Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
And in doing so, unwitting Christians who believe that they are cleansing their spirits are in fact practicing a Luciferian ritual when they are submerged into water.
I actually normally agree with your assessments about religious sacraments especially in the context of Catholicism but Baptism is actually quite universal because of its meaning. In that sense I believe that its more of an individual symbolic gesture even though it can be utilized by any number of cults (including Catholics). The meaning of Baptism has universal appeal, it's not really specific to any one claim or Luciferian rituals. Therefore I believe it to be a more pure practice, more of a commitment or outward sign of appreciation and renewal which agrees with the individuals intent. In this context I don't believe it belongs to Luciferians.
I know that you're arguing that Baptism has a spiritual significance beyond its ritualistic aspects. And I agree.
Me too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Rational minds look at the evidence, the facts, the measured observations
Yes they do.
Rational minds never just believe something without explanations.
No they don't. Thanks for the input, I qualify for both statements.
You're asking me to just believe whatever you say.
No, I'm not. I believe the word I've been using is consider, and that means to consider the rationale in my posts, that are weighed through evidence, inference, correlation, logic and common sense. Your opinions are based on your own conclusions (however you arrived at them), they are not conclusive. My statement still stands though, whenever you wish to move forward let me know.
entirely on its own, that no such Prime Mover has ever been located anywhere in those processes.
Thanks for the opinion. But that's absurd.....IMO of course. But just so you know, science doesn't claim that, that's your personal opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Sorry, but what you're claiming is not blatantly obvious or logical
Okay bro, when it dawns on your rational mind one day that processes don't just occur all by themselves and you think to yourself "hmmm, maybe that Eternal guy had a legit point, maybe I should consider that God hypothesis" just let me know and we could move forward :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
And so the formation of planets, eco-systems and evolution are all definitely processes?
FORMATION-
the action of forming or process of being formed.
a structure or arrangement of something.
an act of giving form or shape to something or of taking form : development
an arrangement of a body or group of persons or things in some prescribed manner or for a particular purpose.
Evolution-
The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
descent with modification from preexisting species : cumulative inherited change in a population of organisms through time leading to the appearance of new forms : the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
a process of change in a certain direction
a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
Ecosystem-
the complex of a community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit
a system, or a group of interconnected elements, formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment.
a complex network or interconnected system.
An ecosystem is a community of living organisms in conjunction with the nonliving components of their environment, interacting as a system.
Development-
the process of developing or being developed.
the act, process, or result of
Process-
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
phenomenon marked by gradual changes that lead toward a particular result
a continuing natural or biological activity or function
Ecological succession-
The principles of ecological succession bear importantly on the relationships between man and nature. Ecological succession involves the development of ecosystem.
the process by which the structure of a biological community evolves over time.
the gradual and orderly process of change in an ecosystem brought about by the progressive replacement of one community by another until a stable climax is established
is the process of change in the species structure of an ecological community over time.
Planetary formation-
Models of planetary formation show that terrestrial planets are formed by the accretion of smaller bodies into larger and larger bodies. Follow the process long enough, and you end up with planets like Earth.
The formation and evolution of the Solar system began 4.5 billion years ago
The Stages of Planetary Formation
"Our knowledge of the process of planetary formation comes from a number of diverse sources which include"
"Broadly, four stages can be identified in the process of planetary formation."
Planetary formation process
I would say so. Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
By just claiming that they don't is not really an explanation,
Well in this puzzle it explains a lot because it's blatantly obvious and logical, to come to a logical conclusion we have to follow rational thought...my argument resides more on the fact that you accept that they do.
nor has it been shown in any way or is it verifiable.
Not verifiable through a method like science no but certainly has been shown through the correct methods or sources. Theism has been around longer than any other proposition and that isn't because it was stupid lol, more like because it's obvious to rational minds.
Actually once we get over this initial hump (which hopefully we do) we can discuss what religious and spiritual sources have been putting forward for a long time, one such theory includes the proposition of multiverses and parallel worlds which I believe is supported by the evidence.
I think you would have a great deal of work to have anyone consider your claims as valid.
Perhaps, but I think it's more about perspective really because nothing I'm saying is absurd or unreasonable. Once a person is convinced of a particular position it is hard to get them out of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Yes, I would agree a design might be apparent and for sure the world thought that way for a very long time, until science came along and started to unravel the mysteries surrounding that apparent design, but instead of making confirmations on what they observed, they found the design was only a facade and that what lay underneath was another story altogether. What they found did not exempt a Creator, as you say, but it did show that the processes were natural and were able to operate on their own accord. This is what the scientific method uncovered.
You have the wrong idea about science which is somewhat typical, it's just a method of examining how the natural universe works. But that's it, it doesn't have the capability to reach the hand of God because of the nature of God, all it can do is confirm what it can observe and show the ingredient behind a process or end result. Science is a neutral study in that it makes no claims about or against God, that's not what it is for. So Theism is perfectly compatible with science, but Theism takes it a step further and deals with WHY these things take place since God is the Mover. By assuming science has all the possible insight you are avoiding the issue which is why I'm bringing it to your attention.
The design façade is not really an accurate way of exposing the dilemma, which is why I prefer to use the term processes and since it is logical to correlate processes with intelligence this changes the whole game. But just to clarify science never makes the claim natural processes operate on their own accord, you threw that in there, it's just showing the operation not making additional claims.
I understand what you're claiming, that the processes aren't natural and don't occur on their own, but if it has been shown that they do operate on their own and that those explanations are detailed and verifiable, so you would need a very extraordinary explanation that not only would refute what we know, but also offer an explanation to replace what we know. By just claiming that they don't is not really an explanation, nor has it been shown in any way or is it verifiable. I think you would have a great deal of work to have anyone consider your claims as valid.
I really went over this already which makes this somewhat frustrating, I dealt with it by giving you the recipe analogy. Perhaps go back to that explanation. As for your claim about them operating on their own read above. Science is only able to show the ingredients, not the one putting them together.
Its fine to make that claim, but you would need to explain how that works and how you know it to be true?
Obviously I can't show it to be true other than appealing to your rational mind, first I know God exists so that part is already a done deal. The only thing I can do for you is to have this discussion and hopefully move forward or get to a place where you are satisfied with my explanation.
I'm sorry, but I have to ask how would you know any of that? For example, can you show that God arranges patterns in solar systems or that God begins the process of a stars death? Since these explanations already exist supported by observable evidence and based on a stars composition and its process of evolution, what can you offer to show God is in control of them? At this time, all you're doing is just making claims, but you aren't actually offering any explanations supported by observations or evidence. I'm wondering at this point if you're just asking me to accept whatever you say without explanation? If that is the case, I'm very sorry, but my common sense tells me that would be wrong.
Well despite the fact I HAVE been explaining how this fits together I don't know what else to say. Maybe someone else will pick up on the rationale of what I'm writing and be willing to move forward in the discussion but I can't continue to keep repeating the same thing at this point. Once you see the rationale is in my proposition that processes are only associated with intelligence maybe we can get somewhere. I don't have to explain that it explains itself.
Okay, but why has science already shown that those processes do act on their own? Why do they have valid, verifiable and detailed explanations that fit with what is being observed?
Science hasn't shown that, your adding that bit of an assumption. Science is not anti-God lol, it only gives you one half of the equation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly willing to hear you out, but as yet I haven't heard anything to consider other than you're claims, which so far run counter to what we already know, that which is verifiable.
Other than my claims? what other thing would you be looking for in our discussion? it is the very proposition I'm making that I want you to consider, I don't have any need at this moment for anyone else's claims but my own proposition.
And again, the only thing verifiable is that you know how the processes work, albeit leaving out the WHY they occur. I understand you don't have any reason to ask why they occur, but that is the point behind my argument...to ask yourself why would any processes be occurring at all.
If it's a superior view, as you say, why doesn't it have a superior explanation?
That's been done already, since you seem unable to pick up on it I'm going to leave it be I guess. Hopefully any readers will see the rationale in what I've been saying. And just to repeat it yet again, my argument rests in the idea that processes cannot occur all by themselves because inanimate forces can't generate intelligent results......that IS my explanation in a nutshell. And despite many people accepting that they do, I'm building the case for God through the use of common sense and rationale that God has been the Source behind the processes that have occurred in our universe.
You asked me show that, my practical answer is.....it is the very processes we see taking place that are used by God to bring things into existence, in other words if there was no intelligent source none of these processes would be taking place. So what we observe through the scientific method is how God creates the universe.
So I must say again, that from the Creationists perspective it is indeed a superior view and one reason it is, is because it deals with WHY processes occur in the first place, since it is illogical to assume that they occur by themselves. From your point of view, which I do get, you are content not asking why they occur since it appears there is no Prime Mover and I also went over that already briefly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
It's also an easy fix to ignore the issue.
Excuse me?
And energy is a property of matter rather than matter being a property of energy.
So you're ignoring me again? I take it you understood what I wrote?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I apologise for my typos in the previous post. I am typing from my phone on the bus, a bad combination I'm afraid.
No problem bro, I didn't mean to negate our discussion but it seems we weren't getting anywhere, I did want to get back to it and find a way to consolidate it. Thanks for being patient. My time is somewhat limited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I feep having read your posts again that our discussion needst to move back to its beginning, namely your statement that processes develop the un8verse. I ask what processes you believe develop the unverse? I ask this for the lurpose of being clear on the specifics of what you mean by processes.
Processes would include anything undergone that would bring about an end result, since we know nothing poofs into existence everything has a process to exist, literally just about everything other than maybe energy (and of course energy is utilized by God). I gave some examples earlier in the thread, the process of things forming such as stars and planets (which would include the process of the Big Bang), and those stars being used to continually seed the universe, the process of things arranging such as galaxies and solar systems, the process of things being developed such as eco-systems, habitats and the evolution of embodiments which are all the creatures you find on Earth. This is more or less a general outline.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The underlying dilemma with all creation hypotheses is the something from nothing principle.
Yet that's what you accept being a materialist lol, that what we are in this world came from nothing. Accepting the proposition of Theism everything comes from what I'll explain below. This way nothing ever comes from nothing once you understand what eternity means and how that works. As well what we observe in the universe and all its processes come from awareness (God). And creation through God never comes from nothing, God uses materials to create with and those are the processes we observe through science.
I personally cannot accept the idea that the something exists eternally.
That's an easy fix because it's just a matter of perspective. You're used to the experience of the continual passing of time, which is really just the passing of matter as it is in this universe. Remove the concept of matter passing away from your thinking, picture or conceptualize more of a static reality, or a fixed reality where the illusion of time passing is no longer relevant. If it makes it easier envision a cyclical reality, instead of a linear one. Now picture that static reality where awareness is always present, no beginning and no end, no passing of matter or "time" just an endless unified constant phenomenon. Out of this Reality everything has their origin and existence, it being the backdrop and canopy of our moving universe. So basically there was NEVER nothing, so that ends your dilemma right there.
On another note do you accept that energy is neither created or destroyed? because that then would contradict your statement.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
I get the feeling that some people think just because the ancients weren't privy to current information that they were just stupid and ignorant. Natural intelligence is not dictated by current affairs or even technology if that were true in 2000 years you and everyone else is going to look pretty dumb. Your boy Willows thinks camel jockeys were unintelligent but if I were to put my life in the hands of either him or a goatherder I can tell you with assurance I'm going to be learning how to herd goats lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Ok, so it was perhaps a bit tongue in cheek.Nonetheless the analogy isn't so ridiculous if you think about it.Resisting temptation and the sins of the flesh and all that.
Haha it was funny though...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Isaiah 45:7 King James Version" I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things".
Go back and respond to the contents of my post, how did I know you were going to roll out the old Isaiah passage lol? I already addressed all that and then balanced it with another verse. All you ever do is avoid the answers and focus on the non-answers, look above at the sentences you highlighted lol, you dealt with zero of the actual answers and content, like usual good job Stevie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I would ask of you the same thing, to help me see your claim through unbiased eyes and an open mind
I am fully aware of all the angles, I'm well versed in many hypotheses and I do educate myself on scientific studies. So just because I have come to an obvious conclusion doesn't mean I'm not open-minded or that I am biased. Materialism, atheism and naturalism are all worldviews I have been facing and addressing for a long time now. I'm sharing with you what I believe to be the superior view.
Having said that what we have been discussing is only one aspect of what I base my beliefs on, we are just working from a surface level platform. If I can get you to see that it is reasonable to consider there is a Creator involved then maybe we can discuss all the things that it implies from God to creation to the soul, and many of the deeper issues or concerns with religious theologies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I think the key to your claim would be to explain that intelligence, where it lies within the creation and how it created. For example, we can look at a commercial airliner and see a design, a blueprint showing all the tens of thousands of components, their purpose, an explanation and process of how it all fits together. In that, one can see an intelligence in the crafting of that aircraft. If you can provide the same kind of detailed explanation for God, I would be more than willing to consider.
I think that by using the scientific method we are doing just that. I think the "design" is already apparent, it's what you see right here when you look out into the world and when you look in the mirror, the production of an intelligent Source. The scientific method being a neutral study does not exempt God from being the Ultimate Mover, so I think from that perspective we are able to show how the Creator put the worlds together. I don't believe I have to necessarily explain intelligence, I'm saying that the processes themselves signify and indicate intelligence. I guess what I'm saying is that it is apparent but if you want to know how creation works from the Godhead down I can give you a basic layout.
I do indeed question those process, but since they all have very good detailed explanations based on observable evidence and natural processes that drive them, I am forced to accept the answers as valid. If you say it's not difficult to show, then please do show those detailed explanations and how the evidence and processes fit with them?
But I'm arguing they aren't natural processes, because my reasoning is that processes don't occur by themselves. So the processes are not driven by themselves even though it may appear that way, God is creating and utilizing those processes from what looks like from our perspective an invisible field and force of intelligence. I feel like we're going round and round here so forgive me for sounding like a broken record. I just don't know how much more specific I can say the same thing.
I think you're right that planets don't really create themselves, but bear with me and I'll offer something to consider. In space, picture a massive cloud of dust, particles and gas (usually hydrogen gas). Nearby is a star that after millions of years suddenly goes supernova and ejects all kinds of materials into the cloud, materials that we have found on Earth; iron, gold, and a host of other elements that were created by that star over millions of years. The force of the explosion and the materials starts the cloud moving and eventually all the materials that were ejected from the exploding star begin to coalesce with the gas and dust of the cloud. Over time, small pieces turn into big pieces, big pieces turn into small exo-planets and eventually they all collide and we are left with a handful of remaining planets and moons all rotating around a brand new star created by the hydrogen gas. We now have a newly created solar system that started by a single explosion of a star. This is how solar systems are created by a natural process and inanimate forces.
I know the mechanics of how planets are formed that's not the issue. I do educate myself you know lol, I'm saying that those are the very tools of how God accomplishes what we are observing. In other words if God didn't exist that would never take place.
In the same way I offered an explanation of how a solar system is formed, galaxies and ecosystems also have detailed explanations on how they form, all fitting together with the evidence at hand. That's how evolution also works, it has a detailed explanation on how life forms over very long periods of time can slowly change through the process of natural selection and diversity. None of it was prepared or thought, it all happened through natural random processes, all having very good, detailed explanations.
The detailed explanations are only the ingredients. The same as when you look at a recipe....but there needs to be a maker for that recipe which is why I was trying to get you not to just focus on the ingredients, but the final product. Do you see what I mean? I know what you mean by the ingredients I get it, but I'm pointing to the maker, the one putting together the recipe and ingredients. We can argue it was prepared thought, that is the easy part because we know recipes don't put themselves together.
My common sense tells me to look at the facts, understand the explanations and how the evidence fits in with them. I am forced to be unbiased with these explanations, that I must look at them with an open mind, think about how they work and how they can created something such as we observe all around us.
I know what you believe, and even though this is going nowhere fast I'm confident that what I'm saying is valid. So bear with me.
I would ask of you the same thing, to help me see your claim through unbiased eyes and an open mind, but of course, I'll need detailed explanations that fit with the evidence and all work with the known processes and forces of nature. Thanks again.
I've been pretty clear I believe, I don't think biasedly I look at everything involved and base my conclusions off of the most convincing hypothesis. I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you might meet we just haven't got to know each other well yet. We can talk about all kinds of things in the future, I'm pretty flexible but when I have weighed all things considered I'm not going to bring to you a half-assed conclusion. I'm pretty serious about what I share as an assured proposition so if I come across as stubborn it's only because I have thought about it for so long but let me give you a basic layout...
1. You have the conscious awareness of God that is eternal, it is akin to energy, It exists as a cyclical Reality there is no birth or death beginning or ending. Awareness is the backdrop of all that exists. It is both formless and Omnipresent, it has no real boundaries or limits. It is a pure conscious Reality, if you want to say intelligence I'm okay with that.
2. This conscious Reality (activity) generates energy, both energy and this conscious activity co-exist. Therefore both the nature of God and energy are eternal, they cannot be created or destroyed.
3. This omnipresent conscious activity generates megatons of energy
4. This energy is condensed and released culminating it what we call a Big bang.
5. This creates more tools for God to create with, now we have the expansion and fusion of temperature change and chemistry
6. God begins to bring forth stars through the formation of this process (even more components generated), new energized particles are released….the stars are grouped together to form galaxies
7. God arranges specific patterns in solar systems
8. God begins to use the processes and death of stars to FORM planets
9. God focuses on planet Earth, creates an environment for life to begin, an ecosystem
10. God begins to use the process of evolution to build embodiments
….. God's desired outcome comes into fruition billions of years later to what we currently see. Again, the intelligence is not just in the ingredients or processes themselves but the actual end product. But the processes would never occur without their being someone to put those processes into motion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Hey man, just checked in. Thanks for saying that, made me feel good.
Absolutely, I think you're a great asset to a forum like this. Miss reading your theories.
I check in to see what you guys are up to every once and awhile but i'm still concentrating on different things irl. Looks like Ethan got himself a suspension again lol. Hope it's not Perm.
I know, he does a good job at distracting the weirdos. Just wish he could have done it without insults, I mean you can make someone look dumb without saying they are dumb lol.
I'll try to join in on some conversations but for now, i've been in lock down which i'm taking the time to get better with music and games. Anyways, just wanted to say whats up.
Cool, this virus thing is crazy I'm in the same boat. Hope to see ya around.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Figuratively speaking......The one eyed serpent and the juicy peach.
Lol, wow you guys understand figurative speech just not when it is in the Bible? BTW is that one the titles in the collection of your videos?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There's an obvious problem with this topic as usual, because of your ranting and overzealous posturing you ask questions then you leave no room for an answer. If you ask questions and want an actual answer leave all the unnecessary garbage out of the way. You ask believers a question then you go on about why and how they can't answer that question lol, I mean give us a break. But, even despite that and despite your depressive attitude I'll give you some things to chew on.
First of all it's okay to blame God that evil exists in creation, big deal. But, there's more to the equation.
Next, evil isn't an object or a thing that is created, it's either the result of an action or an action itself so in this sense evil is the resultant of an individuals intentions and actions.
So while God can be blamed for creating an environment of duality, in other words an environment where we are free to choose good or evil deeds....we are responsible for our side of the equation and we are responsible for what we so in that environment.
I'm sure you think it's cute and all to blame God for your mistakes you really didn't think this through very well and your immaturity reading scripture always proves you just can't handle it.
But I'll say it again so there's not room for confusion.....there is a CO-responsibility for the presents of evil and yes God is included. God, for creating an environment where we are free to commit whatever actions we wish to take and are free to culminate our very own intentions and then ourselves, as the actual individual to make an evil choice or to harbor evil intentions.
That's why in scripture it admits that God is responsible for evil and also while scripture has consequences for the individual who perpetrates evil, because it's not just God who is accountable it's also the individual.
Let me clear this up again, evil is not an object that can be created, it is not a thing or a person it's an action or even an intention. So evil can't be created like an object that's stupid, the verse in Isaiah that claims God created evil is a poor way of relaying the truth, and it's a possible poor translation. However, when one weighs all the content in the Bible it's clear man is responsible for his actions, check this verse out....(and yes I'm going to post scripture even though you believe that should be exempt from an answer just to show you how this is balanced out)
James 1
13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
14
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16
Do not err, my beloved brethren.
17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
18
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
As for all your mumbo jumbo about God creating mental illnesses and "diseases" and what not, again those are not things so they are not included as things that God created. This is a cause and effect realm we exist in, meaning that there are causes and effects when dealing with genetic, health and the lack thereof. If you go out and get piss drunk and then wake up with a hangover don't blame God for creating hangovers, that's not how cause and effect work.
There are actual factors that deal in the world of physics and chemistry that cause problems related to the human states of mental and physical health. I'd be happy to link you to a very smart fella and Dr. I follow that can break all that down for you.
Natural disasters is the same situation, God doesn't go around creating volcano eruptions lol, those are effects that have causes. If you want to blame God for creating a planet that has volcanic eruptions go ahead but they erupt for a reason and it's not to kill people. The smart thing to do is for humans not to build societies where natural disasters occur in the first place. I mean if you build a hut right at the base of a volcano and then blame God for the eruption that is pretty silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I understand what you're saying. From a scientific perspective, any process, cause or effect can often be explained by the physical or chemical composition, depending on what we refer, whether a force, particle or object, as being something that does indeed act on itself without any guiding hand. If you wanted to focus any given process or cause, it's fairly easy to research it and see that the reasons for it acting as it does are explained through natural means. To say an intelligence was at work would be difficult to show in any of these processes or causes.
Yes science is in the business of explaining how things work, but that does not necessitate that is why they operate. Since my claim is that God is using the elements and forces to generate processes, it may appear that these forces or elements act upon themselves but that's because God eludes what we can physically observe however, the processes themselves are the indication, they indicate intelligence. If I can get you to see the intelligence behind what they produce then I have a chance to get you to consider God as that intelligent Source.
So basically you have an invisible Reality using observable forces to generate intelligent procedures. It would almost be like watching something move across the room by itself yet a ghost being the source of that movement. Kind of a silly analogy just trying to convey an idea to you. You might say, well if that is the case how could we ever know if we can't see the cause of those forces. My answer is that this is just an indicator (or a step forward) to consider a proposition, meaning we aren't basing our beliefs off of a supposition we are just building the case for God using common sense and reason as a platform.
This is just to get us considering there might be a Creator and then we move forward. In other words I would want you to consider that Theism is not something that is just about some absurd beliefs, there is good reason to accept God exists. We start by examining the nature of the processes within the universe. You're free to accept that they operate alone but I'm offering what I see as a superior proposition.
I honesty don't think it's that difficult to show, if I can get you to look at the final products and question how inanimate forces could ever produce anything. Again, we can see and observe how they work, but why are they doing that?
Thank you for providing the link. We can see from the information there that the processes, causes and effects are based on natural, random events driven entirely by the physical and chemical compositions I referred to earlier. By themselves acting on each other do we find the outcomes of mountains and other such terrains created by the plates moving on the mantle.
I didn't supply the link thinking they were claiming God is the one moving things around lol, I'm just trying to convey there are reasons why the earth has movement. Meaning there may be significance why God wanted it to be that way.
Again, from the perspective of science and the explanations of how the Earth was formed and it's terrain shows that it all did occur entirely on its own based on the physical and chemical compositions of the Earth itself and the molten interior that causes plate tectonics. If you think they did not happen on their own, you'd probably need to provide good reasoning and further explanations showing demonstrably that they didn't happen on their own. I'm not saying one way or the other that God had something to do with it, but I think if that was claimed, some explanations would be in order.
My reasoning is that planets don't just create themselves, and surely not in positions where they receive heat and light sources...my reasoning behind that is I don't believe processes can occur from nothing, and then produce things that appear intelligently in order. I don't believe evolution for example has the ability on its own to produce creatures of sentience and intelligence all by itself, I see God as the prime mover. This is pure common sense I'm appealing to. I know we can observe the processes taking place but again, I'm appealing to your rational mind that God generates them. God manipulates the elements and energy to create form within the universe, the formation of stars, solar systems and planets....brings about processes to manifest things into existence. It might seem a futile thing for me to do but I'm trying to switch your perspective.
We can agree to disagree here but if I have any chance at all in this discussion it's that I want you to consider one proposition superior to the other.
Again, I understand what you're saying, but there are very good explanations based on evidence for solar and planetary formation, usually first with electromagnetic radiation and then with gravity being the main forces in building both solar systems, the planets and even the sun (stars). If you say the hand of God can be seen in any of those formations, perhaps you can explain how and where they occur? I would very interested in hearing those explanations. Thanks.
Formations is the key word I would want you to focus on. That's a big key factor IMO, how can a formation happen without a formER. I'm not asking how they form, I'm asking why they form. Why would anything form in the first place? you say electromagnetic radiation and gravity being the main forces building solar systems and I say God is using those tools to form solar systems. Look at the order in which things occur, they fit perfectly in with the process of a Creator...birth of stars (light and heat sources), displacement of galaxies, arrangement of solar systems, formation of planets, development of environments and ecosystems, food sources and then the evolution of embodiment. I mean to me it is very obvious this was prepared and thought out. My question is how could you accept it occurred by itself through inanimate substances? I say you're accepting (believing) that they occur by themselves.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's a very good point, thank you.
You're welcome sir.
Created:
-->
@Nevets
In which case it is hard to take anything it says seriously, as it is only figuritively speaking.
That doesn't make a lot of sense really, lots of people use figurative speech to make a point or draw an illustration. If the idea behind the Genesis account invokes an imagery of creation it serves its purpose, doesn't mean it HAS to be literal that's silly. And it doesn't mean everything in the texts are figurative, but it does mean that when a figurative interpretation is used things can make a lot more sense, especially when it was intended to be interpreted metaphorically. For example, when Jesus says "I am the bread of life" or "out of your belly shall flow living water" do you also interpret that literally lol? of course not...but even though it's figurative speech it has meaning behind it.
Modern day science does not speak figuritively, therefore not compatible with Genesis texts.
Again makes no real since sorry. They both work hand in hand and I explained how that woks in this thread, and why can't a literal method not work with a figurative one? who made that rule.... If you don't want to consider something so simple and want to play hardball then fine. But perhaps don't engage in things you later are unable to handle and when they don't go your way. Try conceding and moving forward.
Created:
-->
@Nevets
But of course. One can believe that God started the process of evolution.
Of course, processes don't generate by themselves, especially if those processes are resultant in an intelligent production.
But this was not written in Genesis.
Right, and I tackled that already.
"The answer to that question of course is yes, by not taking a literal approach to Genesis. And as I brought up in another thread the Genesis story just invokes the idea behind creation, it's not a recipe for how God created processes to where we observe them today. It's more like a snap shot or a generalized concept to conceptualize imagery rather than a detailed account of how God creates things, or manifests them into existence."
Therefore Genesis is not the foundations for this belief.
It's not the foundation for evolution specifically, but it is the foundation behind a creation....which includes evolution.
Unless one believes Genesis was speaking allegorically.
One should be aware that the Bible uses figurative writing styles, it weaves in and out of literal and figurative through the whole book.
But then we can only go by what Genesis says factually.
If you wish to force a literal application where it doesn't fit don't blame it on anyone else.
Allegory is just an assumption
Lol sure. And I'm just to assume your position right? in light of the fact I've been reading the Bible for a long, long time.
Created:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I'm not sure that the Genesis Creation story can be compared to evolution.
No, the story can't be compared to evolution but that's not the question....the question is can they be compatible. The answer to that question of course is yes, by not taking a literal approach to Genesis. And as I brought up in another thread the Genesis story just invokes the idea behind creation, it's not a recipe for how God created processes to where we observe them today. It's more like a snap shot or a generalized concept to conceptualize imagery rather than a detailed account of how God creates things, or manifests them into existence.
The scientific theory that would compare is called Abiogenesis; life from non-life. Evolution is only about life that already exists, it is not about the creation of life.
Right, and that's how both evolution and Theism are compatible (which would entail Genesis as well). One deals with the other side of the equation so they work in harmony. In other words there is no contradiction between the two. One deals with the process, one deals with the reason for the process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well in reference to the snake, I don't think a literal snake spoke to Eve. I know some believe Satan possessed a reptile. I don't see any reason to assume that at all. The deceiver was Satan, not a snake. The author referred to him as a snake, possibly because he had no other name for him. Or, he didn't want to describe Satan in any flattering way. Jesus referred to certain religious folk as vipers. It's not unusual for people to refer to other people as snakes today. The author was either Moses, or someone(s) living about the same time as Moses. They were relating a snakes' cunningness to Satan. Moses was obviously very familiar with snakes. The curse was on Satan, and the description of the curse being a metaphor of the dismal lifestyle a snake seems to possess. They were forced to be held captive and be subject of magic tricks. Probably run over by carts andchariots, sometimes on purpose. So it's not a description on how Satan would have to maneuver.There was nothing tempting about the serpent (Satan) who was probably not physically visible just as God wasn't. The temptation was the fruit.
+1
Good post, I don't know why everyone abandons the figurative style of writing in the scripture when it's so obvious. I know part of it is because of the poor interpretations of religious people but this is a no-brainer. There was never a talking snake lol, the snake just represents temptation.
This is why atheists get all bothered because they think we believe in talking animals and so we follow an ignorant book, when that was never the point at all. Silly stuff like this we have to then explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
I have never assumed or asked how inanimate forces produced intelligent processes without any source, that isn't my question at all.
That's the question I'm asking you to ask yourself to come to a logical conclusion.
I ask how you can show that there is intelligence in anything not initiated by humans or animals
Bingo, then you understand the argument I'm making for God??
, it would be irrational if I were to be using your definition of process which requires it involve an intelligence, I have already very clearly specified that's not the definition I was using, I don't posit intelligence at any point in the natural forces interactions.
Again I'm not saying the definition REQUIRES intelligence, I'm saying that processes don't OCCUR without intelligence, you confirmed that point over and over. You're assuming that natural forces (unintelligent) are able to generate intelligent processes, I'm trying to get you to consider that it is not a valid proposition. For there to be a process, there needs to be an intelligent source.
So far I haven't seen any logically sound argument presented that suggests we can know that an intelligence created the universe. You have proposed that since it began by processes and that all processes are associated with minds or intelligence it stands to reason the universe must have been formed by an intelligence. Yet unless you can show these 'processes' and that they fit your definition of processes (namely that they are associated with a mind or intelligence), then either we can expand your definition, use a term other than process for them or show that they are in fact associated with a mind/intelligence then your argument is empty, it at best says nothing at worst begs the question.
Explained above. And yes, the argument is logically sound.
This again hits on that equivocation fallacy you like so much. Again let us be clear that the definition I use for processes does not necessarily require them to be the product of intelligence (it was actually one of the definitions for process that you presented). With that in mind I would ask when you have ever been able to verify anything not initiated by a human (and to be fair lets include animals) that we can verify was initiated by an intelligence. Again, what would you call a process that wasn't initiated by a human or animal? How do you determine that it was the product of an intelligence?
You're asking and answering your own question all in one paragraph lol. Come on now, let's get on the same page and consolidate this. Can we start from the platform that in order for there to be a process there needs to be an intelligent source? you agree that no process can take place without a human, why do you get all bent out of shape when I say no process in the universe can happen without a Creator? it's the SAME premise you keep making yourself!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Can you demonstrate that anything in the real world is both 'a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process' that wasn't initiated by a human?
That's the whole point I was making by asking you to show me where processes occur without intelligence, or a human in this case. Every time we see a process occur in the real world it's because of a human or an intelligent factor, things don't just produce themsleves. Extend that same demonstration to the universe as a whole, every time we see a "natural" process in the universe we can conclude there was first intelligence, AKA God. That's the argument I've been making.
Can you show any such processes exist? To say 'we call them processes so they must have an intelligent origin because all processes have intelligent origins' seems a semantic argument, it also seems to be close to begging the question.
Lol yet you just confirmed above that a human is needed for a desired outcome. Unless of course I misread you. I'm taking that same basic premise of logic and extending it to the processes we observe in the universe and what they produce. In this case not a human, but God.
If there is no verifiable answer then you've got an argument from ignorance. As for energy acting as an 'intelligent force' can you explain how you know what differences would occur between energy acting as an 'intelligent force' and energy acting as an unintelligent force and how you confirm this?
I'm saying the answer is obvious, unintelligent forces don't create or generate processes with a desired end, or for that matter produce anything at all. That's an absurdity, it's also my opinion but it's an opinion from common sense. Label whatever you like.
My position is perfectly valid if none of these things can be verified, it stands logically that without being able to verify the existence or non-existence of an intelligence in the origins of the universe such an intelligent involvement is an unknown. Where is the reasoning that makes the existence of such an intelligence more logical?
If a proposition is more logical than the other proposition (which is what I'm trying to get you to consider) than we have a platform to work from. Basically I'm trying to get you to consider creation as a platform by first getting you to consider the obvious. Then you may have some reason and logic to accept creation as a possibility.
Your argument is begging the question. You state: 'If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.'This is assuming the conclusion in the premise due to your definition of 'process' shoehorning in the necessity of intelligence. How do you verify the intelligence involved in the origins of the universe? It's a semantic twist to include your conclusion in your premise.
We verify it by considering that processes don't generate themselves from inanimate forces. That's our starting point, I'm attempting to build strength in the case for God's existence as seen in creation. It's not proof of course, we are just exploring logic and common sense to build a case that is convincing.
How would you determine an intelligent force from an unintelligent force? How did you determine that what you call the processes the developed the universe fit your definition of process (namely have an association with an intelligence)?
An inanimate force cannot generate intelligence from nothing, it can't produce intelligent processes by itself.... to assume that is can is silly, that's the first conclusion, we determine it by using good ol common sense, sorry to be a broken record but this is a lot simpler than you're making it. If I can't get you to consider that then this is probably a waste of time.
I'm curious what would you call a process that wasn't developed by a human?
Again that was the whole point, don't see how you're missing it. I'm asking you to extend that same premise to the point I've been making. What do you call a process that wasn't developed by an intelligence source? my answer is that it doesn't happen, therefore the God hypothesis is a valid one. That's the foundation to this case we are building.
I'm going to split this posts so it doesn't get too messy, hopefully after we get on the same page we can consolidate all of this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
That's one of the reasons why I chose plate tectonics as it is a process that largely determines our living environment on Earth. I would say that it is indeed part of a larger picture and the reason why I questioned it as a process driven by an intelligence. The only thing that appears to drive it is the flow of the Earths mantle, which was left over from when the entire Earth was molten, and it appears inanimate and random.
There could be several reasons why there is movement beneath the Earth (perhaps google it), but to avoid focusing on plate tectonics alone that's not really what I'm referring to as processes in that it specifically shows there to be a Creator. I gave you some examples previously, perhaps you could address some of those things. I'm not making the assumption I know why every process was generated, I'm simply pointing out that the larger picture...being the whole of what we observe is pretty straight forward. There seems to be an obvious pattern of processes that achieve a desired ends and that doesn't just happen all by itself, meaning to me at least it is obvious there is an intelligent force at work.
I suppose that if an intelligence were driving the plate tectonics process, it doesn't seem like it well thought out considering how much harm it causes humans and other life on Earth. I would think there would be a much better process to create mountains if that was the desired outcome, one that would do no harm over the long run. I wonder why that intelligence wouldn't just create the mountains prior to creating life? Unfortunately, there wasn't anything in Genesis to describe this other than making the land appear.
Just because there is movement beneath the Earth does not necessarily mean God is driving it specifically (like physically moving the plates lol), but the reason there is movement at all is because of a prior cause (which was generated due to forming this planet in a desired fashion).....like I said there are causes and there are effects, processes and then effects. But, it seems to me that mountains are an aspect of what makes the earth beautiful and while there may be several reasons why movement beneath the Earth is needed (like heat for example).....I would think though that God surely wanted mountains in the grand scheme of things as also Earth is a planet God wanted movement.
Look, we can nitpick all day at what we believe is not necessary but to me that's just avoiding the point I'm making. I'm asking you to step back and look at the whole picture, if you wish to zoom in on the smaller details you might lose sight of what I want you to look at. My main point being, that processes don't occur all by themselves and produce things that have an intelligent outcome. Sure, there's going to be smaller details that make us scratch our heads but remember the scale at what we are dealing with. Not everything is going to appear to be perfect, from the earth's point of view maybe we are in the way, from our point of view maybe plate tectonics are in the way, maybe from the ants point of view everything is just too large lol, on and on we go...perceptions are a dime a dozen and that's the nature of contrast and duality. In the larger picture God figured out some pretty cool ways to make it all work for the most part.
We are never going to encounter perfection in creation, everything has an expiration date nothing supposed to last forever in this physical universe. It's basically God's playground and our individual opinions and perceptions are not always relevant, they don't always discredit the Creator.
Genesis is not really a description of how God created the universe, and I'm not a Genesis literalist anyways. Genesis just plants the idea of Creation, it wasn't meant to give a detailed account of everything God does to create processes and end results otherwise the book would be a lot bigger lol, it's not a science book it's a spiritual book, that is what its focus is.
Well, you certainly do have an interesting personal philosophy of how things work, sorry if I don't see anything obvious about it. I see energy operating entirely on an inanimate and random level, but I base this on the fact that there are a lot of events that have happened and will happen that make no sense if indeed an intelligence was driving it.
I appreciate that but how can you say that looking at what energy produces though? isolating itself to create forms...it is the very force that drives pretty much everything, it creates all kinds of processes including creatures that are conscious and sentient...I mean come on. Look at our own solar system and the arrangement involved, heat and light sources, a planet that is a gigantic habitat for all kinds of life. If you focus in on micro scale stuff you're going to miss the larger outcome. Kind of like if you were to observe a recipe and decided to focus on only the measurement of flour, salt, sugar or any one those ingredients and refused to look at the end result of a magnificent pie....a pancake and all it's glory after just a few processes came together lol. I guess I would want you to look at the end product and not the ingredients to see what I mean by a desired end product.
Having said that I think the hand of God can surely be seen in the ingredients but it's not always as obvious.
Created:
Posted in:
I think that the forces that have been discovered appear to be inanimate.
I disagree with that assessment and quite frankly seems somewhat small minded, or better put short sighted. But I appreciate that opinion, at least you're being polite and engaging on a mature level. From my perspective it seems quite the opposite. The forces themselves of course are inanimate, I'm not arguing the forces are intelligent it's my position they are used by an intelligent Source. That's obvious when you step back and see what they produce.
We could argue that energy itself appears to be intelligent but it's more accurate to say it operates as intelligence. Energy though is a by-product of conscious activity, it co-exists with the conscious Reality of God, it's what generates energy and why it even exists. This energy in turn is manipulated to manifest form in creation through processes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I think that the forces that have been discovered appear to be inanimate. I use the example of the photon, when it is absorbed, an electron transitions to a higher energy level, but then is released again causing the electron to transition back to it's gauge energy level. This process is completely random and often serves no purpose.
Not everything has to have purpose for creation to be true. Often times things will certainly appear to be random or have no real purpose especially when you get down to the subatomic and nanopartical levels, things get weird. That is the nature of playing with elements. The larger picture, the structuring of the world and all the processes that are involved should be blatantly obvious. What you should be considering is how the very nature of energy operates in creation, with desired outcomes, why it produces intelligence.....and questioning how the larger picture could be producing those processes.
Take for example the process of plate tectonics. This process exists on Earth where there is life but doesn't exist on other planets where there is no life. I won't go into the process itself other than to say that the process can be harmful and deadly to humans when it occurs causing earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis that we know injures and kills a great number of humans. Since the process does not occur on other planets with no life, it's quite the question as to why such a process would exist on Earth, if indeed the process were directed by an intelligence.
I'm going to say there's processes and there are effects, effects are not always the desired outcome of a process. On the larger picture I would say mountains being formed are a process in that it's the desired outcome, and that involves the use of tectonic plates. Yes, it's quite dangerous but for the most part many are untouched by it and many are able to observe their beauty without fear. But then again the whole idea of a planet and its functions are quite dangerous, God is playing with mega blocks lol when humans are quite tiny and frail, it's the nature of the game I suppose.
In the long run, if a human were to lose their physical body they just move to another part of creation. I doubt the perception of God is limited by tragedies that occur on one planet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ATroubledMan
I think I get what you're saying here. It's not the actual process that has an intelligence, the process itself when created was a process created by an intelligence. Is that correct?
Pretty much, the alternative is to accept that processes occur by themselves from inanimate forces. That would be absurd of course, because we have a more intelligent proposition involved.
For example, the release of a photon is a natural process, say that whenever an electron transitions to a lower energy level, but what you're saying is that although the release of photons is a natural process, the process of photons being released was originally designed and implemented by an intelligence and that once implemented, it became a natural process?
Basically, I defined what I mean by processes a bit better above. The manipulations of elements and energy certainly indicate intelligence by what they produce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
My question is that can you show intention in gravity or heat transference? The reason I specifically addressed the definition for process 'a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner'
First of all let's back up a minute and be more precise about what I mean by processes. I wouldn't categorize gravitation as a process by itself, that would be more of an effect. However a desired effect or outcome due to an intelligent process. What I mean by processes are developments, arrangements, formations, evolution, the products of energy ect ect. So we have to look specifically at what causes gravity to see the intelligence or source behind it. And what I mean by development and arrangements are like stars, planets, galaxies, solar systems, planetary orbit, habitations, embodiments ect ect..
Gravitational force or rotational gravity for example is produced by the centrifugal force in a rotating frame of reference and mass of that object. Why does that occur at all? why do you see the birth and death of a star, the formation of a planet, arrangement of galaxies and solar systems with light and heat sources, the development of habitations for life and embodiments? why does energy operate as an intelligent force? these are all desired outcomes manufactured through intelligent processes. My argument resides on the fact that processes are associated with minds or intelligence, in other words what you observe taking place in the universe is a direct result of intelligence and that would be an obvious deduction.
Is because it's a definition that doesn't require an intelligence or mind for the process.
But actions, operations, and changes taking place in definitive manners does require intelligence or minds, the definition isn't itself assuming that no intelligence is required for them to occur it's just defining a process. That's what I'm arguing, I can support that with logic, common sense and our observation in the real world. Where do you ever encounter those things without a person or intelligence? where does an action take place without something or someone causing that action, where do you see operations occurring without an operator, and where do you see changes taking place in definitive manners and desired outcomes without intelligence or sentience? if you use nature as an example I'm arguing that those things don't occur without an intelligent source which is why I'm appealing to your "real word" observations.
Real world meaning that which you observe in your own life independent of nature, correlating processes with intelligence. I argue that the source of intelligence is the Creator.
Why is it absurd or illogical?
Because you're accepting that processes occur without an intelligent source, the fact you don't even see that is confusing. Think about what you just asked.....processes occurring by themselves, inanimate forces producing intelligent processes without any source. You seem content to accept that intelligent processes generate themselves.
Why must one make either assumption?
That's usually how logic is used, correlation and deduction.
It seems to me that if we have no way to determine if many of the processes we observe have or require a process
Huh? we do have a way do determine what I'm saying, that's called logic, common sense and correlation.
then the logical conclusion barring further evidence is that it's unknown if they do or must. Do you have evidence that they require an intelligence?
Yes, which is why I asked you to show me where you observe in the real world where processes occur by themselves. Evidence is defined as that which indicates a proposition true, processes are associated with intelligence and that's a pretty good indicator. Having said that, we're only moving forward from a logical conclusion, that's not the only supporting factor that God exists.
Created:
Posted in:
One can assume that intelligent processes occur all by themselves but they must not ignore the fact that it's both absurd and illogical to assume that. There's no real logical reason to assume such a thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Whenever you witness a process you are witnessing intelligence, they go hand in hand. Can't have one without the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
Then we could point to gravitation.
But, I'm arguing that gravitation is an aspect of creation. That was the whole point behind my proposition. In other words no "natural" processes or phenomenon would occur without an intelligence behind that process.
Heat transference... Probably a very long list of others. Now, I don't assert that if no intelligence can be observed in those processes then no intelligence is present,
But anytime you witness a process intelligence IS being observed. That's my argument. We can support that argument with the real word, what we witness every day in real time.
however if no intelligence can be shown then how do you support the statement that 'all processes must be associated with an intelligence or mind'?
Intelligence IS being shown lol, I'm saying the very processes we are observing are intelligent, they operate as intelligence hence an intelligent source. Evolution in another great example of the definitions I provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@User_2006
If "Thou shall not kill" is enforced, then every murderer will get away because whoever executed them is deemed immoral.
Not if you include "eye for an eye" principle in the OT...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
was for Theists to be honest and admit that they had no actual proof of their chosen god
And all that was asked in return is for you to recognize that both evidence and proof can be obtained for an individual to believe in God (considering you're educated enough to know how evidence and proof are defined), and for you to consider the actual nature of God when demanding for proof from others.
Here are the posts and content you avoided that deal with your dilemma that you never addressed...
Posts 2, 3, 7, 10, 51, 78 and 125
Here was your best shot at a response lol...
Theists only assume. They do not prove.What you explain is delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
however he doesnt recall anything.
The soul has to actually leave (detach from) the physical body, otherwise the soul experiences all perceptions through whatever the physical body is observing. If a person blacks out or goes unconscious due to the heart or brain that's all the soul will witness unless the soul releases. Not everyone who goes unconscious will have an OBE (out of body experience).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mdh2000
On what grounds do you conclude that processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind?
The real world, our day to day observations. Perhaps you can share with me processes that occur all by themselves? as far as I can tell processes are associated with minds (intelligence) involved.
Process-
a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.
a systematic series of actions directed to some end
to treat or prepare by some particular series of actions, as in manufacturing
a continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner
a series of actions that you take in order to achieve a result
Created:
Posted in:
I've been a fan of Ethang since the old days, although the battle between him and the psycho was exhausting I've grown to love his troll azz kicking style. It allows the rest of us average folk to kick back and relax. He's the forums garbage man lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Hopefully there are monasteries for secular fundamentalists too.
Lol Zeddy has become a secular robot, a completely conditioned airhead. Is he thinking or just regurgitating data??
Created:
Posted in:
"People who have had near-death experiences often report experiencing features that form a common pattern among the millions of people throughout history who have reported near-death experiences. Scientists investigating near-death experiences have found that the pattern of what usually happens during them is consistent worldwide and among people of all different ages, cultural backgrounds, and religious beliefs
A near-death experience (NDE) is an event that happens when a dying person's soul goes out of his or her body and travels through time and space
People often describe their souls (the conscious part of themselves) leaving their bodies.
While having an NDE, people can see their physical bodies below, and they can watch everything that happens to their bodies, such as doctors and nurses working and family members grieving. After they return to life, they can vividly describe details of what happened around their bodies, even though they were physically unconscious.
A tunnel appears in the air and draws the souls of people into it, propelling them forward quickly. Despite the great speed at which they’re traveling, however, people report that they’re not afraid, but peaceful and curious while going through the tunnel.
Angels and people who have died but knew the person having the near-death experience in some way while alive (such as family members or friends) often greet that person shortly after the brilliant light appears. They all recognize each other, even without seeing each other physically.
Despite the fact that their physical bodies are unconscious, people who have NDEs report being able to see, hear, smell, feel, and taste more vividly than they ever could on Earth. After returning, they often describe colors or music that are unlike anything they've encountered on Earth.
Near-death experiences end when people's souls re-enter their physical bodies. Then they're resuscitated, and recover from whatever illness or injury had caused them to approach death or clinically die."
"Since NDE experiences often happen in hospital settings with professional medical oversight, thousands of NDEs have been sufficiently well-documented for scientific study. This documentation often includes relevant information that can be verified by those present. Examples include actions that took place during resuscitation, conversations in the waiting room, or articles of clothing worn by family members.
In NDE cases, people retain their consciousness. As noted in the list above, there are reports of moving outside the body, passing through walls in the hospital, and sometimes being transported to a transphysical domain (this is where the popularly-known details of moving through a tunnel and encountering a bright light come in).
In a near death experience, people can see and hear what’s going on around them, remember what is happening and know who they are—but their consciousness is operating independently of their physical body."
This idea corresponds with developments in other branches of science. Near death experiences are certainly pronounced and conspicuous evidence of a transphysical soul.
The widely accepted criteria for near death experiences (see above) makes a science of near death experiences possible.
There are four significant peer reviewed studies that provide meaningful, verifiable evidence of the survival of human consciousness after clinical death, strengthening the case for the transphysical nature of NDEs:"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
Leaving the physical body is like stepping into another universe, there's many people, places and things depending on where one arrives. Even with that said there are many commonalities involved with millions of reported NDE's. If you have any questions just ask, I have a pretty good data base for this topic.
Created:
Posted in:
"the most popular interpretation is that the NDE is exactly what it appears to be to the person having the experience". The NDE would then represent evidence of the supposedly immaterial existence of a soul or mind, which would leave the body upon death."
NDE's are first hand accounts to the truth of a proposition, in this case one supported by the existence of the soul and spirit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Prove/proof-
"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument."
God exists independent of what I think.
So prove it.
All I have to do is cross reference, that was simple. There's more evidence and data for God independent of my thoughts than any other single topic.
The soul detaches from the physical body etc.
Prove it.
I can prove that there is sufficient evidence which correlates with that proposition. I can know for a decent amount of certainty that spiritual beings exist because I have seen them, and so have many others. The soul and spirit are proposed as independent of the physical body, and the evidence strongly suggests the same....During NDE's this is the very first process, when your physical body shuts down your soul will be released giving you the sensation of being "sucked through a tunnel", this is your conscious soul releasing itself from the body. So we're back at cross referencing and understanding usage of terms, that was easy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
No brain=no observation
If you were to be honest here you would consider NDE's as evidence, which just means "is an indicator that something or a proposition is true". It just so happens that they coincide with Theistic propositions, they can be categorized as whatever you make it to be but look at it for what it is. But to attempt to limit them to some hallucinations or dreams is an insult to intelligent people who understand full well what normal conscious experiences are like. When does the brain ever produce experiences outside of its confines? is that a normal experience of the brain to allow the observer to have observations away from the physical body? or does the soul exist independent of the material body?
The soul detaches from the physical body and brain the moment the brain or body shuts down, this is why the soul continues its experience after death and when the brain is not functioning. NDE's are recorded hours and even days after brain death, even if the brain were still functioning when does it ever allow the individual to go outside its own body and observe it?
Spiritual experiences, OBE's and soul travel also coincide with this proposition. Since the soul exists independent of the body and brain it can alternate between worlds or realms of experience. This is why spiritual encounters are not limited to just NDE's, the soul can have transcendent observations either at will from practice or even accidental.
The multiverse theory is actually a legit theory whether people believe it or not. Creation is set up in layers or planes or parallel worlds, as the soul leaves the physical world it is present within the very next plane. So the soul is covered in what are known as subtle bodies AKA spirit body with the physical being the outermost "layer". The soul though exists independent of these layers and views through them like masks, they are just coverings that confine the soul to each world. Of course you're going to find this really funny but at this point I'm just talking to myself anyways lol, knowing you will just ignore my posts and talk over me but I can elaborate on any of this. Not much going on in the religion forum unfortunately so things get boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
LOL....Sorry, but womb bullshit.
It's called the soul (I know, crazy that you would see religious concepts in a religious forum right?), laugh it up but one day you will experience first-hand what I'm saying. The soul exists independent of the physical body, it enters the womb and it leaves the body at death, in other words the soul exists prior to the physical body it inhabits. Pay attention to NDE's and you have an overwhelming data base of evidence, you will certainly be experiencing the same phenomenon.
And the brain is what it is and observation is what it is...No brain=no observation=no acquired and stored data= no EtrnlVw=no ritual speak.
No, the soul can experience observation outside the physical body and brain. The brain is simply a component that confines your experience to a physical body, it does not create consciousness. Think of the brain like you would an electrical panel, it's simply a conductor of consciousness/electricity.
And I freely admitted that I was as conditioned as you, only slightly differently....Which really is the basis of the ongoing contention and why websites such as this exist.
But as I explained, it is only your mind and emotions that are conditioned. There is another part of you, which exists independent of the mind which you can fall back on. The mind is nothing more than a tool consciousness uses to store information, memory and what it categorizes. You can thank me later, I'm here to show you how to get outside the conditioned mind whether you choose to or not is up to you.
And feeling sorry is a sorrowful attempt at a cheap and meaningless dig.
Sure. But actually I do feel sorry for the limits you place on yourself. Your experience is limited by the very restrictions you put in place.
And your integrity in respect of your own personal mind set, is not being doubted. One only asks for you to be honest and accept the truism...It's not as if you are being asked to denounce either your conditioned principles or your belief in a god.
But we've already crossed that bridge. You're not going to get me to agree that God only exists in my own head lol, God exists independent of what I think or believe. You won't engage in content so you aren't giving me a chance to articulate, that's your way of running from the discussion so be it.
And yes, questions...When will a theist actually prove that a god exists?...Will it be tomorrow?...Probably not, but you never know.
Why don't you go back to my original posts I explained all that. You just keep ignoring me while talking over me. If I can get you to at least consider the nature of God that's the first step in dealing with this dilemma. Do you understand the nature of God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A god might exist independent of man's concepts....
Yes, God is an objective Reality, but it is the nature of God that eludes the immediate physical sense perception (once you grasp what I'm saying here we can move forward). Glad to see you may be open-minded about it though. Now all we need to do is get you to be open to discussing content rather than just talking over people with your personal opinions.
You cannot prove otherwise....
How many times do we need to have this talk? I already admitted I cannot prove God to YOU, but God is certainly proven to myself. And I explained that in your topic. So what I can do, is articulate the truth about God and how spirituality operates.
You simply assume that you are correct.
I don't assume anything, you keep asserting that but there are reasons and evidence for my beliefs. I don't need assumptions. You won't talk or debate about these reasons and evidence but they are there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
3.2 billion years ago was about 3.2 billion years before mankind came up with the Christian god concept.
How is that even remotely relevant Mr. Conditioned thinker? God exists independent of mans concepts. As man comes to exist in creation man attempts to express that which he observes. Man receives insights on the inner conscious planes according to that which man is able to operate in.
The evolutionary development of our planet would have been how it occurred....
Read the underlined....intelligent processes that are occurring.
No god required.
Lol yes, because only a genius would assume that processes can occur all by themselves. Production takes place without any intelligent agent involved. Now that's a miracle, I didn't know you were into that kind of thing...
Created: