Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Once you pick a religion and say that this religion says how the world was actually created and that God's the Creator then you've chosen the other religions is wrong.
You just made the point I was making lol. Read that again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Do you believe in Thor?
Not to speak for Trade but some things are simply more believable than others depending upon context and description. Not all concepts of God fit into a category of a believable premise. One doesn't need to believe in all propositions to take one realistic proposition....Thor being part of a pantheon of the gods of nature is debatable whether or not that is compatible with a Creator God that is responsible for the productions of our universe. It's not imperative to accept a myriad of nonsensical ideals for one that fits with reality.
let me say it another way, I can believe in a Creator without any need to assert there must be a God of thunder or lightning lol. I thoroughly understand the nature and phenomenon of weather and why forces of nature occur. I don't need to inject the misconception that thunder and lightning occurs at the hand of any demigod, on the other hand weather patterns exist as a part of a whole that the Creator put together. Climates exist because of the arrangement of our solar system which God created, planets exist because of God, ecosystems exist because of God ect ect....but there is no relation to lightning striking to any spiritual force other than the fact that God established our world.
It's common for a Theist to make an argument in relation to God and for an Atheist to then begin to harass the Theist about all kinds of other Gods that have been put forth as explanations for why things occur. I don't have to argue for any specific name of God given by religions and mythologies to argue for the basic concept of a Creator God. Names of Gods, personalities, responsibilities, doctrines or any extra claims about who or what God is are completely irrelevant until we reach a point where we wish to deliberate on what religions make most sense or which claims are more accurate in relation to reality.
Trade's comment (that you highlighted here) is distinctly void of any proposition put forward by religion, doctrine or mythology. There is certainly evidence (indication) for God, there is no evidence that suggests there is a hammer wielding, helmet wearing, blonde superhero running around associated with stormy weather. In this instance, why does it matter who Thor is?
If I were to make a claim about any particular religious proposition, then I would be expected to answer for the nature of my claim as compared to some other opposing proposition. Like if I said well, only the God of Abraham exists, or I believe that Thor exists... then your comment would have at least some relevance. If I'm speaking about the concept of God in relation to creation, names are irrelevant. We only need to deal with the premise that God is responsible for existence, we don't have to deal with every single claim of which God exists and which religion or myth is true.
In other words, I am not expected to answer for all absurd or opposing claims about God just because I mention God. God's existence is independent of any religious or mythological claims.
Created:
-->
@Bones
The so-called "arguments" for God are simply interpretations of how one views the universe. In essence, if you wish to "debunk" (or perhaps challenge is a better word here) such interpretations all you have to do is say no, I disagree with that and then offer up an alternative interpretation lol. This doesn't really debunk anything at all, and certainly in no way shows God does not exist.
To challenge an interpretation is to simply offer what you feel might be a better alternative, but it doesn't actually debunk the opposing position because it is based on opinion. It's philosophy not equations we are dealing with. You can offer what you feel is a superior interpretation and despite that, the interpretation you challenged could still be true that's the funny part. So hopefully you don't walk away feeling like these videos prove anything, that would be quite embarrassing on your part.
Generally speaking, I don't like to use old arguments to support the notion God exists. I don't feel like any of them really hit the mark, they may contain elements of truth simply because God does exist but to me, they are unconvincing if one is trying to use them to prove something to the opposing party. All these arguments really do is show that there are reasons to believe God exists and it's not irrational to believe it, other than that it's all up to one's personal interpretation.
I'm pretty good at arguing why Theism is a superior interpretation (by comparison) simply because the alternative doesn't have much weight to support its premises. Usually, it's all about making arguments for God look foolish rather than facing their own interpretations. What it boils down to, is that atheists accept materialism and when you really break it down, they have no reason to accept that processes occur all by themselves and now we have a working, functioning universe. When pressed, they mostly claim either we simply don't know why, or we can't know why!
So, their arguments are based upon capitalizing on the foolish mistakes of religion and its proponents, but Theism stands strong on its own without the support of religion or old philosophical arguments. The reason is, is because it deals with the very question of existence and why anything even exists at all. It has no gaps in rational, logical thought because it deals with the root of why things take place, and why there is indication of intelligence dealing with the productions of our universe.
This is why I always start with correlation, making it very clear from the start that there is good reason to make the claim God exists and really, there is no superior alternative.
I haven't actually watched the first video (yet) because 1, I'm pretty sure what will be said and 2, it will just make me frustrated because they aren't my own arguments anyways. So, I'll be watching a semi-intelligent guy "debunking" claims I have not made and can't make rebuttals to. I like the guy, just reminds me of back when I used to follow The Atheist Experience lol, same ol stuff and same ol preconceived ideas.
I did watch the second video where he responds to comments, and I have to say I'd like to have a discussion with a guy like that in a forum like this so I can really stretch out his intellect and take the arguments much deeper. I will agree and always have, that the average Theist make stupid statements and can't argue shyt but that has no bearing on whether or not God exists.
I can't seem to get the interest of the more rational people in this forum, when I find one, they never respond, or they discontinue any potentially good discussions. That leaves me stuck with all the idiots, and the religion forum always has obsessed weirdos. If forums like these would attract more people like him, we could have an open dialogue and it would much more interesting. Sure, I could leave some comments for him on YouTube and hope to get a reply, but I want a platform with an open dialogue not just a reply claiming my comment has been debunked. I want to be able to make a counter argument until either party is satisfied so I can showcase the strength of my positions about every aspect of God and spirituality.
Having said that, the problem is that we aren't arguing facts, we are arguing interpretations. God's existence might be a fact, but any supporting arguments are simply our own ideas to attempt to make it seem legit. For example, I might say there is strong indication that intelligence can be seen in the productions of the universe, and that processes are associated with mind and thought.
Now, that might be true but it's not a statement I can prove, it's just an interpretation and all you have to say is no, there is no need for intelligence behind the products of the universe. You're going to say that there is no need to add God to any process the universe undergoes. So, who is right? well to me, only one of those interpretations seem rational and logical but it is simply my opinion.
You might use the argument that suffering proves God does not exist. I counter by saying not at all, the law of Karma dictates suffering, and the weight of suffering is a consequence of the moral law of cause and effect. Who is right? to me, suffering is not a strong enough argument to show that God does not exist because I can easily deal with the problem. But guess what lol? it's just my own interpretation.
And this goes on and on and on....there are no real hard facts here it's all just philosophical and theoretical positions. That's not to say God is just an idea or a concept, not at all. It's just we are using ideas and theories to justify the premises.
So, when your boy does a video claiming to debunk arguments for God all he is doing is offering an alternative position with no one to make a rebuttal. To be fair, he addressed some snarky comments to what he refers to as low-hanging fruit but still no chance of any rebuttal from any intelligent party.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
you can't demonstrate that god exists as anything more than a concept.
Well, we definitely want to satisfy the intellect thoroughly before we even begin to justify the notion that God exists. I feel confident that Theism as a concept is as solid a proposition as any other worldview interpretation, and really there's only two to pick from lol. Even more, only one of the two match reality.
Without an empirical element
Do you know how empirical is defined? based upon the following description... "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic" who is arguing that God hasn't been or can't be observed or experienced? if it's you making that claim, atheists aren't what I would call an authority on what exists and what doesn't. Sorry.
God is experienced and perceived on a conscious level of course (not a physical level), ironically without consciousness we have no way to perceive and experience reality. So if God can be observed and experienced on a conscious (or spiritual) level then God meets an empirical element.
to show that god exists as more than a concept in your imagination
This is why we first satisfy the intellect to thoroughly accept that the concept of God is a good theoretical position before anything else, we can take note that we aren't dealing with the imagination but a realistic premise (a premise that corresponds with reality). Ironically, without the imagination we lose the ability to not only create but accept new ideas.
Do you know how the imagination is defined? our specific state of consciousness (which includes our imagination) is what makes our perception of reality known at a deeper level, as well as applying it to our own reality to make it better. Imagination doesn't discredit God, it actually allows us to perceive what God really means, understand what we are discussing and form new ideas that reflect reality better. We can satisfy the intellect that God's existence correlates with reality because it fits with reality and as it relates to God's existence, we can say that it's not just someone's imagination at work.
there is no reason to claim that god exists in reality
If there is strong indication and we can correlate the products of the universe with intelligence, then there is no reason to claim that God does not exist in reality. Further, religion and spirituality are very much a part of human reality, observation and experience. It's literally written on the walls of every culture known to man in some form or another. To say there is no experience of God is to deny reality as we know it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not in the majority of education systems in the USA, which was my point. Evolutionary teaching
More precisely, is the assumption that evolution as a process is a purely materialistic function. That is, without the aid of a Creator. Evolution as a process is a product of reality, but the atheistic ideology that follows and represents it is a load of codswallop. It's not really a battle between Theism and evolution as a process, but Theism vs atheism or more precisely materialism.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
The original sin doctrine is a bunch of rubbish, a misconception. The only thing the story of Adam and Eve reveals is the weak nature of the flesh, it doesn't represent a situation that we all must pay the price for their decisions.
Adam and Eve represent mankind as a whole, but we aren't accountable for what they personally did. We have our own individual struggles with the nature and temptations of the flesh, the only "original" problem was a principle. Jesus pointed out that problem in the Gospels....that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. They that sow to the flesh reap corruption but those that sow to the spirit reap the things of the spirit. " For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Neither You, I nor EtrnlVw has a clue.
Lol, you have zero reason to believe that. If you don't know anything, speak for yourself, thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Any and all proof that any gods exist are based on personal experience of the believer and while those personal experiences can be shared with other people who have had those similar experiences, and agree with someone and form a religious group around those beliefs that is not proof anyone outside of those personal experiences. Your proof is not even proof to someone who believes the same as you and practices the same religion you do because their experience, while similar, is not exactly the same.
This is all true.
There's no actual factual, archaeological proof that any gods exist other than signs of worship.
This is true too.
If you require proof to believe you do not have faith and are not a true believer, sorry but you're not.
This however is a bit shady. It more or less gives credit to how atheist view faith which I happen to disagree with. This idea of faith that means to believe in something with no evidence or proof, or even good reasoning is certainly the weakest definition of faith and the least useful. I have to say, that faith is certainly intertwined with evidence, proof and reasoning not void of it.
To have confidence and trust in something REQUIRES evidence, proof and reasoning. So, in essence, the more evidence you have and the more reason to accept something the stronger the faith.
Faith is not really a belief per say, more than it is an action or recourse one moves on in relation to how strong their belief in something is. And how strongly a person believes in something is directly related to how much reason and evidence they have to believe it. Faith is not belief itself, but the substance which supports how much conviction and reason upholds a belief.
This can be illustrated by any effort of practice....and practice by which something can be applied as useful or worthless. Jesus of the Gospels illustrates this beautifully by putting his faith in action (not just a belief), and his confidence and trust as a means to achieve a particular outcome. Little faith is compared to great faith by how much confidence a person has in what they put their faith to. In this sense, faith is much more an action it is than some theological or religious belief.
I may believe any one thing but that doesn't mean I have faith in it....the two are not always the same meaning.
I would go as far to say that faith is more akin to knowing something, rather than believing something. When I first desired to learn how to play the guitar I believed that I could learn it, now I know I can play it. The former was belief, the latter faith. See the difference?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rbelivb
Probably the most common atheist argument is that there is no evidence that God exists.
That's because surprisingly they don't have a good grasp on what constitutes evidence and how evidence is defined. What they mean is that they really see no proof of God's existence and that's merely an interpretative conclusion. Evidence can be anything of a suggestive nature, an indication that something is true or clear, and on that note, there is a lot of suggestive indication (evidence) that God does in fact exist.
However, it is unclear what would constitute positive empirical evidence for God's existence.
You bring up a great point, and after all these years arguing with atheists it is nice to see an atheist come to terms with this. Because part of the problem is that they think there should be some form of physical empirical evidence for God somewhere, they never consider the very nature of God and whether or not God can be compatible with such a form of evidence. Obviously, we would need another approach to such a subject, one that furthers or advances the topic in a rational, appropriate and direct way, one that I've been dealing with since I've started discussing this with atheists.
However, it doesn't seem to matter to them what the nature of God is, and they simply go about repeating the same nonsensical statement.
Most theological arguments for God's existence are rational rather than empirical
Correct, theological arguments were never designed to lend proof to God's existence rather it just lends credit to the hypothesis that God's existence is rational and not absurd.
- except perhaps for the argument for design, based on the inherent rationality evidenced by the material world.
Honestly though, "design" is a poor choice of wording because it forces the inquirer to focus on flaws of such a design rather than the function of it. We are not looking for perfection in a material world where life and death occur.... birth and destruction because by the very nature of life and death we have imperfection. What we want to focus on is function, processes and whether or not those factors suggest intelligence. Basically, we are correlating the products of the universe with thought and mind, not perfection.
How can human beings assess the evidence for an infinite being that is, by definition beyond their comprehension?
Correlation, indication. Beyond that every soul has a connection to the Divine through consciousness. There doesn't need to be any material evidence involved, that is the key factor here. This becomes a problem for any human persuaded by a materialistic ideology.
What would a world without God look like, compared to a world with God -
Well, it seems obvious to say it wouldn't exist. In other words, there can be no "world" without a God, it simply is not a possibility. There can be no functioning products without there first being intelligence and thought as an influence upon any working product.
and how can we be sure enough about this to make the comparison? In many ways, the concept of God is beyond the material world, and as such empirical evidence cannot legitimately have any bearing on whether or not we accept it.
You sound like a very rational person, it is indeed refreshing! I'd love to carry this discussion further if you find my answers stimulating.
This also brings the question of what it would mean to believe in God at all.
There are many factors involved in accepting God's existence....some of which are applicable. Spirituality is not an empty process, the connection between the soul and God were meant to give each being a means to achieve something tangible, albeit independent of any physical or material influence.
If God is truly infinite and beyond human comprehension,
I have to step in here and say that there is really nothing about God beyond our comprehension. God is beyond our immediate grasp, but not our rational mind and soul.
then is whatever believers have in mind when they think about God, really God?
Sure, but there can be a lot of misconceptions involved as well, just depends on how well and accurate a person's depiction of God is. Either way it doesn't really matter, even our own delusions have no bearing on whether or not God exists. If God exists and someone has an inaccurate image of God, it has no effect on God's existence.
If an image, or feeling, or idea comes to mind when thinking about God, then this limited idea can never really be God, who is a totally infinite being.
Philosophically sure, theoretically sure. But whether or not God exists is not dependent upon on an accurate model of God. When we are talking about theology, we are simply engaging the intellect, not reality.
Then, our use of the word "God" itself becomes an empty signifier, a vague attribution of sapience to the universe without any concrete application.
Hopefully after my response you will find that a bit unnecessary to think. It is concrete enough to suggest that God exists, whether or not our conception of God is accurate is irrelevant. Do you know what I mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't use the ontological argument but really this whole post is missing the point IMO. I think for this argument the strength of it is raising the possibility of God's existence rather than the proof of it. Because if it is possible, then really why would anyone think it's impossible? or even unlikely? in other words if there is no world or this world where it would be impossible for God to exist then what real reason do you have to think God does not exist?
Think of any one thing, place or creature in a world which they could not exist.....think of all the scenarios that would or could eliminate the possibility of their existence (this should be easy). Now, think about God and try to eliminate the possibility of God's existence (in which you will fail) in which it would be impossible for God to exist. The point of the exercise is to show the soundness of the concept, that there is no possible scenario where God could not exist. Therefore, hypothetically God exists because you cannot eliminate God from any scenario (possible world).
If we change the wording of it a tad, perhaps the argument will be a bit more sufficient or realistic.
Instead of MGB let's try Most Necessary Being (MNB). God's existence as a "necessary" Being is perhaps the most grounding reality of all arguments. I can break this down as to why God's existence is necessary but hopefully that won't be necessary, as it speaks for itself without much clarification. For even when the opposition claims it is not necessary for God to exist, they only speak from a position of interpretation and speculation and when you truly evaluate their reasoning it is weak, useless in terms of reality and function. I do this all the time, which is to show how weak the argument is for their premises as to why God does not exist, the argument from comparison. The point of course is to show why God's existence is likely or even possible rather than unlikely or impossible. And even though the average atheist (or nonbeliever) believes God's existence is not possible (absurd) they won't admit it here, but it will come out in their arguments when you push them.
It is possible that a Most Necessary Being exists! (which it is)
If it is possible that a Most Necessary Being exists, then a MNB could exist in any possible world. (as there is no world God can't be conceived of)
If a MNB exists in any possible world then a MNB exists in every possible world.
If a MNB exists in every possible world then a MNB exists in this world.
But again, you can argue the premise that nothing proves God's existence here (by speculation) but you'd be missing the point. It doesn't really prove anything, it simply shows there's nothing to offer (no real reason) as to why God could not exist.
What really do I mean by "necessary"...?
"required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential.
needed in order to achieve a particular result
being essential, indispensable, or requisite: a necessary part
unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable
happening or existing by necessity; unavoidable
determined or produced by the previous condition of things"
God's necessary existence cannot be contradicted in any way as it relates to the existence of any possible world. God's existence does not contradict reality therefore "God exists in reality"....because...... there is no real reason to suggest God does not exist, therefore it is a sound proposition to claim God exists. I believe that's the root of the argument here. Not to prove God exists but to show there is no premise to deny it. By description and function, any other thing can be eliminated as a MNB from reality, but God cannot be eliminated from reality from existing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lit
This question from that passage is often times taken too seriously, and perhaps by some too literally. Some, as in the latter, think there is some literal rendering as if to say we "look" like God, or that God is or has Human appearance. That is perhaps the most immature of the few ways it can be interpreted. The former (too seriously) tend to think there is some deep meaning or unanswered questions about it, perhaps a reference to many other passages.
I don't think either of the above are of any pertinence. I think it was just meant to mean we have similar nature to God, a familiarity between whatever God is and what we are. The common ground between us as a soul and the nature of God as another Soul. Soul being the common denominator.... we are made in the image (after the nature) of God, God is a conscious Soul and so are we.
The "image" of God need not to be taken in any particular way really. It simply means there is something conversant about what God possesses and something man possesses. You may ask for an example of what I mean here, something direct yet not that specific.....
Well, I could say God is a conscious sentience, so are we. God is an intelligence of types and so are we. God is thoughtful, so are we. God is creative and so are we. God is desirous and so are we.....we are made in the very likeness of God's nature (characteristics).
Created:
Posted in:
Nobody has to listen to other's opinions about NDE's, and how they theorize BS out of their own biased azzes when there are many solid sources to learn from people who've actually witnessed an event or witnessed the clinical facts associated with them like in this documentary below....
Created:
Posted in:
People don't understand the significance of NDE's in that they are very distinctly reporting an OUT OF BODY EXPERIENCE. This is distinctly outside the parameters of a brain, and the physical body. This isn't some mental disorder or hallucination of a malfunctioning brain which takes place within those confines folks...these are conscious experiences of people specifically leaving their body, they watch themselves literally leave their bodies behind! meaning they are able to travel freely away from their body. Under normal conditions (confined to a brain that is) our conscious parameters never leave the observation point of our earthly body...our consciousness is always present where our physical body is.
When the soul (which exists independent of the physical body) separates from the human form, the observation point at which you experience everything is distinctly separate from the confines of the brain and body. This is paramount in defining a specific reference to consciousness surviving a physical death, the shutting down of the physical body. Through NDE cases we can specifically show that people observe themselves leave their body, they can literally watch their material body as they continue to experience a parallel world (an afterlife).
This is not a coincidence that religion has provided very precise propositions of both a soul and an afterlife, and here we have evidence that correlates perfectly with both propositions. It IS very significant, claiming and speculating alternative explanations that have no clear and precise answers to what is most certainly a clear and precise (repeatable) event which can be distinctly matched with a Theistic proposition.
Now, had we just had NDE's alone with no awareness of what spirituality has been showing us for as long as humans have walked the earth we would have only a first hand testimony and we'd probably be scratching our heads. But, we have a precise claim of two kinds and a precise match of evidence that details and supports both claims. Why then, would we need to go out of our way to speculate nonsense with such clarity involved. I mean I understand we need to examine and be skeptical to make sure we have all the dots connected but honestly the dots are already clearly connected here.
Being clinically dead (no pulse and no signs of brain activity) souls should not be leaving the physical body and having very vivid and clear conscious experiences right? wrong, if it is true that the soul (consciousness) exists independent of the physical body and brain, and there is some form of an afterlife then our conscious experience will continue after the heart stops beating and brain shuts down.
This is exactly what we see with NDE's, the soul leaving the body and experiencing a parallel universe....it is so precise to what we would define as clear evidence that correlates perfectly with both claims we would have to be real pathetic to sweep it under the rug as some other explanation. It is exactly what it reports to be, and each of you will all experience the very same thing when you leave this world. It is not something to shun or mock, it is something that every soul should be waiting for and looking forward to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Envisage
I would hedge my bets that the demonstrably irrational and easily delusional human mind is a better explanation for NDEs than the alternative that you offer.
You mean "the alternative" to accept them for what they are? I would think the alternative would be to speculate they are products of a delusional mind.
But of course you need to believe that simple human observation is a product of a delusional mind when it comes to any observations that coincide with a theistic proposition or anything spiritually related. There is no alternative explanation to NDE's accept flat out speculation, ignorance of mental disorders and lack of investigations of actual NDE testimonies.
If that is the best evidence you have for the existence of God then atheism is perfectly rational.
Lol, it's an alarming piece of evidence that suggests and supports that the soul exists (independent of the physical body) as reported by Theistic propositions. It's simply a reality for you to consider that the claim of a soul and an afterlife has evidence. You can disregard it of course, which you will but just know sweeping evidence under the rug is a bad idea. It's not rational to accept speculation when you decide what is delusional based on your own worldview and ideas. That will limit your own potential for truth.
There are many ways in which to conclude God exists, at the very least God's existence is likely. NDE's are simply one piece of the puzzle, there are many pieces however.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Have you ever seen the movie Astral City
No I have not but that sounds very interesting. A quick search though....is the movie not in English?
or read either of the books the Afterlife of Billy Fingers and the Blue Island. Where spirit inspired the text.
No, have you read any of Paul Twitchell's books though? Like the "Tiger's Fang" or the "Spiritual Notebook"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Do you have any thoughts on the points that I made
Because there is no reason for him to discard his premise for one you have made up. Doesn't matter if he addresses your speculations or not, other than to simply appease you. His argument is fine, it is no less valid then your speculations. If his argument fails, he could then consider your speculations as a valid rebuttal. If you want to face the reality that NDE's are what they are, you won't need to speculate so as of yet, he has the stronger hand. In other words, he doesn't have to speculate anything, the evidence IS what it suggests.
Instead of repeating your claim that “it’s just stupid”, please provide rational thought explaining why. What evidence do you have to rule out hallucinations,
Simple, it's stupid because the nature of hallucinations are nothing like the observations of NDE's. I've went over this before, but I doubt anyone considered what I wrote. We can compare symptoms of hallucinations and brain damage and see clearly they are not vivid, normal conscious experiences. Now, you could argue that NDE's are not a normal experience but that's only from our perspective of being in the physical body....however the actual conscious observations are very normal albeit in a different environment.
It's also insulting to otherwise intelligent people to disregard their understanding of what it is like to have clear conscious experiences as compared to a disorder. Everyone knows what it is like to be alive and have normal conscious experiences as it's a fact of what we are, when someone leaves the physical body they know what they are experiencing, they know they are not having an altered conscious experience or some type of a malfunction. To suggest they are, is simply more speculation. So again, he is justified in simply dismissing speculations as stupid albeit it is his opinion. In other words there is no sufficient reasoning for him to abandon his opinion.
and how does the frequency of them qualify to you as an argument against it?
Repeatability. NDE's worldwide can be considered as a whole under investigation, the repeatable event is what makes it even more convincing and not likely a bunch of people hallucinating things. I mean should that have to be explained to you?? hallucinations are classified as mental disorders, and can be caused by drugs and the misuse of foreign chemicals. An NDE is not a mental disorder and there is no reason to believe such an uneducated speculation. The more common they are (which they are) the more it is evident they are what they are.
You have yet to establish how anything you are pointing to qualifies as evidence.
Lol, should the definitions of evidence be provided to you too?
Of course you are going to have multiple anecdotal examples of anything people are looking for, and proof of the afterlife is arguably the most sought out thing is human history.
Most NDE's are revealed from folks with no awareness or interest in the afterlife or a soul. They simply report their conscious experience just as they observed it. More speculation on you part, everything you assume here is speculation at it's finest. I've posted links many times to a great documentary which highlights valid testimonies and correlates them with medical facts that were involved in each case. All the individuals in this documentary were clinically dead and hospitalized. So the witnesses who observed what it is like to leave the physical body were under the care of medical staff. Again it is called "I survived Beyond and Back".
You also continue to claim that this is repeatable, seeming to have no idea what the word means.
Perhaps you aren't getting it, this isn't a science experiment where we have access to materials that are used under examination. With NDE's, we have access to thousands and thousands of the same nature of events that can be scrutinized and learned from. The same event has been repeated over and over in every culture of the world. NDE's can't be repeated as an experiment of course, the circumstances are deadly....however the event has been repeated again and again. It has happened over and over.....that is what he means by repeatable.
Repeatability means you can go to a lab right now and run the same experiment and get the same result. Of course however, you can’t.
LOL, you didn't think that through very well did you?
We have nothing but the word of those involved
Yes, testimonies are defined as evidence. Evidence is also recognized as a testimony. Testimonies are clearly defined as "firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE"
and could never scrutinize their story in any way.
Why not? we have access to countless testimonies of the very same event under question that can be considered and investigated. What we don't want to do unnecessarily of course, is base our arguments entirely on speculations and sweep them under the rug as hallucinations. That would be stupid. So, what we have is a large data base of evidence, which clearly correlates with the proposition of a soul and an afterlife. Let me repeat that.....we have a claim and evidence that supports the claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Wow!
What do you mean "wow"? I responded to what you wrote which was this...
"I say on earth. The Jewish and Christian lingo puts heaven and earth hand in hand."
"Sorry Heaven is not out there - it is here."
I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself.
Yet you keep saying that it IS.
Nor do I limit God to one planet.
So.. as of yet, I have heard nothing from you that indicates you believe God is not limited to this planet.
I take the view that heaven is God's home on earth.
Here we are again, have you made up your mind yet?
Not that earth is heaven.
I'm not sure what you believe to be honest, but I'd love to help you figure it out.
In the bible - Heaven is described firstly as the Garden of Eden.
Heaven, in the Bible is an actual city, and that city is located on a planet. Not the planet Earth, there is no city in the Garden of Eden lol. The Garden of Eden was created for man, it was very much like a paradise but it was not the city or the Kingdom of Heaven. Heaven on earth is to be completed at a later time. "A new heaven and a new earth".
And secondly in Revelation 21-22 as a city. When you read the different descriptions and compare the two - you notice the Garden of Eden is the original heaven and the City is the eternal or everlasting one. The city is basically the Garden of Eden on Steroids. The mature version.
Again I have a hard time understanding what you are saying, the Garden of Eden and the City of Heaven are not the same things, Revelations is clear about that. So if the Garden of Eden (which exists on Earth) is not the Kingdom of Heaven, Heaven exists elsewhere. Revelations says " 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God"....."10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a mountain great and high, and showed me the Holy City, Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God."
Notice, it's coming down out of the Heaven from God, meaning it's not already there, it exists on another planet. We also know there is no city in the Garden of Eden that is described as this...
"11 It shone with the glory of God, and its brilliance was like that of a very precious jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. 12 It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. 13 There were three gates on the east, three on the north, three on the south and three on the west. 14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
15 The angel who talked with me had a measuring rod of gold to measure the city, its gates and its walls. 16 The city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia[c] in length, and as wide and high as it is long. 17 The angel measured the wall using human measurement, and it was 144 cubits[d] thick.[e] 18 The wall was made of jasper, and the city of pure gold, as pure as glass. 19 The foundations of the city walls were decorated with every kind of precious stone. The first foundation was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth ruby, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth turquoise, the eleventh jacinth, and the twelfth amethyst.[f] 21 The twelve gates were twelve pearls, each gate made of a single pearl. The great street of the city was of gold, as pure as transparent glass."
This does not exist on Earth.
When people die on this planet - if they are have trusted Jesus, they go to paradise.
Some Christians might go the paradise yes, some won't. Certainly that is not on earth. Many other souls have many other options.
And they have plenty of things to do there. Work, eat, sleep, make love, have recreation, worship God.
Yes sir, there are many things to be accomplished when we die. Waiting in the grave (in dirt) is not one of them.
Then after the world is judged - say in Revelation 20, Jesus takes them with himself to the New Jerusalem on Earth.
New, yes new. Meaning not anything we have here now.
This is God's home.
No.
I suspect it is not a second place - but a reconditioned - or restored place.
Yes, it is. One of many, many places in creation. At a later time, earth will be something completely new.
The beauty of course is that there is also a new earth.
Yes, a new earth, meaning not the one we have now.
God's city is a beautiful garden city on the new earth. This is home on earth.
No, God's city already exists elsewhere, but in the future God's city will come down out of heaven where it already exists. And I believe that just means a rebuilt earth...not that the city of heaven will literally fall down from the sky and plant itself here. It simply means what happens in heaven will be a reality on earth in the future.
The thing about God is that he does not need a home for himself. He was before heaven and does not need heaven.
Correct, God is omnipresent and everything and all of creation exists within God. But an incarnation (Jesus) must exist to take form and have location to any specific place.
Yet because he wants to have a relationship with his people - he has fashioned this city, similarly to planting a Garden in the first place, as his home for his people to visit.
The Garden of Eden began as a paradise on earth for mankind, it is not a city of heaven. The city of heaven is described for you above. The garden was just a beautiful garden located on earth.
We however live in the time between the Garden of Eden and Judgment Day. In the time often known as the now and not yet. This means that we don't experience heaven until we die in the Garden or the City. Rather, due to God's wonderful grace - we experience heaven in the Church. The church performs a similar function to heaven. It is God's place to dwell on earth to meet with his people. Again if you did a biblical search you would find a common theme throughout the OT. The tabernacle in the desert. The temple in Jerusalem. People of God in the promised land. The church in the NT. God meets and dwells with his people.
I've been submerged in the Bible and Christian teachings since I was a young boy. I'm well aware of what the Bible says and what is Christian fundamentalist teaching. There is some truth to it, yet there is much missing.
The temple is an image of heaven. As is the church, one reason it is called a temple of God.
Sure, not really sure what your point is though. We are talking about heaven itself. Heaven itself has a distinct location even though it can be tapped into from earth.
This means heaven MUST be God's home on earth. At least in accordance with the bible.
Again you contradict your own statement..."I don't think earth is a type of heaven or even heaven itself. "
Let me break this down for you as a Christian so that this is very clear for you. Heaven already exists as a city on a planet (not earth). This is where the angels, Jesus, the prophets, the saints and all of God's people currently dwell. The Earth was created and the Garden of Eden was established as a paradise on earth for man (not God). It no longer is what it once was....One day, after the temporary rule of the gods of this world the earth will once again be rebuilt and ruled by the Kingdom of heaven which exists elsewhere. When this rule takes place, it will come down from Heaven where Jesus rules this particular Kingdom and all of those who will be a part of it will reign this planet. It will be a new earth and new heaven, meaning something that does not already exist on this planet.
Jesus' Kingdom is not currently on this planet, though his Kingdom is also channeled through every believer (on earth as it is in Heaven). This world is occupied by many various principalities, powers and rulers in high places but will one day be resurrected as a glorious planet and controlled by the Kingdom of heaven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It doesn't exist pal, I got over it very early on in life. At first, I kinda hoped it existed but I began to realise it can't exist because how can we have unlimited pleasure when almost every way to get pleasure is partly physical and sinful?
Heavens are just very beautiful planets where elevated beings exist, there's many heavens and many varieties of elevated places where you can sojourn. It's not a place of unlimited pleasure who told you that? people call them heavens because they are so immaculate, and the stark contrast between our controlling system of this worlds carnal and negative intentions. Elevated places (heavens) of untold beauty (not unlimited gratification) for those who have earned better places to live. You will also get to visit some really amazing planets on your own journey so don't be so one-sided about it. I'm sure you'd like more than this planet as an option of the long future ahead of you.
It's like saying 'live a life where you resist immediate pleasure and do your duty, no matter the cost' just to give you an afterlife where those that did that get constant short-term pleasure and zero duty or long-term goals while those that did the opposite go to hell where there is also no long-term goal, just pain.
You have a lot of preconceived ideas about religious concepts. Can't say I blame you really because of all the phony dogma attached in ways. However much of your ideas are convoluted.
God/s isn't/aren't that much of a hypocritical idiot/s, he/she/they'd have something more consistent in mind.
Why do you think God would just create only one planet so many souls could visit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
@zedvictor4
I've sure heard of sci-fi.
Yes, like Sci-fi but much, much better. Lots of things for you to look forward to. The physical, dense outermost layer is the most limited and restrictive of all worlds it is not to be mistaken or compared to what precedes it.
Sorry Heaven is not out there - it is here.
Lol, you are in for a big and delightful surprise. Earth could be considered a type of heaven, perhaps one day it could become one (out of many others) but to limit God to this one planet is very unfortunate. And what a waste of unimaginable space on every level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
5. Heaven is eternal.
Heaven is a place, there is no place that is eternal. The reason you probably think it's eternal is because you really have no idea what that word means. Nothing is infinite but the Creator, and the nature of the soul. All places within creation are temporal even if they exist for eons of time. No soul is subject to places within creation for eternity. Creation is cyclical but also revolving, changing. Change is what makes eternity bearable.
God would never subject a soul to any place for eternity, not heaven or hell. People mistake eons of time for eternity because they have no real perception of what it mean to exist in a single place forever. Heavens are created places, they may be beautiful, fun and exciting but nothing can last forever. God knows this and masks your perception of reality by giving you options of change.
Created:
Posted in:
One men's trash is another men's treasure, one men's heaven is another men's hell. Heaven then, is very much based upon perspective and preference even if there is a heaven that meets some men's satisfaction.
One man may enjoy the light and beauty of God, while another man may enjoy the solitude and darkness of God. God exists in all places (omnipresent), God exists within complete darkness and the brightest of lights.
One man may find comfort in being embraced and surrounded by the light of the Creator and another man might find comfort in being penetrated and subdued by the deepest and darkest places of the Creator. There is no heaven that meets all men's desires, there is no single place that can be considered heaven for every man.
God knows this, just as there is countless souls there are countless places of experience for every type of soul.
Just as no one (in their right mind) would force every culture of people on Earth to one country or state, God does not force every soul to a single heaven. God loves variation and difference, God loves a myriad of shapes, colors and sizes. All God's creatures have a place in creation. It is the very contrast of difference that the Creator delights in, for God is what brought variance into existence to be celebrated and enjoyed.
Not all men wish to dwell in the very same place, what one soul likes another soul would never dream of and what one soul finds delight in another soul is repulsed by.
Cultures and societies of all kinds extend well beyond this one planet, extend well beyond into the afterlife. This is what makes creation beautiful and fun, this is what brings joy into a childlike heart and what every soul would delight in if they truly opened up their mind, intellect and curiosity trusting in a God that surpasses segregation and a tribal mentality.
If everyone soul here knew that, it might change their whole idea and perception of God giving them freedom of thought and something to be excited about and invest belief in. Spirituality though is not all about the self as it relates to the progression of the souls growth but heaven (being a souls desire) is the outcome of each souls maturity and is propelled by their own interests and passions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for posting. Where do you get all of your information for such things?
There is no single answer. It's gathered knowledge from my own lifetime of experience, observation and various sources. I also cross examine a lot, that's kind of my gig. I'm obsessed with connecting the dots lol.
And how do you divide the good from the bad?
First, was there anything "bad" I explained?
Many things can be ascertained simply by what you determine is "good or bad", some things aren't even bad or good they simply are commonsense and logical. The trick is can it be done without preconceived ideas or indoctrination/conditioning. This actually applies to any train of thought not just for religious topics.
For example, some things could be very good but if they conflict with a persons conditioning they may not be inclined to accept it as true, and as a resort it may be discarded as a bad thing or an untrue thing despite it being true or good.
This is how a person becomes trapped by conditioning of mind and thought, if you want to know reality as it is one has to be free to see it as it is without interference. This takes practice, knowing how to simply observe or absorb truth apart from a conditioned mind. Since the moment we were born we have been conditioned in almost every aspect of life and belief, so to be free of such conditioning we have to also be willing and flexible. This is not easy for everybody.
To me, if something sounds like a bad idea or there is something that contradicts a flow of logical thought it IS bad, and if something sounds good and makes sense perhaps fits with reality it is good. Good is good and bad is bad, they appear as they are without much effort involved. The only thing that blurs crystal clear truth is a fractured or clouded glass, and our minds are our looking glass. It is what we peer through to determine if we believe something and if that mind has been fractured or clouded by faulty ideas we cannot see a clear image of what is true.
There are ideals that flow from dogma, theology and belief and then there are ideals that flow from reality, truth and logic. The two are not always the same thing.
And how can you be sure you are correct?
If there was a single answer I would tell you. What I know and believe about any one thing could have serval factors involved, usually a combination of things. I do study spirituality and religion as a whole and even though my foundation is Christian my study extends well beyond the Bible. I learned a lot of interesting things at a young age from experience that led me to inquire about all facets of spirituality and God. The Gospels of Jesus set me on a path of really desiring to know God and pursue that sort of life even as a very young man. I started applying the teachings of Jesus by the time I was like 8 or 9....It is my unwavering love and passion for the Creator that stirs me to be open minded and free from fear about learning all things related.
I try not to limit the Creator in my understanding and I try not to shun other God lovers and sources who have observed useful information simply because we have this rigid idea only one source can be useful and only one culture could have answers. I also have confidence that many things about God are innate to us as souls that originate from that Reality. That's just my own platform though and I don't expect that others will accept such a thing.
So if you wish to know, I am an Omnist in regards to religion and spirituality at this moment in time. Meaning I collect data as a whole. Not all knowledge and information is correct and not all wrong, rather one must have a good grasp on commonsense and a genuine love for God to decipher what it is that is useful and what can be discarded.
Cross examination and cross referencing are very efficient and effective tools when examining religious thought/insight/observation to become proficient at knowing what is more than likely true if not certainly true. I can cross reference from a wide range of an available body of facts and information that indicate what is true. People easily see the differences in religion but few realize the hidden universal laws, principles and observations that actually connect them and bring forth a wholistic view of creation in its entirety.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
So where exactly is heaven?
Heavens are many, they are planets. The physical universe is only but a single layer of several universes. In this universe there are many other beings that exist in other galaxies. Not humans of course, there are many variations of creation and each environment and ecosystem dictates their evolution of form.
It depends on which heaven you refer to know where it is located. But they exist as planets in any number of places within creation.
Maybe your specific GOD utilises exoplanets somewhere.
Very good, now you're thinking. Ever wonder why your atheist buddies believe the universe just happens to create planets lol? for what reason would it even do that?
So how would we get there?
You cannot in a physical body....When you leave the physical body you are no longer limited to physical travel. Movement and transporting are much different in your astral and spiritual bodies. This is why you should study NDE's, they show what it's like to get around outside your earthly body.
Even travelling at light speed it would take millions of years.
The soul is not bound to space and time and is multidimensional, your spirit body is interdimensional and can travel by thought...you can be somewhere immediately as you are permitted depending on where you wish to be. You can be summoned and sanctioned anywhere just as quick as you can think it. You can be present within a heaven without the need for space travel.
First you should consider that the universe is one of many parallel universes stock full of as many galaxies and planets as this one (God has been creating for much longer than anyone really knows). If you were to travel through space to another planet while in your physical body what you are saying very much applies. The limitations of the material body as we currently experience them are not relevant when you leave that body. Your soul has several layers that precede your physical form, as you detach from the physical body you are present within a subtle body or what people call a spirit body. You have a corresponding layer (form/embodiment) for each parallel world God creates and only the physical body is restricted to physics as we know it in this physical world.
Your soul, which is your conscious being has no embodiment which means your soul is also not restricted to any location. Once you inhabit the physical body your are then isolated to that location (which is earth, within our physical universe) and subject to chemistry and physics and as long as you are in that body you play by those rules.
For you to interact within any world God creates you must have a body that you can utilize to interface with that environment, God must isolate and confine your soul to a body for you to be an individualized entity experiencing creation. When God created your soul, he covered you within form and sent you into creation where you think your momma and daddy made you. They helped create your physical body of course, but you first originated with God as a soul.
You don't know it yet, but you have several layers that bind your soul to creation (multidimensional)....you have a physical body, an astral body, a causal body, a mental body and an etheric body. These are the subtle layers that confine you to each plane of existence so each of those bodies corresponds with a parallel universe where you can have countless experiences including heavens and everything in between. Your soul is eternal and the Creator wanted you to be able to have many different journeys on your path.
Or is it just more theistic magic?
Ever hear of interdimensional, multidimensional, extradimensional, transfiguration?
In your spiritual bodies you can travel by thought alone as well....meaning you can be present at any location just by drawing your attention to it. You actually do this all the time in this physical world...only your physical body has to get you to what you are thinking but your conscious thoughts were already there long before your material body. We don't have this problem once you leave this world, anywhere you want to be you just put your attention on it.
When you get hungry for example, your conscious thoughts already know where you want to go eat, what it is you want and how you will then get it. Now you just have to wait for your physical body to catch up lol but your thoughts and attention were immediate and if you had no physical body you would be where you wanted to be immediately. This presents some challenges naturally when you leave the physical world but no need to get into that yet. Just know that things aren't always as they appear, at least in other forms as you will one day see for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MonkeyKing
In Christian theology, the full scope of what Jesus had to endure to complete his mission was to also feel God the Father had forsaken him. The sacrifice wasn't just a physical beating but also an emotional and spiritual breaking. As "sin" is not just a physical abuse but also emotional and spiritual abuse. So I would say that any sacrifice to cover such a thing had to touch all angles involved for it to have significance.
However you're right, Jesus being forsaken is but a mere perception of his as God is always present. The issue rests more on the idea of what Jesus was experiencing as he awaits death. I don't really think it's meant to be such a big deal other than being a symbolic lament of the suffering taking place, perhaps there's some significance in a prophetic sense as a means to close this chapter as having been fulfilled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
What is your understanding of heaven and why?
It depends really, because there are many different places in creation. There is more than a single heaven just like there is more than a single culture or state. Universally (principally) speaking, heaven is an abode where those who deserve to enter indeed inhabit such places. Heaven is not really a religious gimmick that pretends "if I believe this or that...then I get to go here for eternity" type of baloney. Even believers won't inherit heavens because their heart and actions have no relevance in earning elevated places within God's vast creation.
There are many, many beautiful planets that souls will get to experience when they leave this world, and given their actions and intentions (not beliefs) are contrary to intentions and actions of purity and integrity they too will not be permitted to enter a paradise and the rulers of such paradises will never allow it. One's beliefs, actions and intentions must align in unison to inherit heavens no matter what beliefs they hold.
Is the heaven - if it exists - that some people go to when they die - the same one we end up in?
This is the major misconception that pervades religious thought/idealism. There isn't a single place or a single heaven in God's vast creation and there isn't one or two options when we die about where we could go. God does not accommodate a single culture and then reject all other God lovers of other cultures. That is not how this works. Surely, there is a Christian Kingdom of Heaven....if it is your interest, your passion and patriotic pleasure then this is the place for you. Now, all you have to do is meet the requirements for you to gain it. The downside is that you may not meet the requirements.
But to shed light on the whole of reality, there isn't just a single hell either. However there are as many misconceptions about hell as there is for heaven.
Do we have bodies?
Yes. There is much to understand about what that means though.
Is Hell real?
Yes. But not in the way certain religions depict it.
If so what is it like?
Hells are astral prisons. They exist as the same concept we have on earth with imprisoning criminals. They are meant to restrain and correct criminal transgressions against Karmetic and Divine laws. Now if you study various sources regarding hells it is quite clear there are levels and variations of punishments. And of course punishment is always congruent with crimes committed. Hells are not eternal, they are not meant for beliefs...they are strictly concerning actions and can be very scary depending upon the soul being restrained.
And heaven - does it consist in time or in eternity?
Heavens are within creation, they are apart of God's creative hand which exists within timeframes. They too are never eternal. Now, astral bodies can live for eons....and so "time" is very different to our notion of living a very short temporal life. You can live in heavens for eons, and it would seem like an eternity. But really break down eternity, it's something that must continue forever. Even in your greatest moments there is no reason God would inflict eternity on any of your experiences.
Much of this will be determined by you anyways, you may be very content to live in heaven for eons of time, perhaps what you perceive as eternal. But at some point you're going to want to live a temporal life again, perhaps have another family where you will once again believe you will die and inherit a place of untold beauty with the ones you love and it will be permitted to you.
If you want to escape the whole game totally and gain the understanding of what you truly are and what creation is your experiences will be completely different. It's your game, you are the one driving your seat and whatever it is you desire will be what dictates your future experiences. All in all, your soul comes from an eternal Reality where there is no form and there is no illusion of duality as we perceive it within creation and you are simply playing within God's vast works of art. When you tire of the game you forfeit creation, including heavens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I'll start with a simple concept people often overlook in regards to "religion", perhaps spirituality depending upon the structure of said propositions. To "join" a religious system is basically like becoming a member of some form of idealism that separates itself from others, and many times it matters not whether that membership is just a superficial game or a genuine connection to a system of ideals one truly accepts as a life guide.
So when I look at the structure of what you are offering I'm simply weighing whether or not there is anything worth looking in to in terms of application. I personally don't give a shit about joining membership to play political games or church politics. If I like the structure of what you are offering I'll apply it but I have no need of being a part of a system that divides itself from other lovers of God. Application (to me) is the only real form of worship or reverence, and if there is something worth applying to better oneself or others to me it is a form of spirituality.
Now...considering we're just playing hypotheticals (what if's) I'll give you credit for creating a system of religious structure simply worth applying. I really like your three stipulations I think they would be worth applying just as a good form of goodness towards mankind. Of course, one really has no need to join a religious group to apply these things but it's nice to create a system that holds people accountable so they don't stray away from good deeds.
I'm not so sure about the name "Triune of Fate"....sounds a tad dark to me lol. Perhaps Triune of Life or Triune of Unity, something along those lines. I also think you did a good job of creating a clear depiction of attributes that God could hold, however if we want to get deep here there is always the reality of duality. If we look at it in that light you're missing some things in terms of a complete system of thought. At some point someone is going to inquire about the nature of the dark side of life.
The reason I tend to like this topic of yours is because it shows a side of you that may be inclined to explore ideas about God using your own intuitions.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
@n8nrgmi
I suspect that when people are almost dead or even dead for a moment that there is a real likelihood of brain damage. Their brain is somehow synapsed. And the chemicals running amok.I would not base a theology on these experiences.
You have this a bit backwards, the "theology" of the existence of the soul and spirit beings is not based off NDE's. Rather NDE's are simply a product of the reality that the soul exists independent of the physical body. That fact is demonstrated by an extension of conscious experience outside the confines of the human body and brain during experiences of temporary stages of death, as well as spiritual and religious observations throughout the history of the world. When the body, heart and brain shut off (whether permanently or temporary) the soul can freely experience life outside of the body. And since the soul exists even while the body is well, it can also encounter many different types of transcendental observations and experiences with that which transcends physical boundaries while still in the body.
The evidence is strongly against, if not certainly against the claim that NDE experiences are the results of brain damage. The actual effects of brain damage have absolutely zero relation to NDE's lol, damage to the brain includes having physical symptoms that coincide with such an infliction....It really only exposes your lack of clarity and research of the subject according to sources and testimonies that are not speculating to support materialism. Symptoms of brain damage do not correlate with testimonies of conscious experience outside of the body.
The existence of the soul and spirit beings have long been introduced through almost every single spiritual source known to man including your Bible. At least this one feature has been universally prominent and accepted throughout the entire religious kingdom and supported even beyond that through NDE's and paranormal encounters. It isn't something weird, taboo or strictly affiliated with any single source it is a universal proposition/phenomenon. If anything, it is all that surrounds the reality of the soul that tends to become variant and contradicting.
"Beliefs" regarding what happens to souls after death are where the boundaries of sanity start to dissipate. Despite that variance in dogma, there is a continuous, harmonious thread of knowledge that the soul exists independent of the physical body and so when a soul loses their human form they move on from this world.
It is therefore impossible that a soul remains in the grave with their mortal decomposing earthly vessel. Losing the material body is as simple as removing a mask, costume or clothing, there is no continual attachment that occurs when the body is removed from the equation.
Yet strangely, Christians have adopted this unorthodox and bizarre belief that human souls will remain in the dirt until a supposed resurrection....meanwhile the rest of the spiritual, religious world continue on where spirit beings exist and permeate the entire creation of God but somehow a sect of Christians believe souls wait their demise in the grave where their own physical bodies are rotting! this is in direct contrast with evidence and the understood relationship between the physical body and the soul.
Tradesecret doesn't believe and won't accept any other options so the evidence of NDE's and any notions of reincarnation and alternative solutions simply will be avoided and shunned of course, they are just inferior concepts to him for whatever reasons. According to Trade, human souls must remain in the grave before they are appointed to hell or heaven (if they be so lucky).
Souls can go to those places, as they are very much apart of God's vast creation but each soul will move forward after death, there is no waiting period because again...there is no connection between a dead corpse and live soul.
The fear of considering concepts outside of controlled dogma is the type of garbage I was raised in most of my childhood and young adult life, the freedom of belief and logic are not pursued in strict religious squares. "You must believe this or there will be consequences"....Though, I already knew (even then) that when we die the soul leaves the physical body then and there. Not only was it innate to me but it was also clear through understanding much of the Bible and many other spiritual sources of information.
The Bible has many examples of spiritual beings not only currently existing but having relations/communication with humans, why then would anyone believe that this relationship ceases at physical death? Angels, demons, saints and prophets are permitted to roam God's creation but we as souls on earth lie in the grave with a rotting corpse while every other soul outside of this planet engages life? it is a nonsensical and impossible speculation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
@zedvictor4
Hey Moe and Larry, did you two losers know that your own Law enforcement have used mediums to solve cases they were unable to?
"While law enforcement agencies don’t like to say so publicly, the truth is that they often consult with mediums to help them solve crimes and uncover new leads. When a case has gone cold, and investigators have nowhere else to turn, they seek the guidance of those in touch with the beyond."
"6 Real-Life Mediums Who Helped Solve Murder Mysteries"
"In law enforcement, it is not something that is widely accepted. However, the majority of detectives who I worked with admitted to going to crime scenes and asking deceased victims for help in solving their murders. I even know a homicide lieutenant who used a psychic to locate a body only to say he’d never admit that publicly for fear of ridicule."
"Psychic Mediumship in Law Enforcement
Psychic abilities are used in police work."
"Meet The Medium Who Helps Law Enforcement Solve The Unsolvable"
"these crimes solved by psychics might make you rethink any doubts you had surrounding the idea that psychics really exist. These are cases of missing persons and murders, cases when police and investigators kept hitting dead ends, left empty-handed and still with no answers. Then a psychic stepped in... and the cases were soon closed."
"Just because some so-called psychics are full of hooey, it doesn't mean no one out there has psychic abilities. In fact, a psychic played an invaluable role in solving each of these mysteries."
BTW Larry, clairvoyant abilities don't necessarily equate to "talking to spirits of the dead" there are many ways in which a person can receive insight from spiritual beings or human souls that have passed on. In most cases mediums aren't hearing voices in their heads, rather they simply allow their intuition to be influenced by person, places or things outside their own personal experiences.
Since it is a trust based influence it can't be 100% accurate but it is something people will turn to when desperate for information that cannot be obtained any other way. I get insights about people all the time (more so when I was younger) but I rarely approach an individual about it, usually I look for ways the information can be useful to the person by how I treat them or perhaps pray for them. I look for ways I can fulfill what it is they are needing or looking for in life rather than trying to use it to my own advantage by touting it.
I certainly don't promote going down to your local psychic shop and paying to have your palm read but I acknowledge the functional and useful practice of spiritual gifts. I fully understand such a role and I can tell you that no real person that has real clairvoyant abilities is going to come to this forum and be tested by clowns making a mockery out of spirituality. Laugh now cry later, that is the principle by which all of us will suffer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That would be pure unfounded conjecture by necessity. I can tell you fables if you like but I would be honest about having made the story up.
How do you know that anything you describe about God would be conjecture? I mean you can mock this obviously but don't you believe that if a God exists, that you also would be very much apart of that Reality? or do you not feel that way, why do you feel you have no say in the equation?
1. Disinterested in human affairs entirely
May I ask why you believe that? in your words, why would God be disinterested in what was created?
2. Has a goal other than improving wellbeing
Do you think your life is incapable of improving your well being? what do you consider well being, material comfort or self improvement?
3. Unable to effect the course of human events sufficient to minimize human suffering particularly from non human sources (should you personally believe they wouldn't interfere with the will of rapists and murderers because of the myth of freewill)
What if human suffering IS the course of human experience?
So far you only told me what you think God WOULDN'T do or have, can you add anything you think God would have or do? perhaps be like?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Really exemplifies the limits of one track
Yes, the responses I have gotten so far really do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If we grant for a moment that some god(s) exist we have still not said anything about what some god(s) are like what they would want or if they would have any impact on anyone's life.
We are going with what YOU think God would be like and what they would want. You guys are paranoid man.
what implications would arise for you personally?
You can start your own topic and I may or may not offer something. If you don't want to be here go away, this is not a trick question either play the game or check out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You may not be asking about you, but you're own assumed conception of god is being smuggled in to the question you are asking of other people.
What conception of God have I smuggled in? you have not answered that question yet so I still have no idea what you are referring to. I still think you are reading into something that I am not doing.
I don't prefer one definition of god over another - they all seem equally likely/unlikely.
I didn't ask you what definition you prefer (because I'm not concerned with what anyone else has to offer). Here is what I asked...
Give me any general idea of how YOU personally would define or acknowledge a concept of God and we can work from there. In other words, if we were to start with what God means to YOU, what would that look like? after reading through your responses it seems you simply have no conception of God or any general idea of how you personally would define God, so God has no basic attributes that would define God as what a God would be?
Why are you so hesitant with such a question, it's not a trick question. I'm not trying to assert anything here or luring you into something. I just want to explore options without the influence of any dogma.
How do you figure? How are you defining god so that materialism and god are mutually exclusive?
Lol, one means something totally opposite from the other. One is and one is not, one has and one has not I mean do I really need to answer this? existence and nonexistence are in stark contrast with one another.
See...this is what I am referring to when I say you're smuggling your own assumptions in.
Enlighten me on how I did so? In one scenario God exists and the other no God exists. If that is what you mean by smuggling in my own concept of God then yes, for this topic I'm assuming God exists. That is the only way we could entertain your idea about God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
These are people who don't understand how evidence is defined, yet they think they are justified in claiming there is no evidence. We have a proposition, knowledge and a claim about a soul and then we have clear EVIDENCE that supports our claim. All they can do to run from the facts is speculate and pretend they have some superior understanding of evidence lol. We have fulfilled our burden of proof, it's on them to play the speculation game. Don't let them try and sweep you under the rug with all their fluff and misconceptions about evidence. If they want to play dumb just define it for them...
Evidence-
"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
be or show evidence of.
an outward sign : INDICATION
something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY
one who bears witness
A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:
Something indicative; an indication or set of indications:
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.
ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood
a mark or sign that makes evident; indication:
your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief
Evidence is anything that can be used to prove something"
Atheism is irrational because there is no evidence to justify such an ideology, their belief hinges on their uneducated idea of what evidence means and consists of. They have to rest their whole belief system on presumptions that aren't even justified.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
n8nrgmi 50 :there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist
Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Lol, he apologizes....there isn't ANY evidence to be an atheist. There is no evidence that God does not exist so to be an atheist one has to make presumptions.
FLWR :Extremely well stated.
Thank you very much FLWR, indeed it was.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Jesus' teachings are principle oriented, in this particular scenario Jesus was addressing this particular man using a generalized principle it does not apply to everyone or all people who are wealthy or who have material possessions. It only applies where there is a weakness or tendency to put material things before spiritual things. In other words you can have all the money in the world as long as it is not a priority over that which is more important. Knowing this rich mans vulnerability Jesus addresses the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I have no idea what the fck you're going on about. Maybe you think this topic is something other than what I intended it. Go take a nap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
think you might need to consider why I am not responding as you think I should. The term "God" carries some baggage for you.
Enlighten me please. I don't see how this is relevant at all even if you think you're making some kind of a point. I'm not asking about me. This was a topic created for your freedom of expression not mine.
Assuming a god exists doesn't tell me if that being is the greatest imaginable or merely something preexisting or marginally more powerful than humans. It doesn't tell me if that being is mortal or immortal. It doesn't tell me if that being is THE creator or even a creator. It doesn't tell me if that being has anything to do with humanity at all.
Give me any general idea of how you personally would define or acknowledge a concept of God and we can work from there.
That being said, the dynamics of god existing can be no more precise than the definition...and that is indeterminate.
But, it is in stark contrast to materialism. That in itself creates a whole new dynamic does it not?
This isn't an argument, debate or me trying to convince you of some religious dogma, this is just a game of the intellect for you to explore possibilities. If it does not interest you so be it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
@RationalMadman
@zedvictor4
@BigPimpDaddy
Zed, think of the brain as more of a conductor, conduit or a component that regulates and confines consciousness like electricity is harnessed and regulated for the use of powering that which it occupies. People are hung up on the idea that the brain creates consciousness because of the misconception of being able to "measure activity" through the brain. But that is only because of the presence of consciousness, in the same way we can measure electrical current through any electrical component because of the presence of electricity.
The brain though...is only responsible for confining your conscious experience to a physical body so that you have a vessel that can interact within this world but brains don't actually create your consciousness. You are first a conscious being (soul).....not a series of impulses and neural firing. Just like energy and electricity, consciousness exists independent of form as well as within form. If you accept that energy is neither created nor destroyed, exists both within form and independent of form simply apply that same principle to consciousness and you have completed much of the puzzle.
Awareness cannot be created, it is not a phenomenon that can be fabricated it can only be transferred from one thing to another. It exists as a reality all on its own (we call that Reality God, the first Cause), basically just like energy. Wherever you have energy you have awareness and wherever there is awareness you have energy, they co-exist. Awareness is the very fabric and backdrop of the universe and all that exists.
Speculating that a brain can create conscious beings has been the greatest hoax mankind has ever faced, it robs man of the very foundation of what he is. In this particular world it is imperative though that most humans forget who and what they are for the experience of having a fresh, unique dumbed downed observation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I sometimes practice my one question that i have if i met one of these god things.I'd just keep repeating.What religious group should i be in ?
What if you had no religious group to pick from? what would your question then be?
God , God.Which group do i join.It has to be the only thing you need to know from god.
Really? are you sure about that? I know you're not that one-dimensional of a thinker even though you keep playing this game.
It's not like one would just join any old religious group if god didn't tell him.
If you knew God exists, what would that mean for you? what do you believe would follow that knowledge?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Then I would accept the existence of a GOD....Belief would obviously not be necessary.
Fact and belief are not contrary to one another. If you accept the existence of God as fact, then you "believe" God exists. I'm not imposing any religious dogma or doctrines on you, we are just exploring your range of possible theoretical territory.
What might this hypothetical addendum to proof mean.....Makes it the hypothetical trick question.
No trick question Zed stop being paranoid. God exists.....what would that mean for you personally, what are the implications that arise for you personally?
From basic proof.....Nothing......Because I would gain nothing, other than a slight modification in stored data.......A GOD might exist......A GOD does exist.
I know you're not a creative individual, but for once can we get beyond your bleak, emotionless package of data and touch on your inner self awareness?
Of course, this might all depend on the ensuing show and demonstration catch.
What catch? I'm asking you what would ensue if it were clearly proven to you God exists. How would that knowledge effect you besides adding to your heap of conditioned data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
I think SkepticalOne, has a point with "Depends on what god it is"
Perhaps to you it is, since you're idea of God has been primarily imposed on you instead of what God may entail being innate to you.
It's a very 'wide definition, to many of us,Various afterlife's and religious realities, vague, lacking clarity.
If I wanted to impose religion on you I would have clarified the topic, that is not my intentions. My intention is to give you freedom of thought and expression as one observing something from a clean slate.
Though I think there's a clarion call in the emotions, desires of others.Good or ill.That's a bit of a contradiction for me to say.Religions, beliefs, values, passion, right and wrong,People often feel the pull and push of, yet have difficulty enunciating the particulars.I'm rambling.
. . .
I'm giving you the option of thinking about God free from others ideals and dogma. I don't need to invoke religion to touch your imagination about your Maker. Your Maker exists independent of religion.
Hypothetically, if I found singular or various Gods, afterlives, or realities to exist,I might attempt to look for a way to profit from it,Whether in my own life, or in acquiring power at large.
Thank you for that, I would love you to begin to expand on this. Think of the possible implications of God existing and how that would impact you and your future.
When I say profit, I mean improve my situation, so to speak,Which could be something such as finding inner peace,. . Or power over my surroundings.
That is a great start. Can you expand on how this could be possible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That's pretty vague and my following answers will reflect this.
Yes, it is vague in the sense we need not invoke religion to answer the supposed questions .....so I don't see what the issue is in terms of your reaction to the existence of a God. We aren't trying to determine any religion, we are just playing with the idea that God exists. I'm giving you freedom to play with the idea independent of dogma.
Sure. I understand atheism and materialism are not the same thing (so that part is hinting at a non sequitor), but, of course one cannot be an atheist if a god were demonstrated. So, I'd have a different label.
Right. And how would you feel about that, how would that effect you personally.
The existence of a god wouldn't change my identity or any core principles.
That's cool, I wouldn't expect it would, though we could argue that it may change your identity from being identified as an atheist. I don't see really see it altering your core principles but I do see it having influence on how you view the world and your future I would hope.
I would still critically evaluate claims, I would still strive to know whats actually true, I would still hold to humanism.
We all do, or at least I do.
There would be no practical difference between SkepticalOne in a world where an undefined god exists and one where gods are a question mark.
That's what I'm trying to unearth, if this is actually true.
No. I'm saying the existence of something undefined may or may not make any difference. How is being a product of nature or being the product of something called god important?
I'm asking you. I know what the differences are and what the implications would be. I'm trying to get you to stretch your intellectual boundaries a bit. The dynamics of God existing as opposed to not existing are pretty significant. I'm trying to allow you the freedom of being creative here instead of me giving you all the details or implications.
For the record, you have added an attribute to "god" which is not a given - eternal. Is this part of your hypothetical...god is eternal?
If God is not eternal then God has to be the product of something, if God is the product of some other thing then God cannot be labeled God. Do you have any inherent issue with assuming God to be eternal?
If not, your hypothetical can include gods such as a very mortal little Johnny programmer who created humanity for a class project and has long since traveled into oblivion.
Lol.
Nope. How humanity came to be doesn't have any effect on my day to day life.
Sorry to hear that. Perhaps then you really don't understand the difference between materialism and theism and what the implications could mean. Maybe you're not the guy I was looking to expand on the topic with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I believe this to be a black and white fallacy.
This tendency for young atheists to claim fallacies needs to be controlled because honestly if you aren't following the logic thoroughly your assertion that I'm committing fallacies is subjective. You will have to trust me that I will not present any logical errors, we can be assured of that when you argue the premise of my content and I will refute your argument or objection to it. But before you claim any fallacies give me the opportunity to explain what I mean and expand on any point I make. Otherwise you might walk away perceiving that because you claimed my reasoning fallacious means you intellectually debunked my premise. If I can assure you anything it is that I will commit no logical errors.
the idea that good cannot exist without evil cannot be conflated with the gratuitous evil.
This is a lack of proper understanding here, basically it makes no sense. There is no reason to contrast evil with greater evil, my premises work for both factors. Either cases of evil are caused, they aren't objects that God creates so I fail to see any real logic on this one or any reason to bind God to your concern. It's not really that good cannot exist without evil rather if good can be committed so can evil, it is simply the nature of reality that if one is possible so is the other. And as I pointed out they are free to occur as they are not to occur.
Sure, maybe we can conjure up a world where only good can occur, but then we would have to question whether or not you're willing to give up your own freedom of choice and your commitment for self-improvement.
Interesting, but I'm not a believer of Karma.
Lol, you also don't believe in God so why is this relevant? you're completely dodging the premise by stating you don't believe in it. I acknowledge that but it is irrelevant. We are trying to ascertain what is possible and if the model works and reflects reality you need to concede the point, argue it but not ignore it. We want to advance our discussion here and the only way we can do that is if you are satisfied with a concept that works, not if you believe it. Belief will come later but for now we need working theories. The theory works very well and reflects reality, it means there is no needless or unfair suffering but all suffering are the results of people's Karma, this is simply a cause and effect scenario.
I believe our universe operates fine without that concept and thus is an ontological burden.
This doesn't make any sense, you presented the problem and I solved it by giving you an answer for why we see suffering. It is neither a burden nor unnecessary but absolutely warranted for this dilemma which in this instance looks like to you a serious concern. Now you claim the very equation for the problem is a burden, this is not the logical consistence we are searching for. Rather if you consider it as a means to solve this concern then we can expand on that concept (until you are intellectually satisfied) but I need you to be flexible and move with logic and reasoning before we determine whether or not you believe it or if your belief even matters.
True, I just assumed this to be true because it is commonly attributed to God.
Yet you don't buy it because they create logical inconsistencies about our world, so why would we need to use those models? Why do we need to assume God is this or that until we both show or agree it's necessary? I'm not even arguing that they are untrue rather I'm saying we don't use them until we come to a point in our discussion where we can no longer avoid claiming it. They aren't my own premises so why do I need to support your claims that they don't work?
I'm fine with discussing the nature of God if you want. We can leave this evil stuff aside.
Well to be clear I don't want to side step your concerns but I do want to start with a clean slate. The whole point here is that we deal with your concerns about MY propositions, I have no objection to satisfying your concerns with evil and suffering because I don't want you to walk away from this thinking that God cannot exist because evil and suffering exist and someone made a claim that God is all-loving and this creates a contradiction. On the same token, I don't want to deal with other people's assertions about God that I don't support. Now I'm not saying that God is evil either, the point I'm trying to make is that Karma itself is the key to understanding the problem, it is irrelevant to any attributes of God.
So whether or not God is good or bad has no correlation to why evil and suffering occur. Why God creates an environment where those features can take place have several factors involved and some of which I have already laid out. Some I have yet to touch on but first I need you to concede that Karma makes sense as to why we see patterns and behaviors of evil and suffering. If need be argue the content of that concept and I will rebuttal those concerns.
So let me know either way. We can tighten this up if you present any further problems of evil and suffering, or if I have given you good reasons to believe the existence of God can be compatible with our worlds suffering we can move ahead with anything you find an issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
Of course, the idea of punishment is valid
Okay great.
but surely there are degrees for which one faces discipline?
Discipline must be the equivalent of the mistake... Degrees of discipline should correspond with the degree of action, this is how Karma works.
If you punch someone in the face you won't know what they suffered until you get punched in the face. Eventually you won't punch anyone in the face because you know it sucks and someone might punch you in the face. Whatever you put someone through you must eventually experience. Whatever desires you abuse you must eventually learn through depravity of those desires.
If you kept stealing from someone without there being some kind of equal consequence what motive would you have to stop stealing? perhaps if someone stole your car or your favorite thing it would leave you with a distaste for stealing. Now...the more serious the action the more serious the consequence. Sometimes jail sentences are not enough to teach a soul of their crimes. We know that because of testimonies where criminals still scoff at their punishments and delight in their work. That's because confining someone may not always be sufficient to deal with their level of evil.
Well guess what? if they murdered and raped women Karma will ensure that they return as a woman and be raped. Then it's not so funny anymore is it? That experience will stay in their conscious warehouse as a warning not to commit such actions in the future. This process is repeated until the soul eventually learns. The harder the conscience the longer the lesson, every soul can be broken at some point....they will surrender to the very consequences of their actions. This isn't anyone doing it to them, it is the works of their own hand.
This is true for every soul who occupies this planet, their death and loss of their earthly body is not the end of their Karmic debt/lesson. If they don't learn here they will learn elsewhere. So don't ever believe some criminal got off easy because they died and never experienced what they did to someone else. Karma is not limited to any lifetime. So, where you see suffering is where you see Karma playing out on many different levels of cause and effect.
Assume that I am teaching a child how to write the alphabet. In an effort to teach him the wonders of vocabulary and language, I vow that every time he makes a mistake, I stick a needle into his arm. Is this unjust? Well, one could argue that duality necessary for the pursuit of knowledge.
Duality does not ensure justice or punishments, it is not a moral dilemma. Duality is just a principle that enables one feature to occur with the existence of an opposing or contrasting feature. I only use duality as a justification for natural phenomenon and Karma as a means to deal with moral dilemmas and consequences.
One could argue that "the pain the boy feels is temporary, but the knowledge that he gains through language is forever". Of course, the idea of punishment is valid, but surely there are degrees for which one faces discipline? Instead of poking the boy with a needle, couldn't I just reiterate what I was teaching calmly and arrive at the outcome of learning language without the unnecessary pain? Though the concept of poking the boy with a needle is sound (I mean the idea of punishment for a greater good), surely needle poking is too extreme. Good can exist without gratuitous evil.
Yes, of course. Your illustration does not reflect the concepts I have presented. Where did I ever state that there should be unnecessary punishment? to the contrary, where there is punishment there is (should be) equal cause. Poking someone with a needle for grammar mistakes is not justified IMO.
I believe your conflating the two distinct problems of suffering, as suffering is not always related to evil. Evil can only be assigned to intention, whereas there "could" be suffering that is not related to intention and I guess we could call that accidental suffering. The two are dealt with differently and hopefully I made that clear in my responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bones
I'm just invoking the ordinarily accepted attributes, being the 4 omni's.
But neither I nor you have accepted them lol, in fact you are arguing for their logical errors. We may have need to accept them, but we haven't made that progression yet. No need to invoke features that we have not agreed work.
This argument works completely fine even if we assume they are true.
Perhaps but they aren't my premises. Give me the benefit of the doubt that I can connect our reality with a Creator but you'll have to follow my own logic and concepts, until I invoke those particular ones...if I even do.
We want to build the most accurate consistent model of God that reflects reality, we don't want to use nor do we need to use other people's ideas or assertions about God. If God exists (which God does), then we want to show it is certainly possible and there are no logical inconsistencies. We have no use for the proclaimed "Omni's" as there are no real reasons to accept them as fact. I haven't asserted them and I don't want to waste my time arguing concepts that aren't my ideas or premises. This is our discussion so we have no need to rehash BS that has already been discussed over and over. I'm not your average Bible thumper so please leave me the opportunity to show you fresh ideas and concepts. If I use any religious depictions it will because they are useful and portray an accurate reflection of God and reality. If I don't bring it up, don't argue it.
If you want to agree on some basic attributes we should probably get that out of the way, but I'm not going to argue over concepts that I have not suggested.
But why then create a world in which unnecessary suffering exists.
God didn't create a world where unnecessary suffering exists, that's where you lose sight of what I'm saying...there is a difference between what God created and what "could" possibly happen. Suffering didn't exist as God created the world, it was produced after God created the world.....What you should ask if you wanted to really be perfectly accurate is "why then create a world where unnecessary suffering COULD occur"? as it is also free NOT to occur.
I can't answer for your question because it is nonsensical, it is worded in a way that is not true to reality. I'm not denying suffering exists, I'm denying that it existed prior to its own cause. Suffering did not exist until there was a reason behind someone's suffering. So God did not create a world where suffering existed, the world was free of suffering before it was caused.
I will go into more detail as to why suffering CAN occur as I've already laid out some factors that need to be acknowledged before we move forward.
You seem to imply that suffering is simply "part of the package", but remember, an omnipotent God could have made the package any way he wanted.
It is part of the package, as that is the very nature of duality. Either duality exists or it does not exist, you can't have it just one way otherwise it is truly not a dual environment....Where one thing can occur so can another thing, as well they are free not to occur, don't forget that rule of thumb. Just because something "could" happen doesn't mean it needs to or even will.
God's omnipotence is irrelevant, God wanted a world where we have complete freedom of expression while at the same time we must learn from our choices of expression.
Again though, we are arguing a premise I have not proposed but I do agree God could have created a world where we are bound to only good choices and happy experiences, but I think God wanted something more than loving conditioned robots. Maybe a world like that exists somewhere or maybe it was created before our world and God thought it lacked real substance and experience, perhaps thought it lacked freedom of expression and character. Perhaps God thought we were deserving of all things being possible?
He could have given creates complete and free will while only subjecting them to necessary pain.
Logical error, God cannot create complete free will where only one feature could occur. Otherwise you have a totally different product with totally different terms.
There is distinction between evil and gratuitous evil. Evils can serve God. Gratuitous evils, on the other hand are tautologically bad, that is, they cannot be justified, they bring no pleasure and they do not improve well being in any meaningful way.
There is no distinction between evil and greater evil other than your perception of which is more evil. Do you like a little bit of milk in your cereal or a lot of milk? it is still milk no matter how much you use or prefer. Evil and suffering can not be justified, but the reasons why they occur in light of an existing God can be resolved. In other words there is no real reason to assume God does not exist because they happen. And I'm trying to give you some reasons to believe that.
I think you are missing the point about evil and it's occurrence....there are no limits on what you can and cannot do other than laws that provide consequences for your choices but even then it doesn't keep you from doing them. If you want to commit gratuitous evil you must learn from gratuitous effects and that can play out in any way your Karma requires. Whatever your desire is, there must be an equivalent lesson or experience you must face. This is the only way improvement can progress as you chose things and the experience things. If no lesser desire for evil will suffice then no lesser punishment and consequence of evil will suffice. So...the level of evil is determined by the pursuer not God.
They are only free to occur because God allows them to occur. God, being omnipotent, could have created this exact world, free will and all, without the gratuitous evils.
You keep making this same mistake...God didn't create a world with gratuitous evils, they are not the product of God. What God is responsible for is creating a world with a dualistic environment, where evil could occur as well as not occur. God being what you assert as omnipotent is irrelevant. Whether or not evil occurs is our responsibility. God can only be charged with giving you opportunity, and who is going to charge God?
I'm glad you agree, I usually have trouble getting theists to admit that evil even exists. But then that leads to the question, why do you think gratuitous evils exist? Tautologically, there seems to be a contradiction.
Number 1, there is no reason why some evil could occur as opposed to greater evil occurring. There is no contradiction....ironically, what would be a contradiction is if some evil could occur but not others.
Lets cut to the chase here, it sounds to me like you wish to take part in a controlled environment. What you may not be aware of is that is precisely the reason why Karma exists and why there are consequences and punishments for gratuitous evil and everything in between. But there can't be a limit put on evil without it violating the very freedom of expression you innately have.
And BTW, just because others may abuse this freedom does not mean you have to. So as long as you personally exercise control you may never experience gratuitous evil, so to you it may never exist anyways.
But remember, God is the one setting the rules here.
To me it sounds like you are the one setting rules.
You assert that either we don't get trees i.e,. we do die, or we get trees and they have the potential to fall on us.
If we want trees like the ones we have then yes trees fall. Whether or not you will be under a tree when it falls is unknown. What is known is that the trees we do have are marvelous. Personally I love them. The chances of one crushing me the moment I walk under it is very slim. I'm confident that my love for trees justifies the rare possibility one would kill me.
These are not the only two options.
Actually they are, we either have trees or not. Trees need seeds to produce more trees, trees grow from seeds into many shapes and sizes and the taller the more magnificent. Trees must die like everything in the material world as being products of physics and chemistry, they birth, they eat, they drink, they grow and they die. When they die they fall, in the rare event one would fall while you were under it without you hearing it falling will probably never happen. And probably never happen to anyone so I think the existence of our trees works fine.
I, as a finite being an imagine a better or more just situation where oxygen comes from say little plants on the floor.
So you opt for no trees?
Moreover, even if we were to accept these two situations as the only possible ones, why does my hypothetical deer have to suffer for exactly the amount that it does? Why didn't God marginally reduce the pain? Surely the deer can learn the lesson of being more careful with less pain?
I can't answer for hypotheticals. I also don't think that deer need to learn lessons from accidental pain. The more rare the hypothetical the more ridiculous it is to ask me to answer for them. What I can do is explain why we have trees and why I think they should exist even if they present a rare danger. Remember though, that much of creation is God's taste and it just so happens that the world is unremarkably beautiful. Trees are very much a part of the unmatched beauty of Earth. How many trees do you believe have fallen on deer throughout the history of them both? it's not like trees were created to fall on deer, it's only a possibility not an intention or a likelihood.
You can take it from me, some form of gratuitous evil is plaguing some animal somewhere in the world as you read this.
I can't assign gratuitous evil to nature sorry, that is not logically coherent. The very nature of evil is only perceived through conscience. A tree falling on a deer is not evil lol. It may be perceived as unfortunate but not evil. Evil is assigned to intentions.
Sure, we do not know these things for certain
Then it follows asking for justification is impossible. I can make sense of why trees and deer exist though despite there being a risk they could collide.
I do not know with 100 percent certainty that deers suffer, but from my observation and the available information on the neural system of deers, I can conclude that they likely do.
But we do not know how much. Like I said previously, there is a "shut off switch" to a certain threshold of pain. To me that is an indication of mercy, so if we all want greater sensation we must suffer the possibility of pain. Either we have a nervous system or not. Do you opt for the type of feeling and sensation a nervous system delivers in spite of the possibility of pain? I mean God could have left out nervous systems but then you would have no awareness of experience of touch sensation. Also, pain can be an indicator something is wrong....you wouldn't want to leave your hand in a fire for example...
This is only the case because God made it the case.
Without duality there can be no creation. Creation is driven by opposing forces and the continual fluctuations between contrasting events, the push and pull of everything that occurs. Creation begins with duality and must be so for there to be any separation from one thing to another....every single thing must have a contrast to show that it even exists. Without one thing you cannot have another, instead of criticizing it you should appreciate the beauty of it. Without a male there can be no female, you like women right? would you prefer a world with only the female principle? would you like a world where there is no beauty of the night and only the beauty of the sun?
God is omnipotent, I'm positive he could have created a world with marginally less suffering whilst retaining all the good that we have.
So you want restrictions to your personal experience and expressions? as I've said, God hasn't created a world with suffering God has created a world where suffering could occur as well as not occur. If you want a world without suffering then you have to have a world without desire, expression and intentions. You would have to have a world without the root of suffering and evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Since it is already proven to me to my satisfaction, the sure knowledge is one less dependence on faith
Is there anything in particular you ever asked yourself or wanted to know about God and or your soul that you may not have access to?
And Jane would have the assurance she seeks:
I've known Jane for quite awhile and she has made some pretty big leaps towards God. When I met her she was just about your average atheist, she struggles with assurance and confidence perhaps to a greater degree than others at times but she is a solid person and a great spiritual prospector. She has highs and lows like we all do and she will reach plenty more highs in her pursuit with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Depends on what god it is I suppose
Well my hypothetical does not suppose any particular God described, just that God does exist. Does God have to have a name described by any particular source? how about one you describe instead of someone describing God for you?
but, in general, I don't think it would have any great impact to my life.
But what are some of the implications you believe would transpire due to God's existence? it doesn't change your life yet I'm assuming you understand the difference between materialism/atheism and theism? if God exists, what are some things you believe follow that reality on your behalf?
Are you telling me that there is no difference to you between being the product of nature compared to being a product of an eternal God? your origins don't matter to you?
I don't get the last question. I mean, what more (besides having a better understanding of existence) would someone want from this?
That is an answer, what don't you get? having a better understanding of existence is a great follow up.
I just want to know what you would expect or want considering you now know God does exist. Maybe imagine you were an orphan all your life and now you have the knowledge and opportunity to know your true origins? what would be some things you would want to know, how would you feel? would you have any aspirations or questions?
Created:
Posted in:
If it could be proven, shown and demonstrated that a God exists, what implications would arise for you personally?
What would you want out of discovering this knowledge?
Created:
-->
@janesix
Reality changes on a weekly basis for me lately. I should be insane by now but I'm not. Somehow I and others keep skipping to new realities that are similar but different from the last. This week, whales now have nostrils instead of a normal single blowhole. Lst week, tigers now have white spots on their ears. China lost half of it's entire East Coast. Alaska keeps warping. The human skull used to be three fused bones, now it is double that. Eyes now have bones behind them where it used to just be muscle then the brain. Kidneys moved upwards under the ribcage and towards the front. Where do you land a kidney punch? It's supposed to be in the lower back. 22 million Americans have disappeared, and china and India have lost millions as well. In my original timeline, there were 350 million Americans at this time. Now there are less than 330 million. I have personally changed in many ways. The type of galaxy we live in is different even,and we have moved 27000 light years from the Sagitarrius arm to the orion spur. The list goes on.I should be scared, but I am not currently. I was at first.
Lol well lets reel this in a tad. Sure, we could agree that creation can get quite complicated and even bizarre and quite frankly is always changing and evolving. However, you started this topic with the premise that it is presumptuous to think we can know anything about God. But unlike creation there are some very simple fundamental truths about God, many of which can be easily deduced. There's not much that is complicated about a conscious Reality other than the massive scale in which It exists. You're existence is nothing short of a tiny fraction of God's existence with the major difference being that you are a player in the worlds of duality where you have to deal with the complexities of life but don't allow that to fool you. Your world might seem complex but that's because there are many added conditions to your experience here.
Besides the nature of God, all the facts about how God creates a universe (as well as parallel worlds), creates souls and creates embodiments are fairly simplistic to grasp as long as you have some basic pieces of the puzzle, many pieces which come from our scientific explorations which gives us pretty clear answers and if you're a Theist you have the added bonus of gaining even more clarity.
Now things can go from simple to complex very quickly once we get into the variations of features in creation. But we need not invoke that complexity to understand God per say.
Don't be fearful about creation though, just remind yourself that your world is not lost or compromised due to the complexity of life. You're firmly secured and accounted for in more ways you could ever imagine.
Created:
-->
@janesix
Because tomorrow might bring something different from what you thought you knew. We can never have enough information. Maybe God can though.
My beliefs are not rigid, they are flexible and grow all the time. That doesn't mean that what I learned previously deserves no confidence. I never claimed we know all things at one time, I said knowledge is very much like a puzzle....perhaps the puzzle is more complete from person to person IDK, but there is no reason for me to accept I can't know anything about a Reality I was created from. That would be nonsense.
I mean come on, if I thought for one second that you could never know anything about God and be confident in that I would just say "yep, you're screwed and I'm screwed oh well lol. Sorry Jane, we're just in the dark and there's nothing we could ever learn about this so good luck on your journey"... but that would be completely contrary to my whole life's experience and I cannot assert such baloney.
Created: