The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered Judeo-Christian and it is believed that man has the capability to progress and be like God. It doesn't mean they will ever surpass him (like we can't all of a sudden get older or have more experience than our parents). But it is believed that as his children we are heirs in literally every respect. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. So other than the constant debate of the actual physical nature of God that is always happening within the Christian world, I'm not sure how that viewpoint ignores the very definition of the Christian God.
And I agree with you completely that and human definition of Heaven is completely inadequate. Especially when trying to describe the experience, sight, sounds, or feelings associated with such a place. That doesn't preclude our ability to understand the purpose of such a place, however. At least not the initial purpose of such a place.
Here's the problem, ObiFett.
You're just making this shit up. Anyone can make shit up about what happens in the afterlife. Nothing you say is grounded in any evidence whatsoever. In fact, everything you say contradicts everything we know about consciousness and neuroscience.
You may as well be explaining the reasons why you believe your conscoiusness will be downloaded by Space Emperor Zargon to exist in an eternal state of computer-generated bliss. There is literally no reason to believe one scenario over the other—except of course that a computer-download heaven seems more sensical than the heaven you're describing.
And I am fairly sure that no Judeo-Christian religion of any kind at all suggests that you can "progress to the current level God is at right now," not without ignoring the very definition of God.
im kinda confused. what is your definition of God?
dont you not believe in God?
i think you're missing the point which is if were accepting that you can "progress to the current level god is at right now" then there would be millions of godlike beings and the original god couldn't do shit because it'd be dealing with other beings with powers and knowledge like its own and if there is millions and millions of godlike beings than why aren't they dicking around on earth, doing all kinds of miracles, or destroying anything they want?
dude, answer my question though. what is your definition of God that precludes anyone from becoming like God?
btw. you're right, if the scenario you put forth were true, it would be crazy. but just like there is order in the universe, there is order in the Kingdom of God. So anyone who becomes like God is not allowed to run amuck and do whatever he/she wants to do. and always we are under God's rule/direction/etc. so if someone who had taken the bagillion years it will take comes over to this side of the universe, they will obey God. also, anyone who is worthy to be like God will be of the same mind and heart as God and, so, will do nothing contrary to His will.
well, seeing as how god sounds like a schizophrenic asshole in the bible up until you get into more modern times, i'm going to have to go with his level of power. Like say, creation of matter, matter manipulation, weather changing, telepathy, yadda yadda yadda.
and no, the scenario i put forth doesn't allow god to say no because he's not only facing one being that's as powerful as him but millions if not billions. absolute power corrupts absolutely, and yeah, maybe they'd be all malevolent and loving and whatever childish crap you describe when they existed long enough or comprehended his will but before they reach that point they're just a human with a god-sized gun in their hand.
also, maybe i missed something or perhaps the clergy i spoke to forget to mention it but...
...where in the fuck does it say in the bible that you can become just like god?
Inter_d on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered Judeo-Christian and it is believed that man has the capability to progress and be like God. It doesn't mean they will ever surpass him (like we can't all of a sudden get older or have more experience than our parents). But it is believed that as his children we are heirs in literally every respect. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. So other than the constant debate of the actual physical nature of God that is always happening within the Christian world, I'm not sure how that viewpoint ignores the very definition of the Christian God.
And I agree with you completely that and human definition of Heaven is completely inadequate. Especially when trying to describe the experience, sight, sounds, or feelings associated with such a place. That doesn't preclude our ability to understand the purpose of such a place, however. At least not the initial purpose of such a place.
Here's the problem, ObiFett.
You're just making this shit up. Anyone can make shit up about what happens in the afterlife. Nothing you say is grounded in any evidence whatsoever. In fact, everything you say contradicts everything we know about consciousness and neuroscience.
You may as well be explaining the reasons why you believe your conscoiusness will be downloaded by Space Emperor Zargon to exist in an eternal state of computer-generated bliss. There is literally no reason to believe one scenario over the other—except of course that a computer-download heaven seems more sensical than the heaven you're describing.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
...where in the fuck does it say in the bible that you can become just like god?
Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Romans 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
There are other scriptures that are more inductive, but those should do.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered Judeo-Christian and it is believed that man has the capability to progress and be like God. It doesn't mean they will ever surpass him (like we can't all of a sudden get older or have more experience than our parents). But it is believed that as his children we are heirs in literally every respect. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. So other than the constant debate of the actual physical nature of God that is always happening within the Christian world, I'm not sure how that viewpoint ignores the very definition of the Christian God.
And I agree with you completely that and human definition of Heaven is completely inadequate. Especially when trying to describe the experience, sight, sounds, or feelings associated with such a place. That doesn't preclude our ability to understand the purpose of such a place, however. At least not the initial purpose of such a place.
Here's the problem, ObiFett.
You're just making this shit up. Anyone can make shit up about what happens in the afterlife. Nothing you say is grounded in any evidence whatsoever. In fact, everything you say contradicts everything we know about consciousness and neuroscience.
You may as well be explaining the reasons why you believe your conscoiusness will be downloaded by Space Emperor Zargon to exist in an eternal state of computer-generated bliss. There is literally no reason to believe one scenario over the other—except of course that a computer-download heaven seems more sensical than the heaven you're describing.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
...where in the fuck does it say in the bible that you can become just like god?
