Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 151 of 410 (532652)
10-25-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate
10-25-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Christian Myth
Devils Advocate writes:
I can buy into this theory Peg. However, it flies into the face of a large segment of Christiandom and the Bible they believe in.
Yes i know it does.
but you know what...most christians dont question their teachers. They sit back and accept it and 'fear' it. And because they fear it, they sit back and dont question it.
Some obviously do question it, but most dont. Its been used as a control mechanism for centuries and the church continue to use it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-25-2009 8:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 152 of 410 (532653)
10-25-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate
10-25-2009 8:26 AM


Re: Christian Myth
I can buy into this theory Peg. However, it flies into the face of a large segment of Christiandom and the Bible they believe in.
Take a look at this PEW survey.
What's interesting is that belief in hell is not as widespread in the US as one might think. Only 59% believe in hell in the US. Even more interesting is that in this survey, or another one, a majority of American Christians believe there are many paths to salvation and that their religion may not be the one true path.
This trend may have something to do with the increasingly diverse US population. As more and more Christians become neighbors with decent non-Christian people, it becomes clear to Christians that hell, or some sort of eternal punishment for non-believers seems counter-intuitive with a benevolent God.
So all we need to do is do a bit more diversifying in the more homogeneous areas of the country and belief in hell may become a belief for a minority of Christians.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-25-2009 8:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-26-2009 5:18 AM Izanagi has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 153 of 410 (532658)
10-25-2009 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by onifre
10-24-2009 2:43 PM


