is you wish not to explain, but if its a realistic hypothesis how would you ever know whether or not any religious sources naively interpreted or represented it? if they did, how would you know what a legit interpretation is?
Ever thought about the possibility that religious sources can be studied as a wide range of facts and insights as a whole? and that not any one source is perfect but they all have something of value? in other words "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." After all it is the available body of facts and information as it specifically deals with the nature that we are studying/inquiring.
Now I would assume your response is going to be something along the lines of "well they all contradict one another", or "how can they all be right".
My response is no they don't all contradict one another, some things are contradictory but not all things and yes, many of them can be right or at the very least contain information that can be used. Not just one of them need to have accurate or useful information, information can be derived from all or most of them to help us put the pieces together about what it is we wish to understand, and we use information that is useful and discard what is not useful.
Creation and the reality of God is a massive scale operation, many societies exist beyond the small enterprise of Earth and so one thing to get out of the way, or one thing we as humans need to get over is that there are going to be many interpretations and varying facts and information about this Reality. That will be reflected in mans observations of a transcendent reality, meaning there will be many variations of a single proposition which man will one day realize is actually a very good thing.
So we want to gather useful information and be open to the possibility that we are dealing with a very dynamic existence, if pantheism and panentheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism and a host of other sources and propositions are correct then Omnism (as in Omnist) is an intelligent approach to an array of religious concepts and observations. If many Gods do in fact exist, so do many various cultures and societies which equal many interpretations and experiences which means we can utilize all useful information, facts and insights to paint an accurate albeit massive picture.
Remembering that just because many forms of Gods exist does not mean there isn't a singular Platform out of which all forms originate. This would fall into such categories as the Hindu conception of Brahman, as well as pantheism and panentheism, spiritism, Eckancar, factions of Buddhism ect ect...what this basically entails is that you have this....(not that you really care or anything but since you ARE on a religious part of the forum)
Platform (Omnipresent, universal singular original Source)
Gods (creators and the like)
Creation
Overlords
Demi-gods
Souls (as in you and I)
Incarnations
Creatures
Animals
Humans
ect ect
And BTW, for those who wish to label me a heretic or anti-Christian, I may be considered a heretic but certainly not anti-Christian. I support the Gospels and Christianity but my beliefs happen to extend beyond just that interpretation. My foundation is Christianity, that society and culture along with their Heaven or Kingdom do in fact exist. So while I am not considered a fundamentalist I am a Christian in the sense that I have been applying those teachings all my life. So I'm not against the Bible per say, I'm against the misconception that creation is limited to that one interpretation. I don't want this to be an argument on whether or not I qualify as a Christian because I don't personally care, but I do support the Gospels. And as you can see I like to ramble!
Created:
-->
@janesix
Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?
Well it depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to accept because after all the answer is in the interpretation of that question there is no black and white proof other than common sense and logic. I associate order with only that which is capable of understanding how a methodical arrangement, sequence or pattern could exist. I don't believe an inanimate universe or that lifeless dead materials could develop such things, lifeless materials and inanimate forces don't have minds to be able to formulate processes or know how things should work that's obvious. Concerning correlation there is good reason to at least suspect an association between order and intelligence. Basically, a created universe would like what it looks like now, one with order, arrangements, patterns, sequences, processes and desired outcomes and results. It would unfold in such a way where things make sense and could work and the evolution of processes in relation to each other. A created universe is directly associated with intelligence.
The very definition of order requires the understanding of how things fit together and how arrangements need to be organized for a particular purpose. IMO a mind (intelligence) is required for that to occur period, at least that is my interpretation. Nothing else makes sense to my rational mind therefore the conclusion is pretty solid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
That's actually a great point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
A rare thing right!? could you imagine if the threads here became more civil AND more interesting?
Created: