Total posts: 2,869
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Let's get something straight here.
Lol coming from you?
To be a sentient human being is to be conditioned.
The mind is conditioned in all sorts of manner from the moment of birth, the emotions reinforce these conditions….the emotions are conditioned as well. The one observing the mind and emotions are unconditioned whether he knows it or not, he exists in a state where he experiences these conditions. If the observer only knows the observations of the mind and the emotions he is controlled by them, you have a conditioned individual who knows no better. That is not me.
You didn't leave the womb clutching the Bible.
Lol, but I did leave the womb, as well as come into the womb with pre-conscious experience before entering it. I was already thinking about God before I even knew what the concept really was. That is why at the time I was introduced to the Bible I understood it very well.
On the other hand you don't pay attention, the Bible is only a single spiritual source that I have been educated on.
It was Mummy and Daddy and Aunt and Uncle and Brother and Sister and the next door neighbour and the clergyman and the teacher and the television and the internet etc. etc. that conditioned and produced EtrnlVw.
That's only part of the equation Zeddy, people are not doomed to their conditioned states of mind. You need to learn how to follow along that's part of your problem and why discussions don't go very far with you involved. The mind is distinct from the observer which is the soul, and so a person may operate outside of that (conditioned states).
Your internal database was conditioned, like it or not.
The observer exists independent of the mind and emotions, like it or not. Ask how that works? The observer and the conditioned mind are not one and the same sorry. In a case like yours, you're only controlled by them but they are not who you really are.
Everything that you present on this website is a product of your conditioned self.
No, they are products of what I have observed, I separate what I observe and intuitive feel from that which is taught and conditioned, that is why you see original content from me. I care little for the conditioning of the thoughts and mind. Get that straight. And since this also applies to you that you are just a product of conditioning why are you so adamant about your position and Theists being deluded? isn't that just a conditioned belief?? ever care then to learn something?
And you and I were conditioned separately and differently....Therefore the conditioned rhetoric that you regard as meaningful, has very little meaning in my head, other than being inconsistent with what and how I was taught to understand.
You are in deep, I feel sorry for you at this point.
Nonetheless, at least I am honest and able to freely say that I cannot prove that a god does not exist.
I have been perfectly honest with you at all times, maybe this is a projection? you seem to be fixated on it....your unconditioned self recognizing you are lying to yourself and others.
Whereas you vainly continue to hide from the truth amidst a fog of conditioned ritual-speak.
Lol, nice try. Let me know if you have any questions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Conditioned rhetoric is as conditioned rhetoric does.
Lets get something straight here, nothing that I share in this forum is conditioned thinking, if its persuasive that is a good indicator that what I'm saying could certainly be true. I work diligently to undue conditioned thinking, and one has to be willing to get outside the mind to operate in that way. Now, to me it is obvious you have conditioned ways of not only thinking but presuming. One way we can get around all of that is first for you to stop presuming things and second you let me articulate truth by engaging in the content of my posts.
Conditioned rhetoric cannot prove the existence of a god.
You can start with the original posts of mine in your thread, it speaks of the nature of God, this should already be something you are familiar with. Next, is to consider how something of this nature can be connected with but as long as you run nothing can be accomplished. Do you like living in a conditioned state of mind? is that what you are satisfied with?
All that your conditioned rhetoric does is confirm your own particular internal data set....Mr Ethan refers to this as shabby.
What is shabby is your presumptuous attitude and conditioned thinking. That's all you bring to the table. If that were not so not only would you feel free to engage in actual content but you would be willing to open up and explore new insights and knowledge. One way we can break this conditioned thinking of yours is to let me break all this down for you, once you understand what the mind actually is and how it works in creation you won't have to be so afraid of your presumptions and in doing so you won't be so afraid to let down your guard. You can rest assure that what we could discuss won't be the results of conditioned thinking. By now you should be able to pick up on that if you actually read my work.
I would say that sinking to the level of "shabby" in a discussion, is shabby.
You don't have any right to speak of the quality in discussion, you are unable to do so even slightly, if I were you I'd be shaking the cobwebs from my thoughts and mind. All you do is revert to conditioned thinking but not of mine, yours. Show me how non-conditioned you are in a discussion where you are capable of following logic to discover something new, and then by a miracle apply it to your conditioned thinking to maybe break up some of those patterns. So what's it gonna be?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Would you apply this principle to the death and resurrection of Jesus? Or is the message the important thing - not whether Jesus literally rose from the dead or not. So long as its message is conveyed - Jesus rose spiritually, or Jesus rose friguratively, or Jesus rose in my heart?