*bible stuff!*
There are other scriptures that are more inductive, but those should do.
it's unwinning argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. the atheist side, however is based around reason and logic where pretty much all religions are based around the fantastic stories presented in ancient texts and the words of "prophets."
taky calls it an unopenable box but understand for atheists it's an infinite amount of unopenable boxes because any and all bizarre speculations for the afterlife or god or gods is valid with that argument. even one i can make up right now about interdimensional beings consuming the multiverse but that doesn't mean my claims should have any valid credibility. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but it sure as hell means you can't consider the evidence valid until it is found.
the only reason christianity, judaism, etc gets any "weight" with their claims is that their insane speculations came a thousand or so years before mine so they get seniority. i don't "believe" in blindly following authority, i question authority because i want to know that it is in fact in me and mine's best interests. religion asks for faith but faith in their terms usually means blindly following them because they have the word of god and god is infallible and he made us and yadda yadda yadda.
my personal belief is that the only thing that remotely comes close to the god religions speak of is the universe itself and as you know, the universe has no emotions, no love, no compassion, it exists. the laws it laid forth for us are for our physical being and not morality. it certainly wouldn't give a shit about you converting a married university student, or an old lady suffering in the hospital and it would only "care" about things that effect it on a universal scale, if it were even sentient in the first place.
yes, it's nice to think that there's this massive security blanket with a godly father being that tucks you in because "he loves you" and when you die you don't actually die but live forever, unhindered by the trappings of flesh.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is considered Judeo-Christian and it is believed that man has the capability to progress and be like God. It doesn't mean they will ever surpass him (like we can't all of a sudden get older or have more experience than our parents). But it is believed that as his children we are heirs in literally every respect. God is still omniscient and omnipotent. So other than the constant debate of the actual physical nature of God that is always happening within the Christian world, I'm not sure how that viewpoint ignores the very definition of the Christian God.
And I agree with you completely that and human definition of Heaven is completely inadequate. Especially when trying to describe the experience, sight, sounds, or feelings associated with such a place. That doesn't preclude our ability to understand the purpose of such a place, however. At least not the initial purpose of such a place.
Here's the problem, ObiFett.
You're just making this shit up. Anyone can make shit up about what happens in the afterlife. Nothing you say is grounded in any evidence whatsoever. In fact, everything you say contradicts everything we know about consciousness and neuroscience.
You may as well be explaining the reasons why you believe your conscoiusness will be downloaded by Space Emperor Zargon to exist in an eternal state of computer-generated bliss. There is literally no reason to believe one scenario over the other—except of course that a computer-download heaven seems more sensical than the heaven you're describing.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
...where in the fuck does it say in the bible that you can become just like god?
*bible stuff!*
There are other scriptures that are more inductive, but those should do.
it's unwinning argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. the atheist side, however is based around reason and logic where pretty much all religions are based around the fantastic stories presented in ancient texts and the words of "prophets."
taky calls it an unopenable box but understand for atheists it's an infinite amount of unopenable boxes because any and all bizarre speculations for the afterlife or god or gods is valid with that argument. even one i can make up right now about interdimensional beings consuming the multiverse but that doesn't mean my claims should have any valid credibility. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but it sure as hell means you can't consider the evidence valid until it is found.
the only reason christianity, judaism, etc gets any "weight" with their claims is that their insane speculations came a thousand or so years before mine so they get seniority. i don't "believe" in blindly following authority, i question authority because i want to know that it is in fact in me and mine's best interests. religion asks for faith but faith in their terms usually means blindly following them because they have the word of god and god is infallible and he made us and yadda yadda yadda.
my personal belief is that the only thing that remotely comes close to the god religions speak of is the universe itself and as you know, the universe has no emotions, no love, no compassion, it exists. the laws it laid forth for us are for our physical being and not morality. it certainly wouldn't give a shit about you converting a married university student, or an old lady suffering in the hospital and it would only "care" about things that effect it on a universal scale, if it were even sentient in the first place.
yes, it's nice to think that there's this massive security blanket with a godly father being that tucks you in because "he loves you" and when you die you don't actually die but live forever, unhindered by the trappings of flesh.
so he presents evidence from the bible (like you asked for) about where it says we can become like God, and you throw it away because you dont believe the bible.
this is the problem with this discussion. you dont see spirituality as part of your reality. whereas, WE do. so there is no way to convince or prove to you that our evidence is, in fact, evidence.
also, we dont blindly follow those who lead our church. In fact, we are encouraged and taught to listen to what they say and then ponder it and pray about it and ask God if thats really what He wants for us. But there are those who blindly follow in all religions and areas of belief.
by the way, this is for all those who have done it: being disrespectful of another person's beliefs because they are different than you and you see them as being unbelievable isn't cool. we havent disrespected your beliefs but we are constantly disrespected. it doesnt help you prove your point. it actually makes you look bad.
so he presents evidence from the bible (like you asked for) about where it says we can become like God, and you throw it away because you dont believe the bible.
this is the problem with this discussion. you dont see spirituality as part of your reality. whereas, WE do. so there is no way to convince or prove to you that our evidence is, in fact, evidence.
also, we dont blindly follow those who lead our church. In fact, we are encouraged and taught to listen to what they say and then ponder it and pray about it and ask God if thats really what He wants for us. But there are those who blindly follow in all religions and areas of belief.
by the way, this is for all those who have done it: being disrespectful of another person's beliefs because they are different than you and you see them as being unbelievable isn't cool. we havent disrespected your beliefs but we are constantly disrespected. it doesnt help you prove your point. it actually makes you look bad.
i wasn't answering his question in that post because i already posted my feelings about the issues of power. it's not fact if it's in the form of the bible, if it is then do you believe in lord xenu?
how about you stop skirting around the damn question and weigh in on your opinion of other religions? you don't seem to want to answer the questions i presented because if you don't accept that the other religions are real than yours has no merit whatsoever but at the same time if they are real then the problem is what makes them real? number of followers? strength of their feelings? how long it's been around?
Inter_d on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
it's unwinning argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. the atheist side, however is based around reason and logic where pretty much all religions are based around the fantastic stories presented in ancient texts and the words of "prophets."
Oh that's fun. Watch, I can do it too :P :
It's an unwinnable argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. The religious side, however, is based upon finding knowledge about the spiritual through spiritual means, while the atheist side is stuck trying to disprove God using their own limited minds and constantly changing "theories".
The reality is that this debate has been going on for FOREVER and the forums on PA is not where a conclusion is going to be reached. ALOT of people in the world believe in a God and ALOT don't. Everyone has their reasons and because feelings/spirituality is so personal, its impossible for me to prove it to you and for you to disprove it to me.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
it's unwinning argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. the atheist side, however is based around reason and logic where pretty much all religions are based around the fantastic stories presented in ancient texts and the words of "prophets."
Oh that's fun. Watch, I can do it too :P :
It's an unwinnable argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. The religious side, however, is based upon finding knowledge about the spiritual through spiritual means, while the atheist side is stuck trying to figure out God using their own limited minds and constantly changing "theories".
The reality is that this debate has been going on for FOREVER and the forums on PA is not where a conclusion is going to be reached. ALOT of people in the world believe in a God and ALOT don't. Everyone has their reasons and because feelings/spirituality is so personal, its impossible for me to prove it to you and for you to disprove it to me.
is that why the all the days god took to create the universe is now just an interpertation of trillions and billions of years? is that why evolution is "an intelligent design?" how about the good ol' fact that heaven is now in another dimension that we currently have no way of percieiving?
i'm sorry, but...the more modern science advances the more changes religions have to make in order to still be viable.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
because it's in his bible.
And because he feels that it is true.
I don't think you understand either, this feeling he has isn't just a normal feeling but the true spirit of space emperor zargon. i'm actually jealous that i've never felt Space Emperor Zargon in me.
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
because it's in his bible.
And because he feels that it is true.
I don't think you understand either, this feeling he has isn't just a normal feeling but the true spirit of space emperor zargon. i'm actually jealous that i've never felt Space Emperor Zargon in me.
You didn't pass the admission test to join his harem? Sucks, man.
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why you're asking a "why" question about my beliefs when you've said plainly that you have no rational explanation or defense of your beliefs. I could answer that I believe this is true because my cat told me and it would be just as reasonable of an explanation as your "reason" for believing in the afterlife.
You do understand that this is what you sound like to non-believers, right? That's basically what I'm trying to get across.
Qingu on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Okay. So what would you say if I told you that Space Emperor Zargon was going to beam my consciousness up into a bliss computer after I died?
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
I don't see why you're asking a "why" question about my beliefs when you've said plainly that you have no rational explanation or defense of your beliefs. I could answer that I believe this is true because my cat told me and it would be just as reasonable of an explanation as your "reason" for believing in the afterlife.
You do understand that this is what you sound like to non-believers, right? That's basically what I'm trying to get across.
I would ask a "why" question because I find it interesting to learn what other people believe and why. Not because I think they are right. Same reason I read about psychology or sociology. To learn about other people.
And, I get that people who are athiests are just not going to get it what I am saying about spirituality or that its going to sound so outlandishly far-fetched to them. Why? Because there is no physical evidence to make it something other than a warm and fuzzy story to them. Someone who defines themselves as athiest almost always only sees truth completely rooted in logic or what they can see. No point in explaning something that is based on "feeling" or the Spirit.
I have never said I don't have a rational explanation or defense of my beliefs. The issue is what is considered "rational". Some people would accept it as a rational explanantion. Others wouldn't. This forum generally falls under the latter.
And, I get that people who are athiests are just not going to get it what I am saying about spirituality or that its going to sound so outlandishly far-fetched to them. Why? Because there is no physical evidence to make it something other than a warm and fuzzy story to them. Someone who defines themselves as athiest almost always only sees truth completely rooted in logic or what they can see. No point in explaning something that is based on "feeling" or the Spirit.
Actually, I believe in plenty of stuff that I can't see. Such as the existence of quantum particles, angular momentum, the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity.
I have never said I don't have a rational explanation or defense of my beliefs. The issue is what is considered "rational". Some people would accept it as a rational explanantion. Others wouldn't. This forum generally falls under the latter.
You don't get to redefine the word "rational." People who agree with you about the afterlife aren't agreeing on a rational basis.
Similarly, people who agree that their consciousness will get downloaded into Zargon's computer afterlife would not be doing so on a rational basis.
Think about Muslim extremists for a moment. These people believe in a mutually exclusive afterlife than you. Their beliefs are supported by their scriptures, and the strong personal feelings that they interpret as God's hand in their life. They feel this so strongly that they are willing to die for their beliefs, they are willing to throw away the one life on this earth they will ever have, because they feel God's will telling them to. I am not familiar with the Koran, but I'd bet it has a passage that "proves" God's presence similar to the Alma thing you discussed a few pages ago.
How is your belief system any more valid or justified than theirs? You can say "I speak with God, He tells me I'm right and they're wrong," but how does this invalidate them if they say the exact same thing? You can't both be right since they're mutually exclusive afterlifes, so how is a person with an outside perspective supposed to figure out which one is right?
Think about Muslim extremists for a moment. These people believe in a mutually exclusive afterlife than you. Their beliefs are supported by their scriptures, and the strong personal feelings that they interpret as God's hand in their life. They feel this so strongly that they are willing to die for their beliefs, they are willing to throw away the one life on this earth they will ever have, because they feel God's will telling them to. I am not familiar with the Koran, but I'd bet it has a passage that "proves" God's presence similar to the Alma thing you discussed a few pages ago.
How is your belief system any more valid or justified than theirs? You can say "I speak with God, He tells me I'm right and they're wrong," but how does this invalidate them if they say the exact same thing? You can't both be right since they're mutually exclusive afterlifes, so how is a person with an outside perspective supposed to figure out which one is right?
I was raised Christian. Then, at about thirteen, I stopped believing. For years I was a staunch Atheist. Then spirituality started creeping back up on me. I study religions and I believe the things that feel natural to me.
I do believe in reincarnation. I have no idea how it works. I don’t know what I will come back as. I do believe I have lived before and I will live again.
Another weird thing about death that I believe… there are some groups that believe when a person dies their whole spirit doesn’t necessarily transfer over to the next incarnation. They believe a person’s spirit can be like a glass of water. It starts in one glass and when it transfers it can be poured into multiple vessels.
I have a friend that I believe was poured from my same cup. I seriously believe we used to be the same person.
Why do I believe these things? For absolutely no logical reason. I question them regularly, as they make no sense but they are what feel right to me.
mystikspyral on
"When life gives you lemons, just say 'Fuck the lemons,' and bail" :rotate:
I do believe in reincarnation. I have no idea how it works. I don’t know what I will come back as. I do believe I have lived before and I will live again.
Another weird thing about death that I believe… there are some groups that believe when a person dies their whole spirit doesn’t necessarily transfer over to the next incarnation. They believe a person’s spirit can be like a glass of water. It starts in one glass and when it transfers it can be poured into multiple vessels.
I have a friend that I believe was poured from my same cup. I seriously believe we used to be the same person.
Why do I believe these things? For absolutely no logical reason. I question them regularly, as they make no sense but they are what feel right to me.
I believe you are wrong.
Or: can you define what you mean by "I"? Do you mean your consciousness, that exists and is defined by what is going on in your brain?
Qingu on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Actually, I believe in plenty of stuff that I can't see. Such as the existence of quantum particles, angular momentum, the theory of evolution, and the theory of relativity.
Everything you just described is deeply rooted in logc (my first qualification) and all of that does have evidence that you can see to help back up the logic.
You don't get to redefine the word "rational." People who agree with you about the afterlife aren't agreeing on a rational basis.
Similarly, people who agree that their consciousness will get downloaded into Zargon's computer afterlife would not be doing so on a rational basis.
I'm not redefining the word "rational". A decent definition of rational is "Acting in such a way or believing in something that is justifiable on the basis of reason."
What is reason? From wikipedia: refers to mental faculties that generate or affirm propositions, by activities of the mind such as judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing.
Now here comes the issue and the reason athiests usually automatically consider my thought process as irrational: I consider feelings, and thus the experiences based off of and truth learned through those feelings, as a source of something that can be used for judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing. Athiests do not.
Therefore, it depends on your definition of rational as to wether or not you think I have given a rational defense for my beliefs.
Now here comes the issue and the reason athiests usually automatically consider my thought process as irrational: I consider feelings, and thus the experiences based off of and truth learned through those feelings, as a source of something that can be used for judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing. Athiests do not.
False. I consider feelings and experiences as objects of judgment and inference, etc.
I'm simply disputing that you have any feelings whatsoever that in any way rationally support your conclusion that the Mormon God exists. I think you're just hiding behind this terminology because it's nice and vague and serves as a cloak for your complete lack of justification for your belief.
Qingu on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Now here comes the issue and the reason athiests usually automatically consider my thought process as irrational: I consider feelings, and thus the experiences based off of and truth learned through those feelings, as a source of something that can be used for judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing. Athiests do not.
False. I consider feelings and experiences as objects of judgment and inference, etc.
I'm simply disputing that you have any feelings whatsoever that in any way rationally support your conclusion that the Mormon God exists. I think you're just hiding behind this terminology because it's nice and vague and serves as a cloak for your complete lack of justification for your belief.
Ok, fair enough. Well I have had MANY experiences in my life that have proven to me that God does exist and that there is something after this life (yay for bringing the conversation back to the original post's topic).
I've told one, very small, experience earlier in this post and it was brushed off as coincidence. Considering that the main evidence I have had is the "feeling", or Spirit, that I have felt during those experiences I would have to literally beam the memory of that feeling into your being. As much as I would love to, I can't transmit those feelings to you. So we are at an impasse because you dispute that I have had feelings that rationally support my conclusion, while I claim that I have had feelings that rationally support my conclusion. You can't disprove the validity of my feelings and I can't prove it. Yeah the burden of proof lies on me, and I'm telling you that the only way it can be proven is for you to test it out yourself. Unless you are willing, it ain't gonna happen and this "debate" is pointless.
Ok, well I have had MANY experiences in my life that have proven to me that God does exist and that there is something after this life
No.
1) I have had MANY experiences in my life
Ok, sure.
2) that have proven to me that God does exist
Not at all.
Let's say that something happens. Say, you find $100 or your father survives his penis extension surgery. Ok, all that proves is that you found $100 or your father survived his penis extension surgery. You can interpret these events to be indicative of whatever, but "interpretation of events as indicative of X" is not the same thing as "proof of X".
Whatever you list as "proof of God" can be interpreted by others to be simply situations which happened or indicative of whatever else one wants to posit as being the case.
Said simply: You are using "proof" and "proven" incorrectly.
I've told one, very small, experience earlier in this post and it was brushed off as coincidence.
So, in other words, your interpretation of that very small experience as "proof" of your religion would be irrational.
Considering that the main evidence I have had is the "feeling", or Spirit, that I have felt during those experiences I would have to literally beam the memory of that feeling into your being.
A feeling you cannot describe causes you to know that God exists. This sounds like a tautology. "I know God exists because I know God exists."
Actually, it sounds like you're brainwashed.
Yeah the burden of proof lies on me, and I'm telling you that the only way it can be proven is for you to test it out yourself. Unless you are willing, it ain't gonna happen and this "debate" is pointless.
The burden of proof does lie on you ... yet you're still trying to reverse it by saying the only way to prove it is if I prove it to myself? Presumably by getting brainwashed?
Qingu on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
Ok, well I have had MANY experiences in my life that have proven to me that God does exist and that there is something after this life
No.
1) I have had MANY experiences in my life
Ok, sure.
2) that have proven to me that God does exist
Not at all.
Let's say that something happens. Say, you find $100 or your father survives his penis extension surgery. Ok, all that proves is that you found $100 or your father survived his penis extension surgery. You can interpret these events to be indicative of whatever, but "interpretation of events as indicative of X" is not the same thing as "proof of X".
Whatever you list as "proof of God" can be interpreted by others to be simply situations which happened or indicative of whatever else one wants to posit as being the case.
Said simply: You are using "proof" and "proven" incorrectly.
Arriving to the party late, huh?
If you re-read the posts on this page you will see that I hold that feelings can be used as source of something to be "reasoned" upon. Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon, I can then prove to myself (important distinction as I am not proving it to anyone else) that God exists by judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing those feelings.
If you re-read the posts on this page you will see that I hold that feelings can be used as source of something to be "reasoned" upon. Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon, I can then prove to myself (important distinction as I am not proving it to anyone else) that God exists by judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing those feelings.
Just to be clear, your definition of "proof" would allow someone who feels that he is Napolean Bonaparte to "prove" (to himself) that he is Napolean Bonaparte?
See, I've always thought that the whole point of using the word "proof" is that it means that it rationally follows for everyone.
Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon
His entire point is that you don't get to redefine what counts as empirical proof. Your feelings aren't very quantifiable, and the results are entirely interpretive.
That isn't empirical proof.
CmdPrompt on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
So, in other words, your interpretation of that very small experience as "proof" of your religion would be irrational.
Um, nice try, but in other words: If I give you a small experience and its brushed off as coincidence, why would I waste my time, and what I consider sacred, typing up a big and important experience on the internet.
I will tell you that I have prayed extensively to know if God does exist. The experiences I have had can only be described as pure knowledge. One minute I doubt, the next I know. Its through a combination of knowing how to identify the Spirit and understanding the concept of prayer that I have obtained that knowledge.
A feeling you cannot describe causes you to know that God exists. This sounds like a tautology. "I know God exists because I know God exists."
Actually, it sounds like you're brainwashed.
Not a tautology. I know God exists because of experiences like the above. What we are dealing with is the inability for me to share the proof I have. Its impossible since its all INTERNAL.
The burden of proof does lie on you ... yet you're still trying to reverse it by saying the only way to prove it is if I prove it to myself? Presumably by getting brainwashed?
I'm saying that I understand the burden of proof lies on me in an internet forum debate like this. It ain't gonna happen since its something I can't beam out of my head. Feelings into words don't work. I was saying that the only way it can be proven is by each person going through the process of testing it.
Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon
His entire point is that you don't get to redefine what counts as empirical proof. Your feelings aren't very quantifiable, and the results are entirely interpretive.
Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon
His entire point is that you don't get to redefine what counts as empirical proof. Your feelings aren't very quantifiable, and the results are entirely interpretive.
That isn't empirical proof.
They are quantifiable to me.
d...do you even know what that word means?
also, are you ignoring my earlier post directed at you and tuba for a reason?
Um, nice try, but in other words: If I give you a small experience and its brushed off as coincidence, why would I waste my time, and what I consider sacred, typing up a big and important experience on the internet.
To support your claim. This is "Debate and Discourse," after all.
I will tell you that I have prayed extensively to know if God does exist. The experiences I have had can only be described as pure knowledge. One minute I doubt, the next I know. Its through a combination of knowing how to identify the Spirit and understanding the concept of prayer that I have obtained that knowledge.
Really? What is the nature of this knowledge? Did the Mormon God talk to you? Did he identify himself?
Not a tautology. I know God exists because of experiences like the above.
Experiences ... that are vaguely defined (undefined, really) and essentially reduceable to "I just know?" Yeah, that's a tautology.
What we are dealing with is the inability for me to share the proof I have. Its impossible since its all INTERNAL.
If you were to ask me how/why I love my girlfriend, I could give you a host of details and expound on the nature of that feeling. (By the way, the fact that I feel that I love my girlfriend tells me little about the world outside of my head.) You're just repeating assertions without providing any information.
Qingu on
0
Options
ObiFettUse the ForceAs You WishRegistered Userregular
also, are you ignoring my earlier post directed at you and tuba for a reason?
Measurable? Defineable? How are feelings not measurable or defineable to the person who is feeling them?
And I have no desire to respond to a post that's just going to turn into a religious war. Of course I believe that my take on the purpose of life is right. Which automatically assumes that the other religions don't have the complete truth. Why does that need to be spelled out?
Yeah the burden of proof lies on me, and I'm telling you that the only way it can be proven is for you to test it out yourself. Unless you are willing, it ain't gonna happen
Yea, I've tried it out for myself a few times. It's bullshit whether you want it to be or not.
Because I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between you and a follower of any other religion. You say "do this experiment and you'll see I'm right," but others can say the same thing. I'm trying to figure out what is unique about your side that the other side doesn't have, since you feel that their answers are wrong.
Also: You tell people to try your experiment to see that you're right. If a follower of a different faith asked you to do the same type of experiment (but of a different nature, obviously) to prove to you that their deity existed, would you be willing to give it as much of an honest effort as you put into the experiment that proved your own faith true to you?
And if so, what would it mean to you if you found that similar feelings to the ones stirred by your own experiment were raised in you by this new one?
Posts
You're just making this shit up. Anyone can make shit up about what happens in the afterlife. Nothing you say is grounded in any evidence whatsoever. In fact, everything you say contradicts everything we know about consciousness and neuroscience.
You may as well be explaining the reasons why you believe your conscoiusness will be downloaded by Space Emperor Zargon to exist in an eternal state of computer-generated bliss. There is literally no reason to believe one scenario over the other—except of course that a computer-download heaven seems more sensical than the heaven you're describing.
well, seeing as how god sounds like a schizophrenic asshole in the bible up until you get into more modern times, i'm going to have to go with his level of power. Like say, creation of matter, matter manipulation, weather changing, telepathy, yadda yadda yadda.
and no, the scenario i put forth doesn't allow god to say no because he's not only facing one being that's as powerful as him but millions if not billions. absolute power corrupts absolutely, and yeah, maybe they'd be all malevolent and loving and whatever childish crap you describe when they existed long enough or comprehended his will but before they reach that point they're just a human with a god-sized gun in their hand.
also, maybe i missed something or perhaps the clergy i spoke to forget to mention it but...
...where in the fuck does it say in the bible that you can become just like god?
While I don't agree with the bolded part, I understand where you are coming from. Thats why I said on the previous page that this type of discussion were no evidence can be shown doesn't belong on debate and discourse.
Psalm 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High"
Romans 8:16-17 "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if it so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."
Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."
There are other scriptures that are more inductive, but those should do.
it's unwinning argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. the atheist side, however is based around reason and logic where pretty much all religions are based around the fantastic stories presented in ancient texts and the words of "prophets."
taky calls it an unopenable box but understand for atheists it's an infinite amount of unopenable boxes because any and all bizarre speculations for the afterlife or god or gods is valid with that argument. even one i can make up right now about interdimensional beings consuming the multiverse but that doesn't mean my claims should have any valid credibility. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence but it sure as hell means you can't consider the evidence valid until it is found.
the only reason christianity, judaism, etc gets any "weight" with their claims is that their insane speculations came a thousand or so years before mine so they get seniority. i don't "believe" in blindly following authority, i question authority because i want to know that it is in fact in me and mine's best interests. religion asks for faith but faith in their terms usually means blindly following them because they have the word of god and god is infallible and he made us and yadda yadda yadda.
my personal belief is that the only thing that remotely comes close to the god religions speak of is the universe itself and as you know, the universe has no emotions, no love, no compassion, it exists. the laws it laid forth for us are for our physical being and not morality. it certainly wouldn't give a shit about you converting a married university student, or an old lady suffering in the hospital and it would only "care" about things that effect it on a universal scale, if it were even sentient in the first place.
yes, it's nice to think that there's this massive security blanket with a godly father being that tucks you in because "he loves you" and when you die you don't actually die but live forever, unhindered by the trappings of flesh.
What would you say if I told you that unless you worshipped Space Emperor Zargon, he'd beam your consciousness down into a torture computer after you died?
so he presents evidence from the bible (like you asked for) about where it says we can become like God, and you throw it away because you dont believe the bible.
this is the problem with this discussion. you dont see spirituality as part of your reality. whereas, WE do. so there is no way to convince or prove to you that our evidence is, in fact, evidence.
also, we dont blindly follow those who lead our church. In fact, we are encouraged and taught to listen to what they say and then ponder it and pray about it and ask God if thats really what He wants for us. But there are those who blindly follow in all religions and areas of belief.
by the way, this is for all those who have done it: being disrespectful of another person's beliefs because they are different than you and you see them as being unbelievable isn't cool. we havent disrespected your beliefs but we are constantly disrespected. it doesnt help you prove your point. it actually makes you look bad.
i wasn't answering his question in that post because i already posted my feelings about the issues of power. it's not fact if it's in the form of the bible, if it is then do you believe in lord xenu?
how about you stop skirting around the damn question and weigh in on your opinion of other religions? you don't seem to want to answer the questions i presented because if you don't accept that the other religions are real than yours has no merit whatsoever but at the same time if they are real then the problem is what makes them real? number of followers? strength of their feelings? how long it's been around?
Oh that's fun. Watch, I can do it too :P :
It's an unwinnable argument because both sides think the other is ignoring the facts in front of them. The religious side, however, is based upon finding knowledge about the spiritual through spiritual means, while the atheist side is stuck trying to disprove God using their own limited minds and constantly changing "theories".
The reality is that this debate has been going on for FOREVER and the forums on PA is not where a conclusion is going to be reached. ALOT of people in the world believe in a God and ALOT don't. Everyone has their reasons and because feelings/spirituality is so personal, its impossible for me to prove it to you and for you to disprove it to me.
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.
is that why the all the days god took to create the universe is now just an interpertation of trillions and billions of years? is that why evolution is "an intelligent design?" how about the good ol' fact that heaven is now in another dimension that we currently have no way of percieiving?
i'm sorry, but...the more modern science advances the more changes religions have to make in order to still be viable.
because it's in his bible.
I don't think you understand either, this feeling he has isn't just a normal feeling but the true spirit of space emperor zargon. i'm actually jealous that i've never felt Space Emperor Zargon in me.
You didn't pass the admission test to join his harem? Sucks, man.
Honestly? It wouldn't affect me because I am secure in my understanding of what happens in the next life and why we are here.
I'd be curious why you believe the above, though, and may ask why you believe it.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why you're asking a "why" question about my beliefs when you've said plainly that you have no rational explanation or defense of your beliefs. I could answer that I believe this is true because my cat told me and it would be just as reasonable of an explanation as your "reason" for believing in the afterlife.
You do understand that this is what you sound like to non-believers, right? That's basically what I'm trying to get across.
I would ask a "why" question because I find it interesting to learn what other people believe and why. Not because I think they are right. Same reason I read about psychology or sociology. To learn about other people.
And, I get that people who are athiests are just not going to get it what I am saying about spirituality or that its going to sound so outlandishly far-fetched to them. Why? Because there is no physical evidence to make it something other than a warm and fuzzy story to them. Someone who defines themselves as athiest almost always only sees truth completely rooted in logic or what they can see. No point in explaning something that is based on "feeling" or the Spirit.
I have never said I don't have a rational explanation or defense of my beliefs. The issue is what is considered "rational". Some people would accept it as a rational explanantion. Others wouldn't. This forum generally falls under the latter.
You don't get to redefine the word "rational." People who agree with you about the afterlife aren't agreeing on a rational basis.
Similarly, people who agree that their consciousness will get downloaded into Zargon's computer afterlife would not be doing so on a rational basis.
Think about Muslim extremists for a moment. These people believe in a mutually exclusive afterlife than you. Their beliefs are supported by their scriptures, and the strong personal feelings that they interpret as God's hand in their life. They feel this so strongly that they are willing to die for their beliefs, they are willing to throw away the one life on this earth they will ever have, because they feel God's will telling them to. I am not familiar with the Koran, but I'd bet it has a passage that "proves" God's presence similar to the Alma thing you discussed a few pages ago.
How is your belief system any more valid or justified than theirs? You can say "I speak with God, He tells me I'm right and they're wrong," but how does this invalidate them if they say the exact same thing? You can't both be right since they're mutually exclusive afterlifes, so how is a person with an outside perspective supposed to figure out which one is right?
I was raised Christian. Then, at about thirteen, I stopped believing. For years I was a staunch Atheist. Then spirituality started creeping back up on me. I study religions and I believe the things that feel natural to me.
I do believe in reincarnation. I have no idea how it works. I don’t know what I will come back as. I do believe I have lived before and I will live again.
Another weird thing about death that I believe… there are some groups that believe when a person dies their whole spirit doesn’t necessarily transfer over to the next incarnation. They believe a person’s spirit can be like a glass of water. It starts in one glass and when it transfers it can be poured into multiple vessels.
I have a friend that I believe was poured from my same cup. I seriously believe we used to be the same person.
Why do I believe these things? For absolutely no logical reason. I question them regularly, as they make no sense but they are what feel right to me.
Or: can you define what you mean by "I"? Do you mean your consciousness, that exists and is defined by what is going on in your brain?
Everything you just described is deeply rooted in logc (my first qualification) and all of that does have evidence that you can see to help back up the logic.
I'm not redefining the word "rational". A decent definition of rational is "Acting in such a way or believing in something that is justifiable on the basis of reason."
What is reason? From wikipedia: refers to mental faculties that generate or affirm propositions, by activities of the mind such as judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing.
Now here comes the issue and the reason athiests usually automatically consider my thought process as irrational: I consider feelings, and thus the experiences based off of and truth learned through those feelings, as a source of something that can be used for judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing. Athiests do not.
Therefore, it depends on your definition of rational as to wether or not you think I have given a rational defense for my beliefs.
I'm simply disputing that you have any feelings whatsoever that in any way rationally support your conclusion that the Mormon God exists. I think you're just hiding behind this terminology because it's nice and vague and serves as a cloak for your complete lack of justification for your belief.
Ok, fair enough. Well I have had MANY experiences in my life that have proven to me that God does exist and that there is something after this life (yay for bringing the conversation back to the original post's topic).
I've told one, very small, experience earlier in this post and it was brushed off as coincidence. Considering that the main evidence I have had is the "feeling", or Spirit, that I have felt during those experiences I would have to literally beam the memory of that feeling into your being. As much as I would love to, I can't transmit those feelings to you. So we are at an impasse because you dispute that I have had feelings that rationally support my conclusion, while I claim that I have had feelings that rationally support my conclusion. You can't disprove the validity of my feelings and I can't prove it. Yeah the burden of proof lies on me, and I'm telling you that the only way it can be proven is for you to test it out yourself. Unless you are willing, it ain't gonna happen and this "debate" is pointless.
No.
1) I have had MANY experiences in my life
Ok, sure.
2) that have proven to me that God does exist
Not at all.
Let's say that something happens. Say, you find $100 or your father survives his penis extension surgery. Ok, all that proves is that you found $100 or your father survived his penis extension surgery. You can interpret these events to be indicative of whatever, but "interpretation of events as indicative of X" is not the same thing as "proof of X".
Whatever you list as "proof of God" can be interpreted by others to be simply situations which happened or indicative of whatever else one wants to posit as being the case.
Said simply: You are using "proof" and "proven" incorrectly.
A feeling you cannot describe causes you to know that God exists. This sounds like a tautology. "I know God exists because I know God exists."
Actually, it sounds like you're brainwashed.
The burden of proof does lie on you ... yet you're still trying to reverse it by saying the only way to prove it is if I prove it to myself? Presumably by getting brainwashed?
Arriving to the party late, huh?
If you re-read the posts on this page you will see that I hold that feelings can be used as source of something to be "reasoned" upon. Since I take them as empirical proof to be reasoned upon, I can then prove to myself (important distinction as I am not proving it to anyone else) that God exists by judging, predicting, inferring, generalizing, and comparing those feelings.
See, I've always thought that the whole point of using the word "proof" is that it means that it rationally follows for everyone.
That isn't empirical proof.
Um, nice try, but in other words: If I give you a small experience and its brushed off as coincidence, why would I waste my time, and what I consider sacred, typing up a big and important experience on the internet.
I will tell you that I have prayed extensively to know if God does exist. The experiences I have had can only be described as pure knowledge. One minute I doubt, the next I know. Its through a combination of knowing how to identify the Spirit and understanding the concept of prayer that I have obtained that knowledge.
Not a tautology. I know God exists because of experiences like the above. What we are dealing with is the inability for me to share the proof I have. Its impossible since its all INTERNAL.
I'm saying that I understand the burden of proof lies on me in an internet forum debate like this. It ain't gonna happen since its something I can't beam out of my head. Feelings into words don't work. I was saying that the only way it can be proven is by each person going through the process of testing it.
And no, no brainwashing involved. Unless...:P
They are quantifiable to me.
d...do you even know what that word means?
also, are you ignoring my earlier post directed at you and tuba for a reason?
Really? What is the nature of this knowledge? Did the Mormon God talk to you? Did he identify himself?
Experiences ... that are vaguely defined (undefined, really) and essentially reduceable to "I just know?" Yeah, that's a tautology.
If you were to ask me how/why I love my girlfriend, I could give you a host of details and expound on the nature of that feeling. (By the way, the fact that I feel that I love my girlfriend tells me little about the world outside of my head.) You're just repeating assertions without providing any information.
Measurable? Defineable? How are feelings not measurable or defineable to the person who is feeling them?
And I have no desire to respond to a post that's just going to turn into a religious war. Of course I believe that my take on the purpose of life is right. Which automatically assumes that the other religions don't have the complete truth. Why does that need to be spelled out?
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
3 full karbashes of annoyance.
2 and a half zarbacks of happiness.
:P
Because I'm having difficulty understanding the difference between you and a follower of any other religion. You say "do this experiment and you'll see I'm right," but others can say the same thing. I'm trying to figure out what is unique about your side that the other side doesn't have, since you feel that their answers are wrong.
Also: You tell people to try your experiment to see that you're right. If a follower of a different faith asked you to do the same type of experiment (but of a different nature, obviously) to prove to you that their deity existed, would you be willing to give it as much of an honest effort as you put into the experiment that proved your own faith true to you?
And if so, what would it mean to you if you found that similar feelings to the ones stirred by your own experiment were raised in you by this new one?