Re: last dance
ONI writes:
I didn't ask you that, I asked you to define what you mean by "no substance." You evaded it again...
I did difine it and you totally ignored my response. Ill try again. Something that can't be verified, tested, evaluated, measured, from a physical standpoint., ie a conncept, an imagination, contemplation or a thought. How many times do I need to repeat myself?
Now watch this. In an effort to get tyou to to try and explain what youare hearing in your mind, you said, you dont hear it audibly, you have the ILLUSION of hearing it. When pressed to explain what you meant by illusion, you avoided answering the question entirley. Tell everybody, Mr Peabody, what the illusion consists of.
Now watch this, if its an illusion and not a a physical reality, its an abstract idea seprate from the process. if the illusion is a part of the physical process, ITS NOT AN ILLUSION AT ALL, is it? explain this illusion to us please. Or are you now going to retract your previous statement of it being the illusion of hearing? Ill let you off the hook ifyou need off.
Presently you have failed to demonstrate where in the process the absrtact idea takes place and where the illusion takes place. heck you have even failed to explain the term ILLUSION, in connection with the HEARING of thoughts. it seems you are falling behind quickly
The question isn't if I know what "substance" is. Sure, I do. But you said it had NO substance, and I'd like you to be specific as to what you mean by that.
The lack of substance. Question?. Does an abstract idea have substance? Ill throw it right back at you. You clearly believe it does and that it is part of the PROCESS, so to speak. Show me the part of the process that consitutes the SUBSTANCE of the abstract idea. This should be no problem for you since you know and can identify all of the physical process and are sure that it is all only physical in nature.
Of what type?
Of no type that we are aware of.
There must be? Why?
All the evidence shows that there isn't. That there isn't a place in the brain where multiple "thoughts" hang out. All the evidence points to thoughts being the reaction to stimuli.
How could something with no substance HANG OUT. that means it would have to HANG OUT in a physical space, it cant because its an ABSTRACTION, no reality of substance. Now I believe you are starting to see the mystry that is involved.
We can avoid all of this by you simply TECHNICALLY explaing how you are hearing your thoughts. or you can explain why the illusion of hearing your thoughts,is not a part of the physical process, or explain where in the process this ILLUSION takes place, if its a part of the physical process.
Question? Is the illusion of hearing your thoughts a physical reality or an abstract idea
YOU have claimed it's some abstract 'thing" but when pressed to define it and/or explain what you mean, you just repeat "It's an abstract thought" over and over.
No one in science claims "thoughts" are an abstract thing. If you're making this claim then please defend your position with a clear explanation as to what you mean.
With your frustration here, you are begining to see that which is involved in the word ABSTRACT AND ABSTRACT IDEA. A clear definition of the word abstract is ABSTRACT, existing with no substance. I dont know anyone that could explain the word abstract and define it with any physical reality, do you?, that the point.
abstract - 7 dictionary results
Data Virtualization
Abstract complexity and virtualize location of enterprise data.
Data Virtualization | TIBCO Software
Abstract & Title Searches
Louisiana State Wide Title Search RealEstate Title Insurance&Closings
Title Search
Abstract Company Tulsa
In Need of Escrow Services, Abstracts? Call Us for Service.
Sponsored Resultswww.TulsaAbstract.com
abstract /adj. b'strkt, 'bstrkt; n. 'bstrkt; v. b'strkt for 10—13, 'bstrkt for 14/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [adj. ab-strakt, ab-strakt; n. ab-strakt; v. ab-strakt for 10—13, ab-strakt for 14] Show IPA
Use abstract in a Sentence
See web results for abstract
See images of abstract
—adjective 1. thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances: an abstract idea.
2. expressing a quality or characteristic apart from any specific object or instance, as justice, poverty, and speed.
3. theoretical; not applied or practical: abstract science.
4. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract speculations.
5. Fine Arts. a. of or pertaining to the formal aspect of art, emphasizing lines, colors, generalized or geometrical forms, etc., esp. with reference to their relationship to one another.
b. (often initial capital letter) pertaining to the nonrepresentational art styles of the 20th century.
—noun 6. a summary of a text, scientific article, document, speech, etc.; epitome.
7. something that concentrates in itself the essential qualities of anything more extensive or more general, or of several things; essence.
8. an idea or term considered apart from some material basis or object.
9. an abstract work of art.
again, if you are so sure it is all a physical reality, simply point me to the place in the process where this takes place, pinpoint it for me, OK? if thoughts are not an abstract thing, what is it that you are hearing in your mind and where in the physical process is this illusion of hearing taking place?
You see, even wiki knows what they are. It's no mystery. It's not some abstract thing. It's the reaction to stimuli. It involves chemicals and outside factors. It's not an "unbelieveable process" at all. If you would have taken the time out to try to understand this, you would already know that.
And - due to our thoughts simply being chemical reactions to stimuli, god is our thoughts and he is responsible for them. As I stated when we began this debate.
If you'd like to add anything else I'm game to continue, but if not, then I think my point has been made and you have been shown where you are wrong.
HARDLY, since you have failed to answer any of the question I have put forward to you, ie, the ones above. You have failed to show where in the process where any this takes place. You have totally avoided answering, what it is that you are hearing in your mind and where that takes place in the process. You have failed to explain what "the illusion of hearing thoughts", IS OR HOW THIS WORKS.
Now get on these questions ONI, dont hold the audience up
yes its the reaction to stimuli, but its the reaction that makes it a mystery, and somthing abstract.
Since you havent identified the part of the process that constitues the thought itself, it would follow, that the actual thought is separate from the process and a result of the process, abstract in character and nature.
since you havent explained how it is and what it is you are hearing, it would follow that maybe there is something more involved here.
Since you havent explained what you mean by the illusion of hearing or how this works, or whether it (illusion) is apart of the process, or if itself is an abstraction, it would follow that you have IN NO WAY DEMONSTRATED YOUR CASE.
Since thoughts are an abstraction,they are not a part of God, they have no substance, Spirit or otherwise.
This coupled with the fact of freewill repudiates your position about God being responsible for our thoughts.
There is good reason you are game to continue, you havent demonstrated anything, in either of these instances.
lets start with something simple. please explain what the Illusion of hearing your thoughts means
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by onifre, posted 10-24-2009 2:43 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by onifre, posted 10-26-2009 1:22 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 154 of 410 (532733)
10-26-2009 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Izanagi
10-25-2009 9:11 AM


Re: Christian Myth
Izanagi writes:
This trend may have something to do with the increasingly diverse US population. As more and more Christians become neighbors with decent non-Christian people, it becomes clear to Christians that hell, or some sort of eternal punishment for non-believers seems counter-intuitive with a benevolent God.
So all we need to do is do a bit more diversifying in the more homogeneous areas of the country and belief in hell may become a belief for a minority of Christians.
I totally agree. I think fundamental Christianity is already starting to water down some of their long held practices however many still "cling to their guns and bibles" in a desperate attempt to save their cultural norms and religious beliefs. In some ways I think it has more to do with culture than it does strictly religion.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Izanagi, posted 10-25-2009 9:11 AM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2009 8:19 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 155 of 410 (532744)
10-26-2009 6:59 AM


Deleted.
The message box is empty.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 156 of 410 (532748)
10-26-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate
10-26-2009 5:18 AM


Re: Christian Myth
DA writes:
I totally agree. I think fundamental Christianity is already starting to water down some of their long held practices however many still "cling to their guns and bibles" in a desperate attempt to save their cultural norms and religious beliefs. In some ways I think it has more to do with culture than it does strictly religion.
Not as an argument, because there is none here to respond to, but let me echo Jaywill's statements in the fact that Christianity may certainly be in the very small minority in history and in nations at times,or even the doctrine of Hell and Heaven that accompany it, but it will never go away completely, that is promised
Watered down Christianity and watered down doctrine is a promise in the scripture.
"In the latter times SOME shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons......"
"In the last days scoffers will arise, saying, where is the promise of his coming......"
Just like the modern day doomsday prophets of scripture that translate all prohecies to present situations or present times, you are making the mistake of translating it (Christianity) in terms of its present situation in a single country. Christianity covers history and the world. Better to interpret it in its entire context since its inception.
This nation will turn into something else eventually and Christianity will rise and fall in subsequent centuries as it always has. Your making a fatal error
If the world stands 10,000 more years the church will be here with it. Long after the internet and EVC forum are a footnote in some forgotten page, the church will still be moving forward and "the sons of God will shine like the stars in the heavens."
You are going to be a part of EVERYTHING, somewhere, it just depends on where and how.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-26-2009 5:18 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 10-26-2009 8:23 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 157 of 410 (532749)
10-26-2009 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by Dawn Bertot
10-26-2009 8:19 AM


Re: Christian Myth
Thanks for the confirmation.
Before I read it I decided that I would delete what I wrote for some reasons between me and the Lord.
My tone just does not come out right many times.
Anyway folks, what I quote was the gates of Hades would not prevail against the builded church.
"The church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-26-2009 8:19 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


(1)
Message 158 of 410 (532757)
10-26-2009 9:04 AM


The subject is the Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell.
I do not regard Hell (eternal perdition is what is meant here) as vindicative. The Ultimate Governor must show that He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. Rewards and punisments must be maintained to manifest that.
God has laws. If the laws have threats they must be executed. God must be true. He is not only a righteous Governor, He is the last and ultimate righteous Governor. He must manifest that beyond Him, behind Him, above Him, besides Him there is NO appeal. I regard this as a matter of divine responsibility.
There is no question that there is ample ruling mercy seen throughout the Bible. God corrects man, forgives man, remedies his iniquity to a very extensive degree. Who can read the 150 Psalms and not see God's longsuffering and mercy at work.
Yet God's longsuffering have also caused some to be hardened all the more against Him.
God must eventually show His own character of hatred against sin. He is not careless as to whether His law is obeyed or not. He will win glory from every created being whether friend or foe. To the worlds to be created hereafter the unrepentent rebels must serve as a testimony that creation cannot revolt and win against its ultimate Creator and Governor.
Before He became a man in Jesus Christ and suffered the divine judgment on His cross, God taught by example. The stubburn son who would not be corrected was to be stoned in the harsh Old Testament "ministry of condemnation" - [b]"So shalt thou put away the evil from you and all Israel shall hear and fear." (Deut. 21:21; 17:13; 19:20; 3:111).
The patience and longsuffering of God causes some to be emboldened to condemn God as evil and themselves as righteous.
God's final judgment of the revolting opposition is consitent perfectly with His goodness to others who repent, who love God and obey to receive His salvation. The welfare of the others is hopeless. Divine wrath will destroy them in torment. Retribution is inflicted. The dead wood is only fit to be burned.
What we should marvel at is that in Christ the possibility for the total removal of guilty sins is available to all. Time is not a limitation. Just because there are some unkowns as to how some people can respond to a Jesus they never knew in life, does not mean God is not wise enough to afford them the opportunity.
This must be assumed because of perculiar passages which indicate that some people judged temporally in the Old Testament would rise in judgment and condemn those who rejected the Gospel.
For example:
"And you, Capernaum, who have been exalted to heaven, to Hades you will be brought down. For if the works of power which took place in you had taken place in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you." (Matt. 11:23-24)
The strong implication seems to be that there were people who perished in Sodom who were not beyond the ability to repent to God. The details of how God works this fairness out, I do not know.
The implication of the passage is that at some judgment sinners from Sodom may shake their heads at other societies which rejected the message of Jesus asking "What was WRONG with those people anyway?"
Perhaps they will ask this of some modern Capernaum like civilization that is "exalted to heaven" with their proud scientific knowledge, who feel they can discard the message of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of the kingdom. What need do they have for it?
Jesus has already gone to hell for everybody. We need to receive His gift of redemption and eternal life.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 10-27-2009 6:16 AM jaywill has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 159 of 410 (532794)
10-26-2009 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Dawn Bertot
10-25-2009 10:31 AM


Re: last dance
lets start with something simple. please explain what the Illusion of hearing your thoughts means
If you would have followed what I said correctly, you would understand what I meant by it being "illusional."
But I'll explain it again: I have the illusion of audibly hearing my thoughts. The illusional part is in the "audible" claim.
Let me quote myself so you don't think I've changed it some how:
Message 113
Oni writes:
No I cannot audibly hear them. I have the illusion that I hear them, but I know better than to think there is an audible voice in my head.
You have ran on a tirade to expose a mistake in my logic that I never said. You have misrepresented my position due to a lack of comprehension of what I wrote.
I never said thoughts were illusions, I said hearing them audibly in my head was illusional. But I do recognize the thoughts in my head. They are real and they are an abstract thing, to me, in my mind. But I also understand that while I define them as abstract, I also recognize that they are simply the reaction to stimuli, removing the abstract definition due to real world reactions to real world stimuli.
I hope this clears up my position.
Question? Is the illusion of hearing your thoughts a physical reality or an abstract idea
This "hearing" debate stems from my question to you if you heard them audibly. That was all that was meant by that.
If you don't claim to hear them audibly, then I have no beef with it, and I think we can move past this dead-end argument.
Since thoughts are an abstraction,they are not a part of God, they have no substance, Spirit or otherwise.
This coupled with the fact of freewill repudiates your position about God being responsible for our thoughts.
Again, according to science, "thoughts" are the reaction to stimuli - and nothing else.
In that sense, thoughts are real, because reactions are real and stimuli is real. If thoughts were something more than reactions to stimuli, then I would agree with you, but they are not, and you've failed to show why "reaction to stimuli" becomes abstract and mysterious in reality.
Now, that to you, personally, in your mind, view your recognizable, introspective thoughts, as abstract, OK, I can agree with that. But when we speak of thoughts in reality, which is to say "outside of your mind," they are (as science defines them) reactions to stimuli. What should then be recognized, is that your introspective thoughts, while seeming abstract to you personally, are simply the reaction to stimuli that you experience in the real world.
They are quite real in that sense - they are not just abstract, they have definite causes and effects in reality and are not mysterious. Science defines thoughts as the reaction to stimuli. The reaction is the thought, the reaction is real.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-25-2009 10:31 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2009 10:22 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 410 (532812)
10-26-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Phat
10-24-2009 3:00 AM


Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Straggler writes:
So God is also evil..........?
Good question.
Personally, I believe that God created the potential for evil to exist and that evil was done through willfully actualizing or fulfilling the potential.
As the ultimate creator of evil is it not then the case that God is capable of evil? How can the creation for the potential of evil be "good"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Phat, posted 10-24-2009 3:00 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Peg, posted 10-26-2009 8:54 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 164 by iano, posted 10-27-2009 5:50 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 161 of 410 (532814)
10-26-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate
10-24-2009 5:02 PM


Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Hi DA,
Good talking to you again.
Same here, bro. Hope all is well.
It really makes no sense if we can't even define what being "real" means.
Absolutely, if we can't define reality as "real", it makes no sense to consider thoughts real either. But then this becomes a question on "what is real?"
I'd rather not venture into that deep philosophical question just to make a point about "thoughts".
If we can all agree that reality is real, and if we perceive reality through our sensory inputs, then it follows that any by-product of this sensory system (whether it's how you perceive reality - how reality is represented in your mind - the introspective thoughts you have about it) becomes equally real.
Because, if it wasn't this way, then NONE OF IT is real. Reality and existence would then just be an abstract, introspective concept that is only real in our minds.
What I was trying to eventually get to in my discussion with EMA, was that: thoughts AND the way we perceive reality are the by-product of our sensory system. So, if reality is agreed upon to be real (in that sense) then so too are our thoughts, since they are the reaction to the same stimuli that helps us establish the reality that we perceive. It's all the same.
What he seems to be saying, is that our thoughts are not "real" because they are an abstract, introspective opinion based on sensory inputs. Well, as anyone who has ever taken philosophy would know, the way we perceive reality is also an abstract, introspective opinion based on sensory inputs - So either it's all real or it's all just in our minds.
I like to think that it's all real and not just in our minds. I believe you are of the same opinion?
Agreed. That is why definitions of these words need to be agreed upon, otherwise argueing for or against "are thougts real" is silly.
Exactly. And as you can see in my response ot him in Message 100, I ask him specifically to pick a definition that he felt comfortable with:
quote:
Oni writes:
Here are some scientific answers to that question, if you like, you may choose from these, or come up with your own.
Thought:
Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors.
Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system, which processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.
Any of those sound about right to describe what a thought is?
His reply was: Message 111
EMA writes:
Nope, these are the processes that produce a thouhgt, look carefully at the words in the definitions.
In other words, he himself made them something outside of the scientifically held definition.
I repeatedly tried to get him to understand this. If a representative reaction to stimuli (which is what science defines a thought to be - the word "representative" being the introspective concept) is, like he said, only the things that produce thoughts, then he must explain further how science is wrong, and thoughts are in fact different from "representative reactions to stimuli".
Which he has failed to do.
Either way, "hearing" sounds and thinking are processes of the brain. Thoughts are just snippets of information created by the act of thinking. Therefore to ask if thoughts are real is like asking if information is real.
Agreed. Thoughts are the representative reaction to the reality we experience. Now, not only can these thoughts be represented in words, language, verbally, etc., they can also be represented introspectively. But, the point is that that's exactly how reality is represented as well.
So either it's all real, or it's all just in our minds.
More so, my original point was that: if reality is real, and thoughts are a by-product of the same sensory system that helps us perceive reality, then if god represents all of reality, he too represents our thoughts.
Now, being that this is your thread, have I done an adequate job in presenting and defending that position?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-24-2009 5:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-26-2009 5:11 PM onifre has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 162 of 410 (532826)
10-26-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by onifre
10-26-2009 4:04 PM


Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Oni,
I see where the point of contention is here.
I think EMA is advocating the philosophical concept of dualism (even if he does not realize it) in which the non-physical mind is a seperate and distinguishable entity from the matter of the body and the brain.
Whereas you and I advocate that dualism does not exist and rather advocate the default position of materialism (what is physical is what exists i.e. there is no seperate spiritual/non-physical realm). Logic dictates that the burdern of proof lies in the one claiming something exists not with the one claiming something does not exist. In this case it is up to him to show that the distinct non-physical/immaterial mind exists seperate from the physical body.
Hope this helps.
DA
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by onifre, posted 10-26-2009 4:04 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-27-2009 10:32 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 176 by onifre, posted 10-27-2009 3:21 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 163 of 410 (532839)
10-26-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Straggler
10-26-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Straggler writes:
As the ultimate creator of evil is it not then the case that God is capable of evil?
Has anyone given a definition of 'evil'?
the hebrew word is 'ra is translated as evil in the bible and it can mean bad, gloomy, ugly, calamitous, malignant, ungenerous, and envious, depending upon the context.
how are you using 'evil' in the context of God being evil?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2009 3:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Straggler, posted 10-31-2009 8:11 PM Peg has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 164 of 410 (532895)
10-27-2009 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Straggler
10-26-2009 3:58 PM


Re: Justification By Circular Definition?
Straggler writes:
As the ultimate creator of evil is it not then the case that God is capable of evil??
God is the ulimate creator of evil - but in one-step removed fashion resulting in evil not impinging on his goodness. He creates a free will with potential and the free will creates the evil (which we might simplify definitionally as "doing something outside the permissible boundary set by God")
Precisely what kind of divine quantum fluctuation enables God to remove the sticky toffer paper from his fingers so as to produce a non-determined and independent will is beyond me - but that's what all the indications are as to what has occurred.
One reoccuring error is our attempt to rise above God so as to look down on his actions and pronounce good/evil. But if we are supposing Gods existance then we must consider our sense of good and evil as somehow derivative from who he is and it strikes me as a lunacy of sorts to figure to be able to consider him evil when he says he is good. Just where do we suppose we'd have derived the ability to judge this? How do we shake the derivative toffee paper from our fingers?
The best that we can do, it seems to me, is look at what God says is good/evil and see can we understand the justifications made given our own perspective on good/evil derived somehow from his. It seems to me that the argument for God=evil is made on sentimental / emotional grounds but that when a higher moral plain is viewed the objection evaporates.
-
How can the creation for the potential of evil be "good"
Given our definition of evil above we can say that creation of a free will is the creation of potential for evil. Which in turn points the question to whether or not the creation of a free will is a good thing.
Do you think having a free will is a good thing - given the alternatives you see around you (in say the far more instinctually led animal kingdom).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2009 3:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 11-04-2009 5:40 PM iano has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 165 of 410 (532899)
10-27-2009 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by jaywill
10-26-2009 9:04 AM


Phat chance at redemption
jaywill writes:
I do not regard Hell (eternal perdition is what is meant here) as vindicative. The Ultimate Governor must show that He loves righteousness and hates iniquity. Rewards and punisments must be maintained to manifest that.
perdition \pr-"di-shn\ n 1 : eternal damnation 2 : hell
iniquity \i-"ni-kw-t\ n, pl -ties 1 : wickedness 2 : a wicked act

Shouldnt a Creator have the ability to eliminate wickedness? I still maintain that the option of being allowed to cease to exist is a more loving option than eternal damnation.
jaywill writes:
God must be true. He is not only a righteous Governor, He is the last and ultimate righteous Governor. He must manifest that beyond Him, behind Him, above Him, besides Him there is NO appeal.
I suppose that there is some reason that we humans need to be responsible for our choice of initiating rebellion and wickedness. I would think, however, that this particular Judge is not merely a Governor but a Creator as well...and if it disturbs you that I don't simply bow to His judgment, I will say that in my defense I am merely questioning the explanation that is commonly taught. Is it so bad to question what has been written and taught concerning such matters? I DO want to love God, but I simply must question what I am taught.
The patience and longsuffering of God causes some to be emboldened to condemn God as evil and themselves as righteous.
I am not in any way claiming to be righteous. I respect the idea of God being patient.
jaywill writes:
The details of how God works this fairness out, I do not know.
I am glad to see that you still have somewhat of an open mind on the possibility of Gods mercy above and beyond what is expected.
Onifre writes:
Science defines thoughts as the reaction to stimuli. The reaction is the thought, the reaction is real.
I read somewhere that thinking is a response to a problem...any problem...that arises in life. Were there no problems, no unexpected issues, there would be no need to think. We could even speculate that God has no need to think, at least in the manner we view thinking as...since God never encounters any unforeseen or challenging problems.
That brings up the question, timelessly and continually asked...of whether God foreknows what we will think and decide in our future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by jaywill, posted 10-26-2009 9:04 AM jaywill has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by iano, posted 10-27-2009 8:46 AM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024