Before you jump the gun you should understand that when someone says a certain thing in scripture is probably figurative it doesn't mean the whole book is figurative. As a matter of fact I would say most of it is literal while some of it is figurative, there's a balance to it all. The Gospels are not written in a figurative way, unlike some of Genesis but to answer the question the things that are most important in scripture are those things which can be applied, beliefs are a dime a dozen they don't really make or break a deal. If they did a whole bunch of religious folk are in big trouble, and that may be the case but its not because of beliefs it will be because of their life style and the lack of application.
No one is really required to believe in absurdities, but they are required to apply that which is applicable. I'm not saying that miracles or unusual events are absurd either, I'm saying absurdities are most likely the obvious things like some of the examples I pointed out. On the other hand they aren't absurd when the proper interpretation is used. So it isn't that I'm dismissing anything, rather I am quite familiar with the style of writing in the Bible and I apply commonsense.
What makes it more confusing is that all the little denominations and religious sects like Catholicism have varying interpretations, some of which one MUST believe in. This is where is gets weird, because the Catholics managed to misinterpret many of the teachings of Jesus, translating them as literal rather than figurative. One such example is the passage where Jesus addresses Peter as the rock, upon which he was to build his church. But it wasn't literally Peter (and all his supposed descendants) that Jesus was to build on, it was actually the confession Jesus was referring to. Because of this seemingly small error the Papacy was established and so many generations of an abomination was created by that one error. Another such example is where Jesus tells the disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood, this only meant to point to the principle of application and abiding in what he was teaching, it had nothing to do with literal flesh and blood. I could go on and on...
Anyways, the point being that at some point interpretations and beliefs only take you so far, but the aspects in scripture that are actually applicable are those things which can be applied to the self. So it doesn't really matter whether this person believes in talking snakes or that this person says it is figurative because the message remains the same, it reminds us of the nature of temptation. Since Jesus was a literal figure that walked the earth, whether or not he literally rose from the dead is probably a more serious matter but its the application of it which is the important factor. There are opinions and beliefs which have no real application to them, others may so I would take this on a case by case basis. We'd actually have to discuss each content in question, but as a general rule of thumb I think it is pretty easy to see what is figurative and what is literal. Some not really having great significance to the individual and their spiritual progression.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Dear God, we finally got rid of that nutter don't give him an excuse to come back. Would love to see Outplayz more though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Process data....Perception stimulates a reaction and will promote a response, which may be regarded as either positive or negative.A decision....Within a brain, it is decided that a god exists or not.
That's usually how a choice is made lol, maybe you could contribute something meaningful?
Though, rhetorical glorification cannot alter the basis of the function....No amount of fanciful words can make a god concept externally real.
One shouldn't be looking to make the reality of God external, even though God's hand can be seen in creation. Connection with God and spirituality take place within the inner planes of consciousness, and that happens independent of the mind (and emotions). Try asking how that works?
So the god concept is real enough inside your head.
Obviously.
But can you be honest and admit that you have no way of converting this internal notion into an external reality?
I've answered this dilemma in your own thread, go read it because you have yet to respond to it. Once you engage then I may expound upon it, wouldn't that be the reason for this place?? Sometimes I wonder about your inhibition to engage the content of my posts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You will have to wait till the troll spurts out another sock puppet for your answer.
I'm just gleaming with excitement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
And this is where I agree with Etrnl. His point is that the important thing is the message God is trying to convey, not whether the story is literal or figurative.Both such stories can contain truth. Fables and parables are examples of figurative stories that can convey deep truths. Focusing on whether a story is literal or figurative instead of on the message the story is meant to impart is like a hungry man focusing on the bowl and not the food in it.
Very well put.
But often, the unbeliever is unable to see the message (the food) and thus concentrates instead on the only thing he can perceive.But with believers, I can focus on the message, because whether the story is literal or metaphorical, the message doesn't change. The story itself is just a container to transport the message.That's why so many of Etrnl's conversations here are sadly hilarious. He wants to focus on the message, and the atheist, able the see only the bowl, focuses on the container.
Lol very well put! this is all true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt.
I think you should have a problem with a literal interpretation of that. Starting with the point I brought up above. If you don't see something in real life taking place like humans arising from dirt and animals talking then that's the time to realize that scripture uses figurative language, it's not always literal. It's okay to embrace that, no one is forcing you to look at it as a literal statement so why would you? It also confuses people when they translate something like this poorly, then we have to bridge all the inconsistencies and absurdities when it never had to be that way.
Scripture weaves in and out of literal and figurative writing, so it is important to line up what you are interpreting with reality otherwise everything gets weird. It also becomes a problem when you say the book says this, and the evidence says another thing. I'm not forcing a figurative interpretation rather it's quite clear and obvious, spiritual texts use a lot of figurative language and metaphorical stories to convey points, analogies, symbolism ect ect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Interesting perspective.
Thanks
I don't have an issue with the interpretation of Genesis where man was made or recreated out of dirt.
Well in my opinion it's a metaphorical statement not a literal one. Man being made from the dust of the ground is the same as saying we are made from star dust. It just means we were created by the same elements as everything else. If God made humans from dirt then why did he ever stop? if the talking snake in Genesis was literal why did it ever stop talking to people lol? I mean at some point we have to embrace the obvious. Same situation here....
Ecclesiastes 3:20 20 "All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return".
We didn't literally come from dust, its just a figurative way of saying something that has some truth to it.
Another point is that science brings to the table evidence that the human species far predate Adam and Eve, so again, I doubt they were the first humans, meaning it's a figurative story. Adam and Eve are representative of mankind as a whole, not the first humans God created, we know that the human species evolved. So evolution here is a creative process involved. The serpent being representative of temptation ect ect...
Yet, I do think on balance that Jesus was genetically related to Mary. I don't think sin is transmitted genetically but that is a different matter. And I don't think the teaching on original sin (which I noticed you do not agree with) teaches transmission by genetics. I think your second paragraph here is more in line with what I accord with - although I am open to change if persuaded. Ethan's view is an interesting one as well and I need more time to consider it fully. Yet, it seems to me that it requires sin to be transmitted genetically, which he also noted was not the case. After all, if sin is not transmitted genetically, then why the issue with Jesus being genetically related to Adam or Mary. He seems to suggest we needed something new. Yet, there is a disjunct between what he says about sin not being transmitted genetically and Jesus not being genetically related to Mary. I am still working that one through.
It's weird, although I wouldn't use the description we have a "genetic" weakness that interpretation could work on some level. I think taking into account what I said above that Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind, its more to do with the imperfect nature of man and all its weaknesses then anything to do with Adams choices in the account specifically. Though it's not a physical genetic problem per say, its a moral dilemma, just the nature of being human in a fallen world having to make choices while dealing with desires and urges mixed with emotions, genetics just happen to also be something we inherit. I think the soul entering the physical world it naturally inherits problems, which is why it seems we have to work ourselves out of them, or embrace salvation as a means to progress. No matter how we look at it Jesus certainly was developed in the womb of Mary, so his physical body must have carried her genes.
However we could still argue that Ethan has a legit point being that the Holy Spirit manipulated the womb, so there's still some truth to what he's saying, maybe on more of a spiritual level. I don't know what I'm saying about that lol, just bouncing around ideas here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
If God could create Jesus from nothing, why would He stage a sham birth for his son, who would be illegitimate anyway since the mother was married (unconsummated) to another man?
I disagree with Ethan a bit here Willard (although I'm open to consideration), because one, I don't take a literal interpretation of Genesis on how man was created so I believe in order to have a physical body it must be developed through a physical giver, this is the process of life here. While it is a process, it's still a process originated/generated by the Creator. So although God can create from essentially an empty platform, things are created though processes, "building blocks".
The physical body of Jesus was developed within the womb of Mary, Jesus needed a physical body to be in the physical world and therefore a physical mother. However, the soul of Jesus was placed within that womb, but no seminal fluid was needed for this conception. The Holy Spirit was able to manipulate the womb to conceive...without sexual relations. While this was a miracle apart from the norm, it's not really the same as creating a physical body from dirt, a birth without a male partner is not always an impossibility...although unheard of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
In order for such to happen, surely Mary would have had to be either raped by God or; Mary had consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery before she even consummated her marriage.
Thinking with your head in your pants again?
The point behind the virgin birth is that there was never any sex involved I mean come on grow up. If that scenario is at all true God (Holy Spirit) does not have sexual organs to begin with, the womb was miraculously conceived, miracle.... In other words no sex.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
If God didn't rape Mary then what did actually happen?Did Mary have consensual sex with God, thereby committing adultery, before even consummating her marriage?
I don't know why immature people always translate the birth of Jesus as rape by God, isn't that a bit dumb? the point behind the virgin birth is that there was never any sex involved I mean come on grow up. If that scenario is at all true God does not have sexual organs to begin with, the womb was miraculously conceived. In other words no sex, think a bit harder for God's sake.
Is God not responsible for creating everything, including Satin and thereby evil?
Yep, but there is a co-responsibility at play. One is for creating beings to become what they desire, and two is for a being to choose to become what it desires.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
When you wish to learn about something what do you do?
When you wish to try something what do you do?
When you wish to experience something what do you do?
When you wish to become something what do you do?
When you wish to understand something what do you do?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Iced_Vovo
Wouldn't this be just another description for delusion?
No Willard, that's just your personal label for religious knowledge and spirituality. That's what you choose to slap on anything outside your worldview AKA materialism. Grow up a bit, you're acting like a maniac with all these alt accounts. However you seem to be the only one currently replying to me so what the hack eh lol.
I raise this since delusion is defined as "an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument".
It's not a contradiction or irrational but nice try. It's both consistent and rational, it follows the nature of God and spirituality. Instead of being a naysayer why don't you apply it and try it? how else will you ever learn anything new? you always raise the same objections, I answer them rationally and logically, you ignore and repeat. At some point something has to sink in.
Here's the other part of that post.....
"it's a matter of explanation and understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality."
If you want to understand God, you must understand the nature of God first. Everything else should fall right in place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
The bible says Adam sinned and became spiritually dead. Thus, according to the rule set up during creation, "Everything after its kind", Adam could only have spiritually dead offspring. (Forget original sin, it is unbiblical)
Glad you brought this up in this manner. Original sin is a misconception, it's not that we pay for what Adam chose to do rather it is the very nature of man coming into this world to be spiritual dead, or spiritually inept. And you see that all over the place, you can really see how spiritually inept people are especially in a forum like this. Most people don't realize spirituality is not just about some bizarre irrelevant beliefs, there's actually a real objective and progression/growth.
I would go as far as to say we didn't even need Adam as a literal figure to make us spiritually dead, so really we don't need to put any blame on anyone for any of our shortcomings. That wasn't really the point behind the Adam and Eve account. Adam and Eve are representative of Mankind, so whatever they did was inevitably representative of ourselves not them as separate humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think if God exists, he can't meet all the 4 As
God doesn't really have to meet all those attributes, to be God. The Omni's are made up terms, even though you see some of those qualities in the Bible and other spiritual texts they aren't really mentioned, at least not all of them. God is a maximal Being, meaning the greatest possible Being. That leaves room for a more complete understanding of God without bringing into the equation contradictions.
The two I think are the most relevant or are the most accurate are omnipresent and omnipotent, due to the very nature of God. But if I had to pick only one I'd say omnipresent. Meaning there is nowhere something exists where God is not present and nowhere something is taking place where God is not aware of it. That's because we exist within God, God pervades all of creation like the same way we think of energy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think about these statements relative to the OP besides your assertion about delusions??
Can't prove to another person, but understanding the terms of definitions certainly a person can have proof and evidence that God exists.....for themselves. That's all that matters, then it can be articulated for inquiries to be considered.It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven.If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already.One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality.To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
CAN GOD BE SURPRISED?
Well even though some would say no, it seems God was surprised during the story of Noah's flood, as the story goes God "was grieved" indicating some things took place he hadn't already knew would. Otherwise how could God be grieved? and why then would he need to take action being sorrowful he created man?
If the answer is no, then you don't have free will
I'm not a Genesis literalist but just for fun I don't think omniscience means predestined and so does not eliminate having your own will to choose. Not at all actually, for example lets say you have a wife or a friend you just know very well and you set up a test to see if they will choose a certain something and they chose what you already knew they would...would that mean they had no will to choose something else? not at all, you just knew them so well but that doesn't mean you predestined their choice rather predicted it, it just means you were very familiar with how they may act in a given scenario. Kind of more like a good mind reader than a puppet master lol.
Knowing something doesn't necessarily mean being willed. I may have an inkling you may say something in response to a statement of mine but that doesn't mean I willed you to say it.
you have the illusion of free will, and you're being held accountable for stuff he traps you into doing over and over again.
I think God does want us to learn from our own choices/mistakes though, whether or not He knows them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Scripture and spirituality are very dynamic, meaning things can have more than one meaning or several meanings. Jesus could potentially represent many things all the while being an actual entity. Same with passages, prophecies, persons, symbolism, metaphors, analogies ect ect...
the evidence is pretty staggering
Even more impressive being both literal and figurative...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Ah, right, special pleading, got it. Nothing exists without a process, except this thing, which exists without a process.
Ah that's right, making up fallacies again to avoid facts.
So it is "thingS," which is strange since you started your post by saying:
So you don't comprehend what co-exists means? it means they exist as a single unit, one can't exist without the other....let me know when you catch up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Theists only assume. They do not prove.
Assume what?
What you explain is delusion.
Thanks for the opinion, but why are you here then? to discuss our delusions lol? get a life.
Nonetheless, you are honest.
Well at least you have one honest bone in your body.
And intelligence is as intelligent does....Adolph Hitler was no doubt intelligent.
Are you comparing me, a dynamic individual.... to a one dimensional maniac?
I think it fair to suggest that all people of all faiths and persuasions have intellect.
Okay, how about we go back and discuss the OP?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Manuel_Layba
Can you got the proof that the earth isnt 6000 years old.
Nowhere in the Bible does it give an age of the Earth, that is a fabricated myth. It is an assumption based on when Adam and Eve would have existed, assuming a literal chronology of Genesis.
But, there's plenty of wiggle room with this assumption as it is an assumption of more than one error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Nah, I reckon god himself coming down and having a chat face to face would do the trick for most.
This is part of the problem and I touched on it in my posts above.
"understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism"
"To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice."
"It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven"
In a nut shell communication with God happens at deeper levels not by God coming down and talking to you through a physical body. And due to this fact you have to make adjustments for such a thing, this involves your participation not demands or expectations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
don't let some old book hold you back... Follow your dream!
Lol ouch. The problem with some of these old books is that they contain culture, history and archaic thinking, ways of life and opinions. This obviously becomes an issue for some people with a piece of literature which contains a mixture of those elements while at the same time trying to relay spiritual knowledge/information.....who are then unable to distinguish between the two and take away from it what is useful...leave behind what is not.
On the other hand there are people defending the old book who believe it doesn't endorse slavery. I say just use common sense, spirituality is timeless and there are universal principles and even in the Bible there is useful information, a lot of it actually. It's a very deep book when you judge it by it's spiritual side and not necessarily by its cultural side. One is very insightful and beautiful the other is silly and not very applicable.
The question becomes, can you take away anything useful from the Bible? are you willing to absorb the spiritual knowledge in a way where it can have meaning to you personally? and possibly look past the imperfections of such a book?
Created:
Posted in:
Lol, also you ask can we be "honest" as if we come here to be DIShonest. Why do you even think that way? it's not a matter of dishonesty communicating the reality of God, it's a matter of explanation and understanding the nature of God (which I think for atheists is the biggest obstacle). One has to be willing to accept the fact that God exists independent of physical matter, as it seems atheists are controlled by what they can physically and immediately see, hear, smell and touch only. But God is not an object of creation, we all exist within the entirety of God so the rules change here dramatically in relation to Theism and it becomes very challenging to debate with people who are used to a certain method and way of viewing reality.
I also think it would probably be a lot easier to communicate if religion wasn't in the way, and I'm not saying I'm anti-religion per say it's just that it brings so many other variables and opinions into the equation when the very basics are simplistic.
All in all though the recognition of whether God exists comes down to interpretation/perception either way we go. Outside of that surface level evaluation all we are left with is personal experience, and not even all Theists have that observation. To experience things outside the immediate physical sense perception takes getting involved and participation/practice.
As it is I don't have anything to be dishonest about, that's not even an issue. If you want to believe that way it's your choice but its definitely a distorted opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
So there are things that seem to exist without any process, you're saying?
No not thingS, I'm saying only awareness, which is a unifying static reality exists without any process. Out of that first Reality all things have their origin or process. Awareness co-exists with energy, conscious activity is what generates energy, energy in return is used to create processes. So while conscious activity generates energy, both energy and awareness are the only "things" that can exist eternally without beginning or ending. Since they co-exist, they are basically a single reality out of which all things have their existence.
Created:
Posted in:
It's hard to prove a reality that pervades all of creation while at the same time eludes the physical sense perception, it's not the way we are used to proving something like that of say like material phenomenon. That's the biggest factor at play why that reality can't be collectively proven, but the evidence and correlation mixed with commonsense is the elephant in the room, it's so obvious that God exists without being able to prove it to someone that it's not even worth arguing over most of the time unless someone is genuinely serious. If you take into consideration that the universe is developed through processes and processes are only ever associated with intelligence or mind then you're half way there already. If you're willing to accept that intelligent processes occur all by themselves then you might be willing to accept any absurdity, which honestly atheism is IMO in light of the evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
How did god start to exist, exactly?
Awareness is a static reality, asking how God started to exists is the same as asking how energy started to exist. God neither popped into existence or started to exist, the definition of eternal is "lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Atheists cannot prove that a God does not exist, just as theists cannot prove that a God does exist.
Can't prove to another person, but understanding the terms of definitions certainly a person can have proof and evidence that God exists.....for themselves. That's all that matters, then it can be articulated for inquiries to be considered. But yes, it all comes down to interpretations and perception, and choice.
The above statement is an unequivocal truism....So who amongst our Dart theists is prepared to agree?
I think it's a fair statement, as long as you consider what I just wrote above. And considering what I wrote above would be the reason I would assume intelligent people come to a religious discussion/debate forum no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I still don't know why a theist would think god used evolution
Why not? when do things just pop into existence without a process? God has to be able to build creation with materials, from pure energy to whatever form God wishes to play with. I don't see the problem really TBH. And much of this I went over already with you, how this is possible and how it fits together.
at least the christian version of god, because the book doesn't mention anything along those lines.
There is no real contradiction unless you take the first few chapters of Genesis as a literal account, instead of a figurative one. And the Bible is not a science book it is a spiritual one, it's objective isn't to give mention of the specific formulas used to create the universe. If it were, then it would be much larger than what it already is lol.
is just trying to dress up the classic god of the gaps.
You mean when something actually fits you make up a fallacy in order to ignore the facts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
a theist that is.
Maybe if you stop acting like a spoiled, immature brat we could all have meaningful discussions, we are all just people here why all the negativity and hate all the time? Just because someone has a different worldview and opinion than yours doesn't mean you need to relent all communication skills and sanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Nice to see you spend all your time in a forum where you believe there could be no meaningful discussion lol, is that how you wish to devote all your time? grow up. I suggest you pull your head out a bit, wipe off all that poo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Anybody is entitled to assume that God does not exist since there is not one shred of evidence that there is such a thing
You keep repeating that because you don't listen to answers. But thanks for the usual assertion and worthless opinion.
and anybody wishing to engage in intelligent, meaningful discussion should accept such a fact.
If you really were here to engage in intelligent, meaningful discussion you would consider people's arguments and answers rather than ignore them just to repeat your assertions. But at least you admit you're not here for meaningful discussion, preach it brotha.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
hari is still there spamming stupidity
Lol and harassing the new guy.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I don't know how people can expect to act like children with no respect and maturity dealing with others and NOT get the boot. It's a shame we can't have a place where grown ups can discuss a really interesting topic.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
There we go!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Yes, there certainly are.
Hmm, I wonder if one of them could be the guy with behavioral flaws, communication issues and unnecessary anger problems. You know...the child running lose that has no clue?
Too bad, this forum could be a respectable place for debate and discussion about a very fascinating subject but we will never get there as long as we keep getting immature posters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
I think it more likely that you invent answers that pacify you.
That's what happens when you make assumptions, since you assume God doesn't exist the explanations filter through as pacifying. Remove your presumptions and filters and maybe engage in a meaningful way. You never know you might learn something. Why should those interested in religious DISCUSSION have to sift through and endure your assertions and filters?
Created:
Who's et al lol?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
It would seem that the consensus of the posters is that prayer doesn't work
A consensus from an intelligent person would be that prayer is effective in some ways, and ineffective in other ways. As should be, considering all the things discussed.
and here are a million reasons for that.
This is a debate site where people discuss and give explanations lol, that's what happens. If you're not interested in explanations or reasons maybe you should get another hobby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
If there were no conditions and prayer were 100% effective then you would have a lot of chaos, that's why I wrote post 199. That was the point behind that post, to question what ends would that entail in the world we live in. We are meant to learn from hardship, so we can't always pray our way out of uncomfortable situations, whatever the situation may be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
A lot of that is relative to what I wrote in post #190, I agree. There are conditions for effective prayer. That's why it's not 100% effective in studies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm really curious now, since you're one of the more frequent posters in this thread and Salixes is nothing short of a bonehead, can you give me an idea of an acceptable ratio of what it is you would LIKE to see in a prayer study after reading post #199? could you come up with a satisfactory percentage of answered prayers that would make you happy? or even believe that prayers work or should work and how do you think it should play out in a real world scenario assuming they do? in a nutshell what is it you are looking for in a prayer experiment and what impact would this have on the world as we know it should it be an effective study?
I'm trying to understand what it is you are arguing for or against and what it means. And have you considered all the repercussions...
Created:
Posted in:
You guys have to use your noggins and realize what it is you're inquiring about and the outcome and full consequences of this. Lets say just for fun that prayer was tested and in this scenario it was 100% effective. Let's say even that we found a person who could pray for anything and it always worked..... now what are repercussions of this?
If prayer always worked would anyone ever die? could anyone ever remain sick? go poor? be homeless? or have any unfortunate events to learn from? or gain experience through hardship or their mistakes in life? how far could 100% effective prayer actually go? what are the limits or boundaries for this? would the world turn into a perfect utopia with very shallow people and baby like mentalities where all we had to do was pray and wahlah! no hardship involved!
But this world and this level of existence is also a testing ground, an area of creation where the soul is tempered and matured. This world is not meant to be perfect and we all have to die to get to the next place. But where would 100% effective prayer ever end?
What if such a person was found that whatever he prayed for was successful, would this actually be a good thing for the world or even the individual or a bad thing?
What if it was made public that this person could pray and have 100% success rate and now the world suddenly knew this was a legit thing. Would this individual be bombarded? what if this person started getting requests and inquires all over the world how do you think that would end? now suddenly everyone wants their prayers and desires answered and what if they were unable to take no for an answer? how far would this go, now the president wants his wife healed from cancer, or his kid raised from the dead after a car accident and no is not an acceptable answer. Now if unanswered this individual could be secretly thrown in jail until a satisfactory action is taken. Or the country is losing a war and the leaders all expect this individual to make everything right....a constant assault and harassment from all parts of the country all demanding they get their wishes fulfilled.
Some maniac demands a request and is denied and now he plots to murder the individual because he doesn't get what he wants. A president from another country catches wind there is a person who can pray with 100% success rate and now wants a miracle...if he doesn't get his miracle he threatens the country with an attack. Your best friend wants you to do this and that, suddenly your an enemy to everyone around you because you're able to pray and change outcomes but somethings need to take their course but your targeted because your prayers are successful...your own wife never wants her father to die, doesn't want her kids to be sick, doesn't want her car to break down, doesn't want this and that and now she going to divorce your arse because you didn't make everything right....
I mean do you guys really think intercessory prayers should be tested and work 100%? can anyone give me a reason why this would be a good thing or a logical solution? how would 100% effective prayer even work in a real world, what would be the limits to such a reality? where would it ever end, what purpose could it serve?
Would a hospital even need to exist? would the word tragedy even have any real meaning? would cause and effect cease to exist? what would this world even be like if everyone prayed and it was successful?
If it was 100% effective would anyone ever face death or consequences for their own actions? what if you could wave a magic wand over every negative outcome and make right do you think this is a good thing? have you considered all the repercussions of this?? maybe then what I have to say within this thread has more weight than what you thought.. maybe think more about what it is you are asking. Do you really want prayer to work with 100% success? or even say 90% or 80%? can you give me a percentage of how much prayer should work and how that would play out in the real world? just give me a percentage and why you think it should be that way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is why you don't test for a specific religious understanding of it at first, you test a variety of intercessory prayers all at once. I'm not sure why you think it's narrow and limted: intercessory prayer is the only kind that seems answerable, certainly the only kind that would be measurable
It's narrow and limited taking into account many variables, since this world is ruled by cause and effect that is one variable, not everything can be reversed due to that law. Taking into consideration my post number 99 that's another variable, not every person is capable of effective prayer. Taking into account that prayer is not limited to just asking God for stuff, a study on intercessory prayer might discourage one from such a habit. A study like the ones shown in this thread are limiting in that they may discourage the observer from ceasing to pray when their may be in fact some advantages to praying and not just walking around trying to reverse sickly peoples ailments.
To alter the physical world one has to have their shit together (this should be obvious, great responsibility is given to those who know how to handle such responsibility, like you would never want to give a child a magic wand), they really need to have a layer of depth to them that is rare in this world not everyone is going to be able to do such things that's a fact. Especially in light of what I said about faith being an individual element, even though we are talking about prayer specifically it's actually faith that empowers prayer if we're discussing changing or altering the physical world. Faith is the mechanism that triggers a successful prayer, and it's not God that does that it is the individual meaning even though it's not their own power they have to be capable of channeling that power. I'm not making crap up read the Gospels, Jesus talks about this specifically in more than one passage and it's pretty clear. Remember when the disciples came running to Jesus complaining their prayers were not working? He immediately pointed them back towards their own faith.
So it is limited mainly for the one's observing the study (unbelievers), they are looking for something constant to prove prayer is either effective or worth doing at all when the study itself is not really capable, it's not able to capture all the angles I just went over.
Why isn't prayer "qualified" to be tested? I'm trying to think of another proposition wherein there should be measurable outcome, but doesn't qualify for testing. Some people think prayer substitutes for medical attention, shouldn't that be something we test? What sort of variables are you talking about sepcifically? PLease don't say the atheist saboteur.
It may be qualified to be tested if one keeps in mind that it will be inconsistent lol, that in and of itself makes the testing somewhat worthless. Prayer is not really a good thing to be tested in such a fashion, because there are so many variables that make it eluding. It's the individual that masters prayer, and in that it can never be universally tested.
If one really wants to understand the full scope of prayer they should be aware that prayer is like a muscle or like weight lifting or anything that you want to build up or strengthen. You can't just start praying and expect to go out and alter the course of the world that's not a mature way of approaching the subject. I would say most people aren't even at the level where they could ever do that to begin with, it's very rare you see that happen. Only a real Master can manipulate the physical elements and TBH you might not ever be able to find a person like that because they would most likely be killed, Jesus was killed and it was because of his power if you pay close attention to the Gospels. The world, this world in specific is not ready for that kind of reality in a way where such an individual could be made public.
Another thing to consider is that prayer is for the individual and their personal spiritual relationship not necessarily for changing the course of world events. It is their personal connection to God and their channel for receiving that which transcends the physical sense perceptions. To avoid prayer because of some silly study would be very unfortunate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Please advise the experimentation done on the non-physical, non-material world that would make this even close to analogous to science.
This would fall into the arena of religion of course, though it can be a collective ideology it's mostly an individual observation and experimentation. In line with what I was saying about prayer earlier in this thread.
Where are these definitions from, by the way?
That is my interpretation of what spirituality entails and its function. I was making a point in that spirituality is the method of study of that particular nature, as opposed to say science which is limited to the natural physical world and its observations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think that any of the above data output actually means in a presumably realistic context?In other words, what are you on about?
It applies to how you approach life and interaction with others. It's basically saying without the right intentions your actions become worthless or what do they really mean, what weight do they have behind them....meaning what is really any action worth without love or care for another? have you ever noticed the difference between your interactions with life when you just do things for yourself as opposed to when you really put your heart into something for another person? a gift, a surprise, comforting words, a nice gesture, a helping hand or anything you put your passion and love behind? these passages are attempting to draw you back towards that moment when you had those feelings, it's trying to get you to see things from a different point of view.
The Christian perspective tries to draw the individual into a more sacrificial nature or way of living, as opposed to just self gratification or just doing things always for yourself not noticing or caring for others either in need or just to make someone else happy or feel better about themselves. It's trying to make your life and actions mean something more, mean something greater, of more value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Obviously. Because the scientific method only applies to reality.
AND, spirituality as a method of study and observation applies to reality as well. Two methods of study that apply to two different natures of our experience. Science is restricted to what is observed only in the natural physical world, spirituality reaches where science in unable to reach. If you wish to cling to only one limited study and disregard the other then most likely you will remain ignorant of the full scope of experience and the world around you.
Science-
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
a particular branch of knowledge.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation
Spirituality-
systematic knowledge of the non-physical or non-material (spiritual) world through observation and experimentation.
a particular branch of knowledge.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of that which transcends the physical sense perceptions based on observation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
The only unsupported assertion in these discussions is the assertion that gods exist, that is all gods.
Is this how you begin a conversation in the religion forum? why not ASK how Theism CAN be supported or how I arrived at my beliefs? wouldn't that be a bit more intelligent? this forum is already rife with unintelligent posts we don't need anymore really I'd like to see the standards raised here not lowered.
I was actually excited to see a new name in my notifications until I read your reply :(
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Nice, reminds me of …..
1 Corinthians 13
If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.
12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
Created: