Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Lol the convo has obviously morphed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Everything you wrote is an interesting perspective. The way i look at it is looking at the humans that worship such entities. I find it very interesting that they cannot, for the most part, empathize with their gods. Their gods aren't even well defined. I think that's interesting bc it leaves it open. They could be as you say, or maybe they don't know and are just creators of that world. I just find it interesting it is beyond the worshipper's to properly define the god they are in to... and even more interesting that they think it's absurd or impossible... maybe it's bc they aren't right so they can't comprehend it... for if they were able to comprehend it, it would lead them away from their specific god and get them closer to an infinite consciousness type platform. They can't do it bc their platform is their reality, therefore, there is this reason they are incapable.
Yeah, remember that topic you made you wanted me to check out? about placing people in certain groups or areas of thinking they fall into using a color scheme? and how a person is basically stuck in their way of thinking? and until they are ready to make that shift in thinking to a higher or more complex or rational system of thought anything outside of their particular category sounds stupid or upon hearing another view it just goes over their head like they never heard it? I thought that was very interesting, it's almost as if we can't comprehend something we aren't ready to hear, it's funny how that works and this reminded me of that for some reason.
Part of this problem is due to the soul being on a super long journey and there being levels of enlightenment or awareness at each step of the journey. Much like an unfolding.....the reason for this is because it wouldn't be much of a journey had you been able to see the whole picture at any point you advanced or were to already know the plot (as you pointed out to Mdh2000). To someone who's never experienced anything beyond atheism for example, when they discover there's something beyond that their whole world changes and everything they thought they believed was overturned, this is a magical thing actually and this happens at each level of awakening for the individual. So it is imperative that they think anything outside their perceived reality be stupid or just being unaware of it.
Once you get to the Platform two things can happen.... the story is over and the journey has been completed and now you can either become something you never dreamed of, or you can do it all over again. By doing it all over again you basically start out as an infant or a newborn just like when you were born into this world. You become blind to everything and start a new journey of many experiences and lifetimes. Or, you can retain your knowledge and become a creative dreamer and basically create your own realities. So by keeping levels of awareness from certain souls is actually good for their journey, and if someone is not ready to hear the truth, the truth will just elude them until their journey is ready for that shift.
Another thing involved here is that people attach themselves both mentally and emotionally to ideas and desires, this also plays a vital role in ones journey because in a lot of ways it is people's thoughts and desires that create what they will experience so there are two ways a soul can create their realities, one is by creating it unaware that you are creating it and of course is becoming aware of what you are creating. It might not sound like much of a distinction but it is a major difference. So one way to break the cycle of creating experiences unaware is by breaking the patterns of thinking and letting go of emotions. Basically by becoming detached to the things you normally bind yourself to and chain your experiences to. And this is not easy, because both thought, desire and emotions are meant to serve as a very powerful force in ones life, it is what drives their experiences.
If one wants to be experience the infinite, the Platform, the Eternal One they must let go of all things, all attachments, all ideals, all emotions, all thoughts about this and about that and these are all things related to the created worlds which come in the many forms of duality. Those are what actually reduce a soul from the infinite, and what narrows your experience to the finite. The Infinite can't be defined or limited by ideas or specific thoughts so every time you try and define the One you have reduced what is everything, what is the All to a point in thought.
So most peoples problem is that they can't let go of their ideals, pre-conceived notions, judgements, their conditioned thinking and their emotional attachments. So for the soul to discover God in Heaven it is a very significant experience and so the emotional drive reinforces that experience. To that soul it is a wonderful thing to spend an "eternity" with that Being, and this is all beautiful but the only factor really is that experiences can extend beyond that and so the journey doesn't actually end there. In reality all Beings, all souls, all creatures and all things have the very same core, meaning the exact same origins. So even the God you serve comes from the same nature and Reality the lesser soul came from. If we were to all pull completely back away from creation (the picture play) there would be a single watcher lol, I laugh because we are all one singular Platform. We would all be there in one Unit not several or plural. What makes us distinct from the Platform is our individual confined embodiments....some more reduced than another and there are countless levels of form and embodiment. We all have a part to play though, we all have our individual journey to experience and to awaken to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Yes, I've thought of the platform in every which way. One thing about the multiple gods in the platform that is sorta a paradox that makes me ponder is how can you have two defined gods, like the Muslim and Christian god, in the same platform? Bc by definitions, they are both the supreme.
Because for one, they rule different parts of creation. For example a gang and a gang's leader, the leader may be regarded as the number one top leader in a particular region yet in another region the same scenario. Or a King in one country, yet in another country a supreme King. Now to step back a bit, I've heard people argue that the Christian and the Muslim God could be the same Entity, it's just that different regions of the world and within religious squares have different names for the same phenomenon. But I don't have to really argue that because I believe what I said about them ruling different parts of creation is legit enough, because if they own and rule a planet for example, they actually would be the Supreme King of that planet, what other planet would matter in that respect? basically they have their own world, same with other cultures and God concepts they basically have their own King ruler and own territory. The Earth would be more like a middle grounds or neutral territory. This is the fun dynamics of creation though.
The interesting thing about the Hindu concept of God is that it's universal, it actually by definition doesn't exclude all these different named Gods as separate, actually they define Brahman pretty much like we would define the Platform maybe minus a few things but certainly compatible.
On the other hand, both the Hindus and Buddhists have a good grasp on demi-gods and over Lords and incarnations, they understand that all Beings of form come from the formless and that when the Platform creates an embodiment they call that an incarnation, "God in the flesh". It's very possible that both the Christian God and the Muslim God are demi-Gods and it's just their followers don't know it and to them they are God, meaning these Beings could have come out from the Platform just like I said and these souls believe it's the final God...in other words they just are not aware of the Platform, and the Platform being formless is what makes it infinite and omnipresent while the Christian God is known to have a form. Anything that has form has first originated from the formless.
Not only that, would these gods know they are one of many? Or would they not know?
That's why I want you to read that book, you would be fascinated it actually covers this question. The answer is yes they know they come out of the Platform and that there are many beings or rulers, but they argue that they are the most High, each of them think they are the God everyone would want to parade under lol. They have a sense of jealousy, or they want to be admired as the final cause and the most High God. Since they do have very powerful limitless forms, I believe they think they are more desirable than the formless. So in a sense they ignore the Platform as if It doesn't exist or that It's not relevant. It gets very interesting I could break it down more but I don't want to get too into detail here. I could get into trouble with the information I'm sharing lol.
If they do not know, how do they fit their definitions? If they do know... are they aware they are limited as a one god (therefore not a god by definitions)?
Yes they are aware of what they are, they are the closest form to the Platform, they are at the very tipping point or edge of where form and the Formless meet as well they are true rulers. They are high and mighty and they carry the attitude of that with them, they are also very kind, loving and merciful to other lesser souls. The scary part is the duality of creation, that means there exists monstrous entities as well, they care very little for other souls that come out of the Platform and these would be the Gate Keepers of hades and hells things like that. But creation must be that way, because to have separation there must be opposing forces of all things that bounce between each other, without true duality there would be no creation. You must have light and darkness, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, love and hate, cold and hot ect ect...
What most people don't know, is that creation extends beyond these God figures, there's many levels of experience beyond them..... you can bypass them but it's not very easy to do because we exist in the areas of creation that they rule over and they are more like Gate Keepers. How we got here could be for many reasons, but you will know much more when you leave the physical body. A soul traveler is a soul known to traverse creation and the heavens basically where ever it choses to exist or visit. This can take place at anytime and anywhere, you don't even have to die to do this, they call that astral travel or what some call extending or projecting your consciousness to any area of creation or the multiverses. And since you have a corresponding layer of each universe you can traverse anywhere within all of the worlds.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The Sun, Stars, and Moon do what they do....(Though that's not to say that said celestial bodies think about what they do).
Lol, right....because that would be stupid to think. Inanimate materials doing things that produce results is very silly to believe, which is why it takes intelligence to understand how to take inanimate materials to bring about processes and results. You know, things only a mind would understand.
about things that seem strange but actually aren't strange.....Things like gods and praying
Yeah, and some of us find it strange anyone would feel strange about a religious forum and what people think in it and then always participate in them, even more strange thinking celestial bodies and inanimate materials act and do on their own accord and produce things as if they had minds. Now those are strange things indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Okay before we get into anymore details or me try and elaborate more on what we went over why don't you explain what you mean when you ask...."can you back this up"...."can you support this", like in other words what are you expecting out of me in order to support my claims other than my own observations and conclusions?
Next, when you say supposition what do you mean exactly? because I don't share anything I believe to be uncertain, and they're not just beliefs. If you want to say anything uncertain about them I guess you could say they are educated guesses but even then I don't believe I'm guessing anything. You don't know me very well and probably don't have a good idea of my history and the reasons of how I've formed my conclusions so maybe you just have this idea I'm some hippie kid that likes to pay around with ideas. That would not be a good depiction of me, I've had a lot of experiences in life of the transcendent nature and this is the starting point of my observations, then I reach conclusions based upon my own observations along with others. It's also not a fair thing to claim confirmation bias because as you wouldn't really know, I'm very particular about examining claims and looking at all the angles involved and going with the best possible scenario and answers so I don't really care about my own biases, at least when forming beliefs or conclusions.
Having said that, I could back things up I share by presenting correlating sources depending on what you mean by support. Like for example if I made a claim involving a process of the universe like gravity or something, or evolution or maybe energy and perhaps I used a scientific source or scientific study to support what I was claiming about them, is that what you mean?
Let me save you the suspense if so, if I were to use a source to back up a spiritual proposition the source would have to correlate with that nature. For instance, if I wanted to claim something about the natural world I would probably use science to support the idea. Meaning a study or examination where it was collectively agreed on or where the study was conclusive. However, the same is true for a spiritual claim or transcendent observations, I would want to use a method or source that correlates with that nature so I would then move over to religious sources and spiritual observations to cross reference and support by cross examination and things like that. If I wanted to support the claim of a soul for example or that consciousness survives death I would look into NDE's as a direct method of study. So when you say can I support the ideas behind what I'm sharing I'm going to say the ideas have been presented throughout history, but through correlated sources.
But if you mean can I support the claim that for example....processes are associated with a mind or intelligence basically I'm just presenting what appears to me as a logical commonsense observation, but Theism as presented in the idea of creation has already been established, I'm just giving you reasons to consider it or even better believe it with confidence. If I see intelligence behind the processes of the universe and what it produces it is my opinion but not just an empty one, and other than making an attempt to say that processes can't and shouldn't occur on their own (because inanimate forces have no awareness or intelligence to form a process) I have no way to "support" that other than it's commonsense or what I perceive as rational, but if you don't feel that way I can't give you any consolation in that regard. These are my own opinions, but again they are educated conclusions based on my own logic. I understand if that's not convincing to you but as I said before, we could agree to disagree.
If we were to go back to the origins of my beliefs, which have been expanded on we would go back to my own experiences and observations of this world and beyond. For example I don't have to rely on NDE's do show me a transcendent realm exists or that spirits exist I've seen them myself. All I have to do to support that observation is collaborate with NDE experiences and cross examine religious sources. Now I have my own direct first hand observation along with millions of other testimonies and sources. Another example would be I don't have to read the Bible to believe that people have spiritual visions because I've had them, but I can collaborate with the Bible to cross reference them or understand them.
I wouldn't have to rely on hear say to know what spiritual principles are and what they mean I apply them myself and live by them and see what they produce, but I can also read them in details within spiritual literature ect ect...So really it all depends on what you are asking when you say "can I support" this or that and what it is you're looking for other than a logical premise.
If you're not satisfied with the opinions I share in our discussion I'm not really sure what you're looking for. These are MY ideas, albeit Theism has been around for a long, long time. I can support the concepts of Theism and the general claims about God using sources that correlate with that nature, in other words I wouldn't lean on science per say to shed light on spirituality and understanding about God. I would rely on a source that can reach that level of understanding.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Dying in your early 30's isn't much of a living.
With your limited range of thinking it's amazing you even humiliate yourself in a public forum. Martin Luther King Jr was murdered in his 30's and changed the world, Jesus was murdered at a young age and resurfaced the face of religion and how people relate to God. Get real, their dying age had no relevance to their influence and power. Bruce Lee is another great example although he wasn't murdered per say, I could give you countless examples of major figures that influenced the world yet didn't make it to the age of 40. There's no doubt that Jesus' living and example changed the world in many ways. He really didn't have to live beyond what he did to make that happen, even more so shows his unique influence, he lived more than people who lived to be a hundred not to mention losing the physical body is not losing ones life, only their life in this particular world. It's not how long you lived but the quality of life you live and how you impacted others with that time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
If you were to ever read a spiritual piece of literature just for the hell of it, I would recommend the Tiger's Fang by Paul Twitchell. It's very similar to my outline above, I was quite shocked when I read it how much it relates to some of the way I think. I know I've told you about it before but I doubt you read it lol, so if you get bored it's a great work of spiritual art. It will give you a better idea of what God means and how it fits into our Platform idea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
To expand on the post above, the reason all these aspects of creation and religious theology fit together and work is due to how creation is set up, and even though the multiverse is only a theory in the scientific squares it will become more prominent as man progresses in his quest to explore and discover. The multiverse fits into spirituality perfectly, it even explains spiritual experiences and NDE's if you really think about it. You could also use the term parallel universes or alternate worlds. What happens is once the soul drops its embodiment or material vessel they are then present within the next or preceding parallel domain/world.
So basically once you shed the physical body you are still alive and conscious within another embodiment. You actually have a body or layer/covering that corresponds with each universe and there are several of them. What makes you distinct from the Platform is your coverings or embodiments, a lot like if you were to approach a huge ocean and you wanted to somehow make a little bit of that water distinct from that ocean.....how would you do that? well one way is to take an empty glass or container and dip it into the ocean and bring it out and now you have that bit of ocean water distinct from the ocean itself. You could also encapsulate that water within the ocean, by again trapping that water within a container and so you now have a shield or sheath that separates the ocean from the contents of the container.
The soul (individual) works the exact same way believe it or not, when the Platform wishes to make you or I distinct from Itself it simply covers us in an embodiment or uploads you into the multiverse with a body, then we appear to be an individual even though we are all singular in consciousness (Platform). Well in actuality you have several of these coverings not just one. You will probably think that is strange but not once you realize why, they are also called subtle bodies if you want to look it up. Some people call them spirit bodies it's the same thing. This is why you see so many testimonies about spiritual beings and spirits which some call ghosts, these are actually subtle bodies.
The reason for this is because you don't want to necessarily be present within the singular Platform once you leave this physical domain, it is your layers that keep this from happening....you could however, but for the sake of the soul and its journey it's incumbent that the soul remain distinct from the Platform, as some are not prepared for that experience. So there is a multiverse and corresponding bodies that make this possible.
Technically, you could shed all your embodiments and be completely unified with the Platform, because your very core (soul) is identical to the Platform, like I explained above with the water and a container. If you were to remove the container the water would just be an ocean again, a singular content. But if you had several coverings or containers it would require that you shed each layer before merging with the ocean.
In a way you could describe or envision creation as a multiverse much like a bullseye pattern. Of course the center being the platform, and all the outside rings are each layer of multiverse. The physical domain being the outermost layer, and each preceding layer coming closer or more unified with the Platform or center. It is the outer rings or layers that keep your experience distinct from the Platform creating the illusion you are separate from It. The cool part is that as you remove each layer you become less restricted, there is far less mass that limits your abilities. And the less mass or material you have covering you the more your abilities increase. Think of a balloon if you will, the more you increase the air within the lighter it becomes, as you peal away mass and matter your bodies become much lighter, eventually you would be able to fly, and your potentials increase greatly.
This is for more than one reason though, because it also enables your experiences to be endless because within each universe (or ring) there are countless galaxies, solar systems and planets and you could virtually manifest into any one of them. It is the multiverse that makes this possible and it's very interesting. You could view it as a simulation if you like too, because each layer or universe is a simulation you can upload yourself into. This is how the Platform manifests into any experience It wishes to have to forget what It actually is temporarily. So this actually makes the Platform sort of like a movie watcher lol like we talked about, because while it can experience anything It can never be anything but the Platform, it just experiences everything through your channel and my channel, your individual covering/vessel. It's actually genius when you think about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I respect that, but to me... when i hear "god" that is pretty extreme. I'd rather start out with the claims to how they got to their god so i can see if it's reasonable. Bc the definition of their god can be on to something, but all the fluff in-between can just be human fallibility... which i've concluded with organized religion btw, fluff.
Here's something to consider, not that you haven't though. God's, multiverses, reincarnation, heavens and hells ect ect can all work and fit into the universal infinite platform it doesn't have to be one or the other, God vs the platform theory problem. Since I think we could agree if we agree on anything that the platform or Source is an infinite intelligence or awareness/conscious state of being It wants to be as many things as It can dream of or imagine and that would also include being "God", and being God over lesser beings or beings that are less aware we could say. The God prototypes are just beings of much more awareness and abilities, they possess advanced qualities and powerful less restricted embodiments and while they do in fact exist they too come out of the platform.
All individuals, all Gods, demi-gods, souls, creatures ect ect originate from this omnipresent infinite platform, they all fit into the multiverse design. And believe it or not some souls aren't ready to learn about the Platform so they may be more inclined to believe or wish to collaborate with a God figure, and since God's do exist they are glad to incorporate these souls into their knowledge and abundance, that's their desire. This is really cool though, because this is the dynamics of creation most people would never think about. When dealing with an eternal creative Platform of expression and imagination there's infinite possibilities and potential.
Other souls may have existed much longer, or had these types of experiences already and they just are more mundane about these types of scenarios and begin to be curious about their true nature. That's what I think is interesting about you, I'm still fascinated by these higher Beings but you think they are boring lol, that's an indication to me that you've had a lot of experiences on your journey. I do think if you saw one or were to have an experience with one you would be captivated, and these God are real good at captivating the soul and they are very glad to show you many things. So just think about it, when a soul encounters a God or demi-God they become captivated by that Being and this is where religions come into play. The funny part is that people always assume only one religion can be correct, that is actually not the case because like I said there are countless societies that exist outside or transcendent of the physical domain, and the Gods are there to fit the roles of ones who control and rule over those domains. But outside of all domains is the singular Platform out of which all other beings originate. These Beings or Gods can even fit the roles of Creators, creating worlds for their captivated souls.
Remember about people, it's the nature of the soul to want to commune with others and dwell in communities or collectively, they're not ready to withstand the reality that they came from a Platform that exists entirely alone. And it's the beauty of creation why different cultures, styles, traditions and a host of many other variables exist, and "God" is basically the overarching factor that brings it all together, that unifies those aspects. So it's not like what most people think, where there is just one God and everyone else is mistaken. It is true that these Gods dwell in different areas and parts of creation, so that when a person has an experience with one or ends up in one of their heavens it appears that's the only God and only heaven that exists. That's the point though, without that illusion there would most likely be no patriotism or creed that binds them to that experience.
But just as there are countless cultures and traditions, there are countless societies that exist outside of Earth. That's why you see as an example, the Native Americans put so much emphasis on their ancestors and culture because they know and have experienced that these ancestors and cultures exist outside the material domain. Same with Christians, Hindus, Buddhists ect ect...it's not like only one of those groups have a paradise outside the physical experience and every other culture is doomed, the Platform is not that stupid lol. The Platform is far more diverse and imaginative than anyone could conceive of.
The reincarnation idea or theory is very simplistic, it' s just a label for the fact that souls get recycled in certain parts of creation. This is how these variations of cultures keep themselves alive and powerful, it is the reincarnation, the cycle of souls being regurgitated back within their cultures and groups. It is because the soul desires to do so, there may be something that captivates them about a particular society or area of creation and so they keep reincarnating to keep it alive.
The heaven and hell scenario, despite there being many of them fit into the laws of creation aspect, as well as the desire of the individual souls. There are rewards and there are consequences and even though they exist none of them are actually eternal that is a misconception. It seems like they are, but anything other than the eternal platform is temporal, even if we are talking about eons of time the only thing that is infinite and eternal is awareness, the original Platform. This is also true about the very nature of you, me and everyone else, we will always be alive and conscious despite having embodiments that end. But these places like heavens and jails only exist in parts of creation, it's not the only things that exist. Heavens are actually planets, and hell is just another name for jail or prison.
So don't let religion and variations of religious theology confuse you there's a place for all of it believe it or not, understand that when you say anything we could imagine exists in one form or another that is true in a literal sense and then some. So feel good about the direction you're going in and let your freedom to explore go in any direction. This isn't some fiction thing we are talking about, the coolest part about all of this is that it actually is an objective reality, meaning this isn't about our feelings or opinions it actually exists.
Most people would read this and assume I'm batshit crazy lol, personally I don't care I'm well aware of how sound my mind is, but I know you're like me and probably have an attention span of a bug, so I know you most likely don't like to read someone else's posts for very long but I hope you read all of this one because I think you'll be very interested. I know it's long winded, but some of these topics are very dynamic and it takes a lot of explaining, believe me I keep it as short as I possibly can!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
like hes not part of the site
Lol exactly, his ego couldn't handle it. I think he would break.
Ive started LOL
Lol, good luck. I'll check in and see what's going on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think the best way would be to have a bunch of folks start participating and starting new topics and completely ignore him. That way there's activity going on in the midst of all his bullcrap. We would have to be real persistent though, but I think if he was ignored eventually it would get to his ego. He would be forced to act somewhat normal, at that point we got him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hes unstoppable
It does appear that way. Ethang would be the only person I'm aware of comparable. Not even he can shut him down.
hes made it his life mission
He's a loser too.
Ill try
I would never go alone lol, he'll drain you until there's nothing left to try.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Maybe if we got together a posse and rushed the forum we could drown him out if we completely ignored em. But I don't know anybody desperate enough lol and it would take a lot of effort. We would need a bunch of the old gang.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hahaha you have been paying attention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
hes there for the long run
LOL! now that I believe, if there's one thing I could say Hari is, would be consistent.
he wants to create a hindu hari utopia with all of his Indian friends
He doesn't have friends, that's obvious. With the amount of time and useless posts there's no way he has a life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yeah I wish it could be revived but Harikrish has gotta go.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
I'm waiting for Athias to show up lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Type religion debate forum or religion forum debate and DDO is third or fourthSo the other forums at the top, the crazies got banned and moved on to DDO
I know, I came from DDO as a member there for 10 years. I still visit DDO here and there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Well, wouldn't you need to figure out more traits that are 'more' accurate to what it truly is in order to be able to establish ways of finding it out?
Great point!! I think people should entertain ideas about God, look for concepts that work, insights that provide insights about other things to get closer to considering the idea if the idea exists. That's actually one reason I do what I do, so that people have more things to consider. I think people would be more inclined to believe or consider a transcendent platform if they had more accurate knowledge, or something that makes sense to even consider it. The more accuracy in the concepts the closer we get to figuring it out collectively.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
2a(1) : a natural phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result the process of growth(2) : a continuing natural or biological activity or function such life processes as breathing.Nowhere in this definition would there be the need to insert an intelligence.
We've been over this, it's not my position or argument that the definition of processes require intelligence. The definition simply states what it means, not why it occurs. My argument has been based on correlation not the meaning of the word process. However, the definitions I used in this thread show what I meant by a process and how I'm using the term. On the other hand, the definitions above do not negate my argument that there could be an intelligent Source since my position is that intelligence is using those processes to bring about results. And again, inanimate forces don't have minds or intelligence to bring about particular results. How could they?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I don't believe there was a premise presented in your previous post to me, there was an argument of sorts
At this point should I presume you're being an ass?
Premise-
previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion.
base an argument, theory, or undertaking on.
but as I said above, it's all built around intentionality
Are there not results that produce things that effect another thing? we've gone over some of the things that qualify as intention already.
can you show that the universe is the product of a plan?
What else would you refer to it as?
If not then a lot of your questions above aren't valid, there is no need for the processes in the universe to know how to act, or to know anything
But if they don't know how to act how does anything get accomplished? why does anything exist at all? how does anything make sense?
they simply act and in doing so this universe formed.
Ahhh, they simply act and do things and wah-lah! but they are dead and inanimate lol.
Why must there be intentionality in any of that?
Look in the mirror and ask yourself that with a straight face. It's not that it must, it is that there is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I haven't seen any reason to believe it's conscious or alive however.
Lol all except that it just produces things that are conscious and alive. How did an inanimate universe produce intelligence from a lifeless unconscious state? you haven't seen any reason though life and consciousness is all around you, suddenly it's here and you just can't find a good reason. Okay then what can anyone say? you just don't see it even though it's there....
If seemingly lifeless, unaware forces of nature begin to act as an intelligent operation and produces things like a producer and you just act as if nothing is going on why even bother to come here? why did you instigate a conversation with me if you're going to roll over and play dead? if you're going to assume that it is all an unknown and that any facts or information regarding a Creator is simply confirmation bias then why interact at all? if you have no reason to believe or consider anything at all I find it ironic you would come to a religious forum.
what traits from our universe would apply outside our universe (again not a great term, but there doesn't seem to be a good one in this context), or what would be possible or even probable or inevitable in such a place/circumstance. We don't even have an example of nothing from which to build any idea of what can or cannot be applied to nothing. With such a large lack of information how can we hope to reliably draw any conclusions?
Transcend, transcendence is the word that applies here. This is where you would begin to ask questions to someone like me, this is how you would learn stuff and that things CAN be known. You could take such information and incorporate it into your own data base whether or not you accept it.
For now however it seems we've got no reason to conclude anything other than it's an unknown.
Sure, if you're a person who discounts sources that correlate with Theism, and no surprise you would. It's not an unknown rather has been known and been shown for ages. Spirituality including all the insights and knowledge wrapped up therein have been around almost as long as humans began perceiving. You can claim it's an unknown or that it can't be known but in all honesty it's not the case. Assuming God exists (just for the sake of this point) the information has been presented. It's only your own reluctance that makes it an unknown, is that intellectually honest? just because you don't particularly trust spiritual claims and insights does that make your case legit if God exists? or does that just make you a skeptic? at what point would you be willing to say "ya know....maybe it's not a unknown, what reason do I really have to assume the origins of the universe are unknown? have I paid attention and considered all propositions? how could I claim it's unknown when I don't know myself? is it unknown to everybody?".
even those that have been backed by personal experience and things they believed they'd seen, heard or interacted with, it's not really evidence of anything
Actually had you educated yourself on what evidence entails and how it is defined when I posted it for you then you wouldn't have made this mistake. Perhaps go back and read it, and see if you're able to catch it this time. I'm honestly getting sick of those who would probably be the first to claim they go with evidence and not know what evidence is and how it is defined. After you read how evidence is defined go look up the word "testimony". Guess what word will be used to define what a testimony is? if you wanted to be intellectually honest you would be willing to include and incorporate all truths the way they are defined whether or not you find it legit.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I'm sure that some people are inspired by religion in this way.
Well it's an objective fact, in terms of spirituality.
But out of the approximately 1.25 billion Catholics worldwide how many do you think actually regard their religion in this way?
I would have to say it's somewhat irrelevant. Their opinions about their brand of religion isn't relevant to the facts.
I would suggest that most just go through the motions of a conditioned way of life, simply because they think that is what they are supposed to be doing.
I would agree. Then you could see what I mean by it being irrelevant, "conditioned" minds and patterns of behavior are exactly that.
I would further suggest that, Inevitably and unavoidably, money is the bottom line of most peoples day to day lives.
Yes, that's an aspect of the material world, I never denied that. But it's not relevant in a spiritual context. I'm sure you can figure what I mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Which one of the Bronze, Iron, and Middle Ages God are you referring to? You act like there is only one God that remains in the 21st century. Can you be more specific?
God is a universal Reality with variations of interpretations of that Reality within the world. While the Reality of God and truth are constant the interpretations of that Reality vary among people. In other words it doesn't matter, those interpretations aren't relevant to the truth or this discussion. God exists independent of them. The processes of the universe signifying a Creator exists is not relevant to "which" God I'm referring to, or which God religions express. What matters, or the subject at hand is whether or not there is a Creator involved in creating the universe.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Quite obviously all archaic religious mythologies have varied over time.
They have variations yes as do each culture, but very little have varied relevant to "time". The concept of a Creator is not something that varies, it is universal despite varying expressions or interpretations of that Reality. The basic idea of God or Creator is simplistic.
Just as the purposes and aims of popular religions have been forced to change to meet the demands of an evolving society.
Their cultures and ideas relating to the world sure, because when dealing with religions you have a mixture of their culture that reflected the time period they lived in. However, the foundation and heart of their spiritual context remains consistent. That's because while culture and technology advances spirituality is time-less, there's not much to change because it transcends the carnal world and their cultural upbringings.
Religion after all is big business and therefore the perpetuation of the various derivations of the myths is now essential chiefly for this reason.
Organized religion and institutions are big business sure, but not the products of spirituality. Spirituality deals with the inner qualities of souls, it's not necessarily relevant to the carnal world. Flesh is flesh spirit is spirit. One changes one ceases to change, one is temporal the other eternal.
In terms of wealth the Catholic Church is reputed to be No.1.....So this would seemingly make it the fullest by todays standards and requirements.
But in spirituality those standards no longer matter, it's ironic....the standards that matter within a carnal world are what make them weak in the context of spirituality. Money and wealth signify very little if anything because they are temporal, they are connected with the illusions of success. If this is what makes them strong in a worldly context it is what makes them weak and vulnerable in a spiritual context. And it's very easy to see that in a spiritual context these institutions and leaders are sick, and the perversion that takes place behind closed door with the most innocent victims exposes their weakness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Once we agree that at the very least, the post above is a logical premise we can make the next step in this conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Question for you, why can't processes begin without an intelligence?
The question itself is silly, that's why I keep calling it absurd yet you don't seem to get it. It requires thought to initiate a process, a process itself is the beginning of an idea or a desired outcome which brings about a result. It requires a mind and intelligence to formulate a process, to understand what needs to be done and how, what materials need to be used to manifest that idea. Inanimate forces have no ability to think or understand something, they have no mind or awareness do you not see that? Like I said to Outplayz, that's like believing a painting painted itself or a building built itself into existence with inanimate materials and you're asking why I don't believe that lol. It's common sense, in other words me having to explain that to you makes me feel like I'm lowering my intelligence.
That's why I keep turning the question back to you, how can a process begin without a mind, how does it know what to do? how does anything develop or manufacture something without intelligence? why do intelligent processes occur in our universe? you not being able to answer that should signify to you that it's not possible, processes cannot spontaneously begin to produce things all by themselves. Again, 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 is needed, what materials are required for it to be developed and what the desired outcome should be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I agree with your evidence, but since it's abstract... the very nature of it means he can disagree with why you believe what you do. That's the beauty of infinity.
Hmm that's interesting and I'm glad to see you around here. That is the beauty of creation you're right, only thing I don't like about it, is that people can be blind to the full potential of what is actually going on. I guess that makes creation what it is, how we are able to focus on one life at a time and put all of our attention on it.
However, even though I would agree that connecting intelligence to the formation of our universe may be abstract, the actual processes are right in front of our faces and the processes alone should signify or indicate that intelligence was involved. Because the alternative would be to believe that processes occur all by themselves, but thought is required for a process to even begin lol, inanimate forces have no ability to bring about desired outcomes. It takes a mind and intelligence to understand what needs to happen and what directions to go. Even though the Creator uses materials and evolution to bring things into existence it's crazy to believe and accept that these materials did it all be themselves lol, that's like believing a painting painted itself or that a movie produced itself or that a building built itself into existence without a builder. So in that sense it's pretty concrete, at the very least can give anyone confidence that "God" exists, excuse me that the platform of awareness exists. Awareness is why and how the materials of the universe work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
What does "creator" mean at that point? A very little correlation to "a" creator... as proposed by many religions. It would be a collective, it would be individual, it would be anything we can imagine... times that to infinity, creation simply has a crazy definition. Although "creating" is happening... not in a single creator setting. If you are arguing about that, i would take your side. I would not take the side of any one single creator / power definition. However, i always mention "a" platform. This platform can be called god / creator.. but the platform is simply the hardware / software that allows for what is... so, it's really not a one thing either.
You're right here in many ways...I'm not going to argue about religion, or make any claims the platform is a God coined through religion but Creator is a legit term to use. Because the worlds that exist prior to the soul existing there, along with the seemingly infinite number of galaxies and planets were created, they were created before hand so that the soul has endless places to journey and exist. So how this works, is the worlds or planets are formed and brought into existence and then the soul plots or chooses which part of the universe it will exist. Sometimes it doesn't always choose though because it must learn something from an experience.
You're right though, there doesn't have to be a single Creator but there is a single platform if that makes sense. The platform is a singular unified Reality, out of which all mini-creators (you and I) originate. The co-creators are permitted to create whatever reality they dream of or desire as they progress in creation. What distinguishes us from the original platform is our individual perceptions and expressions which are formed through our experiences and embodiments. We basically become our own individual being as we move through creation. It's crazy how this works and is absolutely genius, that we could all originate from the same Reality yet become our own individual.
However not all souls are creators or world-makers, not all want to be. But at the same time all souls have complete freedom even though their world may limit or restrict that freedom. So in that sense you have souls that create realities where others souls may want to journey, it's kind of cool. In other words, you may see a world or a galaxy you think is totally bad-azz and spend a couple eons there if that's what you want. Or, you can create realities for other souls to sojourn. The point, is that there are endless places to exist....so that coupled with the fact we believe our experiences and lives to be temporal through perception, we always have something new to experience.
I call the platform Creator because that's what It basically is, that's where all mini-creators originate. Consciousness by nature, including the platform is creative by nature, it wants to express itself and can never be anything else. Consciousness doesn't want to be alone even though it has always been alone lol, it's very nature wants to share and to have relations that's why Creators are so important and why it's a good term to use.
When i say time... i simply mean moving forward....little things like the infinite regress answer i stumbled on
Here's the cool part that most people don't think about, "time and infinite regress"....in the physical universe time is simply a type of illusion even though it's relevant. Time, or what we label time is simply the material world passing, or matter deteriorating, in other words it's on a linear type scale of events. The platform or the ocean of awareness/consciousness we always talk about, the foundation out of which all comes from is a static reality, it's a fixed state of being. In this fixed state of being matter doesn't exist on a linear time scale because there is no passing of events, there is no aging process or a past and a future in terms of "time" so there is no time passing. So if you can picture the platform as a static Reality where linear time doesn't exist, in other words no passing of material matter this also solves the infinite regress problem because there is no infinite past since time ceases to exist in the way we understand it, there was just a unified fixed state of existence. If it helps, you can picture it as cyclical instead of static. I'm just giving you this bit of information so you can put more pieces together without getting hung up.
So it's almost like a picture play on top of a static screen if that makes any sense. Where you have the movie (movements of events and time) and the movie watcher (static background). The picture play obviously would be the physical universe and the watcher would be the platform, where there is a fixed state of being that precedes our moving universe of picture plays.
If you pay attention to quantum mechanics it always brings you back to the base fabric of everything, where it becomes a unified interconnectedness between all things. They don't call this base or fabric awareness yet, but that's just because they don't know it yet. But the base or foundation is fixed, it doesn't move. Only the things brought into existence dance, come into existence and go out of existence. Kind of like a static ocean in a way, and the waves that come in and out of that fixed water are what forms within creation are. Anyways I could go on and on about it lol, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. When you get it, you will see there actually is no infinite regress issue because if time passing is basically an illusion then there never was an infinite past in terms of the movement and aging of physical matter, albeit there indeed exists an eternal presence.
And I'm not trying to butt into your discussion either, you're just one of the few people I can collaborate with that aren't so limited in their thinking. It's kind of funny, even though we have similarities the way you are brings out a lot of my potential because you get it. Everybody else is still hung up on mistakes religions have brought about and I don't really care about that stuff lol. And atheists are still hung up on God, or the platform not existing so I never get to really stretch my wings. These forums are a blessing and a curse!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I'm saying that my happiness is neither here nor there when matters of what is true and what I should believe are (they should be as close as possible the same thing). Honestly your motivations aren't that relevant to my conclusion and I wouldn't presume to know what they are.
I'm not concerned as to what makes you happy per say but what makes you content and what is intellectually honest. Are you really content with not knowing when there is an answer to the equation? .....I've been trying to get you to consider a logical premise, one that is superior to yours, one that only has one possible scenario. In this case you don't have to walk around not knowing when the answer is black and white.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I'm aware of what evidence is,
Then stop claiming that none has been presented.
it's a body of facts and information that support a claim.
More accurately it's the available body of facts and information that indicate whether a proposition is true or valid.
As for a logical premise, I know what one is,
And it has been presented.
If you could address the flaws
I haven't been made aware of legit flaws. My premise is sound, it is logical and supported by evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
How is it an indicator of intelligence? This seems to be begging the question (assuming your conclusion in the premise).
By what it produces.
This assumes intentionality in saying that certain results were 'desired' can you show this intentionality?
By what it produces, all you have to do is look at the end results. We've been over most of these, the curious nature and dependence of stars, the arrangement of solar systems and the earths position, the eco-system, food, water, light and heat then the development of embodiments that utilize those sources.
Again this seems to be dependent on natural processes having been initiated with a desired outcome, can you show that to be the case? Or do you conclude this because the outcome is one that you find desirous?
Desirous in that you enjoy the beauty of earth and our solar system, you can live out your own desires and passions here. That you depend upon the very necessity of those factors to survive.
Ah, now this is a more interesting point. Are you arguing that intelligence couldn't have formed without an intelligence to have formed it? If so, can you show this claim to be verifiable?
Yes, I don't believe that an inanimate force could produce or create intelligence or produce anything. Can I show it to be verifiable? it's back to 2+2 could only ever have one possible answer. And this goes back to common sense as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I haven't said that your answer couldn't be 4, but until it can be shown to be so it's not an accurate analogy.
When there is an equation that has no other possible answer as there is only one useful and accurate explanation it has been shown already. 2+2 can only ever equal four, it has no other possible answer it's that black and white. It's as black and white as processes are associated with a mind...You could rattle off a dozen alternatives as to how intelligent processes could occur without a mind involved and I would consider each of them as long as they weren't illogical and absurd. As a matter of fact take that as a challenge, give me one or two other possible answers as to how inanimate forces could begin to produce results or why processes occur besides you don't know, or that they just do and I will gladly accept that my analogy is not accurate or that my answer may not be 4.
Otherwise the rest of your own analogy falls apart, because I'm not claiming we can't see what's in the box or know what it is. I'm giving you the only possible answer. You could prove me wrong of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
it's another logical fallacy
If you spent half as much time educating yourself what evidence entails and what a logical premise is rather than reading a book of supposed fallacies then this wouldn't be such a waste of time.
It's not about being happy, I don't base belief on what makes me happy
If that's what you believe my motivation is then this indeed is a waste of time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
It may be interesting, but do we have any reason to believe it to be true?
Yes, the universe itself is an indicator of intelligence which produces intelligent processes. If processes occur and are produced, it is evident that thought was involved as it requires thought (intelligence/mind) to understand what it takes to develop a desired result or outcome and a mind to initiate a process itself. If that is the case then we have good reason to consider an infinite consciousness or awareness. Meaning all that we observe, are the products of an intelligent mind and all things come from that first foundation. We can support that notion with what the universe itself has produced...intelligent processes and intelligent sentient creatures, ecosystems which support that role.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
To further an analogy EtrnlVw begun. If you ask what is 2+2, it's better to say I don't know than answer with 5.
But, my answer could very well be 4 and your skepticism that my answer could be accurate means very little especially when you have no answer to the equation at all. Which makes your doubt a bit irrational.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion, because evident things are undoubted. There are two kind of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs).
The mentioned support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
an outward sign : INDICATION.
something that furnishes proof : testimony
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
you cannot present evidence for your claims, you may claim you have evidence, but without being able to present it that is itself another claim, making it kind of useless to discuss the matter as neither can make meaningful points or ask meaningful questions.
Part of the problem is that you appear to not understand the terms of evidence and what it entails.
It seems to me most people don't have a clear grasp how evidence is defined or how it's used to support ideas, or that evidence should only be some scientific study or demonstration that confirms how something works and that's not true. Evidence can be as simple as "anything presented in support of an assertion. There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)."
And while a person is free to categorize evidence as strong or weak it's still classified as evidence
For example, even though my pemise is supported by evidence (indicator) you ignore that evidence has been presented.
Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or at least valid, and I've used correlation as that which indicates intelligent processes requires a mind or thought behind them to support my premise. Correlation being that we associate processes with intelligence or a production with a producer and the processes being those we observe in the universe through science such as the birth and death of stars, formation of planets, arrangement of solar systems, ecosystems and the evolution of embodiments ect ect and I went over some of that in more detail. There is a very clear indicator (evidence) that the universe was produced by intelligence because that is what we see, that is the outcome of what we observe.
That premise above is supported by evidence. In this case we could classify it as obvious or evident evidence (intellectual evidence).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
A prime example would be my question of how you can observe the ageing intelligence behind the ageing process.
I answered that question, all matter is temporal it's not a material that withstands eternity, to be more precise forms created by energy and matter are not eternal and in that reality they age or deteriorate.
You replied by addressing why you believe an intelligence would include an ageing process not actually presenting anything that shows an intelligence was involved in any way shape or form
I see what you mean now, but the inquiry is irrelevant because it is the very nature of forms and matter that is aging, linear in time. Only God is outside the nature of linear time as we know it, or if you want to call it awareness. So regardless of how intelligent God is, matter or forms created by matter cannot be eternal and if they are not infinite objects they must age or deteriorate with time passing. Only awareness itself, which co-exists with energy is non-aging.
Matter aging is of necessity not choice. So intelligence behind the process of matter aging isn't really relevant. It is the processes themselves that create form within the universe that indicates intelligence.
only why if there is an intelligence involved it may have chosen to begin such a process.
Well that's part of the answer even though I never said God chose that, I reminded you of the nature of matter and created forms so that you clearly understand why matter ages.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
makes me feel so good
We're not particularly interested in your fetishes of getting off on being decimated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
You misunderstand I think. Hasty generalization is the name for a logical fallacy, it has nothing to do with how long you've considered your argument. In this case it's a hasty generalization because you have made looked at some processes and seen that they were initiated by intelligence
Correct, which is the premise of my position. Which IS a completely logical proposition.
and then concluded from this that all processes must be initiated by intelligence, without ever addressing why this must be the case, or even why this conclusion is logical.
It IS perfectly logical to conclude that it requires thought and a mind to produce a process and a result, that is obvious and you can't show how they could occur without that factor. That is the strength behind the premise.
Yet you haven't once directly addressed the logical fallacies I've presented.
I don't agree there is a fallacy, sorry.
If rather than taking the position that your argument is certainly correct and as such you must only convince others to accept it, you were to approach it in terms of testing your argument against logical fallacies impartially then perhaps we would get somewhere at present however when an objection is brought up you seem either to dismiss it or simply make another claim to back it up, which leads to the bloat we've seen in our discussion.
I don't see a fallacy where you have presented the concern. I only asked that you consider what I'm saying.
A prime example would be my question of how you can observe the ageing intelligence behind the ageing process. You replied by addressing why you believe an intelligence would include an ageing process not actually presenting anything that shows an intelligence was involved in any way shape or form, only why if there is an intelligence involved it may have chosen to begin such a process. If you're unclear on the part of our discussion that I'm addressing let me know and I'll find the post and give the exact quotes since it's been a while.
Actually go back and reread that, it was thoroughly addressed. I gave you an answer as well as why it happens.
Again, to clarify, it wasn't a comment on how long you've spent on the argument
Then it wasn't a hasty generalization.
Yet your correlation contains a logical fallacy, so it's not exactly one that warrants belief.
Not really, but does it warrant consideration rather than never knowing why processes occur at all?
The fact that I have pondered this is why I don't accept it.
Fair enough as long as you're content with a premise that you don't know why or how that's your choice.
It's not about finding a premise satisfactory it's about finding it to be sound,
You haven't presented anything for me to believe it isn't sound.
unfortunately due to the logical fallacies I've discussed in our previous posts, which remain unresolved I cannot accept your premise as logically sound. You have in no way shown that all processes must be initiated by an intelligence and your premise requires that to be true.
Lol round and round we go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
just how wrong you are concerning evidence that only you believe you have provided .
Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or at least valid, and I've used correlation as that which indicates intelligent processes requires a mind or thought behind them to support my premise. Correlation being that we associate processes with intelligence or a production with a producer and the processes being those we observe in the universe through science such as the birth and death of stars, formation of planets, arrangement of solar systems, ecosystems and the evolution of embodiments ect ect and I went over some of that in more detail. There is a very clear indicator (evidence) that the universe was produced by intelligence because that is what we see, that is the outcome of what we observe.
My argument is that I don't believe that processes can spontaneously generate themselves or that inanimate forces can somehow begin to develop and produce things that require a mind to understand how the processes work and what the results should be, that it requires thought or intelligence to formulate a desired outcome. When I ask Mdh2000 to show how intelligent processes could ever occur without a mind or awareness he says he doesn't know and my response is that since I do know or at the very least am providing an answer to how that occurs it's also legitimate to claim that my premise or platform is superior to his. Which is true, an answer is stronger than a non-answer. So basically I'm giving Mdh2000 a better foundation to at least consider.
It seems to me most people don't have a clear grasp how evidence is defined or how it's used to support ideas, or that evidence should only be some scientific study or demonstration that confirms how something works and that's not true. Evidence can be as simple as "anything presented in support of an assertion. There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)."
And while a person is free to categorize evidence as strong or weak it's still classified as evidence and I've provided arguments and answers for pages in this thread. So for Mdh2000 to claim I have provided neither is somewhat unfair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Didn't do too well this time around either.
For thought experiments I'm not particularly worried about it.
But your problem is, is that the bible does exist and its teaching are read and taken on board, if not followed to the letter by millions of Christians. This is nothing new. The ancients used to do exactly the same thing as Christians do today: swoon and kneel and submit and pray to something that isn't there.
And none of that is relevant here which is why I said below.....
"The reason for this would be so that you can concoct questions and ideas about God without the judgement of the Bible in the way. Believe it or not the Creator exists with or without the Bible, in other words the Bible doesn't dictate anything.
If it's something that annoys you and you can't get over the mistakes within it then all is not lost, the Creator still exists and so is the nature of your being to understand that reality. Forget about it for just this moment, let the influence of Christianity go...let's get a little deeper in this topic.
I want to do this because often times the Bible get's in the way of what could be great inquiries and discussions, we spend far too much time debating errors in that literature. Far too much wasted time in religious forums all over the internet with the wrong understanding and misconceptions because of what religion has done in the name of "God"
You, as an individual soul still have an origin and a purpose within creation
But again, this is not about religion or the Bible and I am not pressed to push that on you."
Let me know if you actually want to participate this time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
In a fictional world, a race made this contract with "God"
What happens to the other "races"? or how is it relevant to them?
What are yalls thoughts on this kind of agreement?
It's a bit strange, I would think that to worship someone or something there needs to be a natural or provoked desire to do so, not by a contract. The very meaning of worship is an expression of reverence and adoration. That comes through personal experience and observation or even trust, by agreement would be more like a dictatorship and that's not too appealing. Appeasing some Lord for favors or benefits through a contract doesn't sound like something I'd be interested in.
On the other hand, if you don't put much emphasis on individuality and individual expression then I see no real reason not to since we sign contracts all the time for mutual benefits. But again it's not very appealing on a personal level. I think if there was more of a personal aspect here it would be more interesting, I don't consider a good "relationship" to be built on terms of ultimatums or contracts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It makes me feel so good.
I'm sure it does masochist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It's gonna be okay Stevie.....*pats em on the head*.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But it is at times like this that I would give an eye to be able to have a head dropping hard on desk emoji.
Ironically that's exactly what I think every time I read your posts.
It would have been perfect had you stopped at :
It would have been perfect had you stopped at: sign up/create account.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I think you just think there is no evidence or logical enough argument for a "higher" intelligence.
While Mdh2000 keeps presuming I have not made an argument or have not provided evidence I believe I've done both. Evidence is that which indicates a proposition true or at least valid, and I've used correlation as that which indicates intelligent processes requires a mind or thought behind them to support my premise. Correlation being that we associate processes with intelligence or a production with a producer and the processes being those we observe in the universe through science such as the birth and death of stars, formation of planets, arrangement of solar systems, ecosystems and the evolution of embodiments ect ect and I went over some of that in more detail. There is a very clear indicator (evidence) that the universe was produced by intelligence because that is what we see, that is the outcome of what we observe.
My argument is that I don't believe that processes can spontaneously generate themselves or that inanimate forces can somehow begin to develop and produce things that require a mind to understand how the processes work and what the results should be, that it requires thought or intelligence to formulate a desired outcome. When I ask Mdh2000 to show how intelligent processes could ever occur without a mind or awareness he says he doesn't know and my response is that since I do know or at the very least am providing an answer to how that occurs it's also legitimate to claim that my premise or platform is superior to his. Which is true, an answer is stronger than a non-answer. So basically I'm giving Mdh2000 a better foundation to at least consider.
It seems to me most people don't have a clear grasp how evidence is defined or how it's used to support ideas, or that evidence should only be some scientific study or demonstration that confirms how something works and that's not true. Evidence can be as simple as "anything presented in support of an assertion. There are two kinds of evidence: intellectual evidence (the obvious, the evident) and empirical evidence (proofs)."
And while a person is free to categorize evidence as strong or weak it's still classified as evidence and I've provided arguments and answers for pages in this thread. So for Mdh2000 to claim I have provided neither is somewhat unfair.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I know, I came into this forum as one of the first few and was hoping to establish something a bit different :(
Created: