The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

DA writes: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 promisedWatered 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 errorIf 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.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

ONI writesSorry, I did follow what you said, I dont believe I missed anything, let me demonstrateEarlier you said:Now you say:Now you seem to be supporting my position in some sense by agreeing that they are both real and ABSTRACT, if, even only in your mind. this is the exact point of my contention, your removal of the abstract concept is something that is not warrented at presentTo remove the abstract concept, to which you seem to agree with, you would need to demonstate HOW "HAVING THE ILLUSION OF HEARING" them is possible in the first place.You have not attempted to even remotley answer that assertion in the first place. Please explain to the readers where and how this illusion is accomplished since its all stimuli related and produced.My contention is that the thoughs and the hearing, while a part of the stimulus process, produces something abstract, not identifiable in a physical way and in a way we do not understand. If I am incorrect please point out where in the stimuli process, this takes place, pinpoint the thought ITSELF. Heck, show from some technical website the thought itself, that is if you believe you can
demonstrate an abstraction in reality. repeating yourself does not provide the objective evidence you need to demonstrate the thought itself, you do realize this , correct?secondly pinpoint in the PROCESS where you are Having the ILLUSION of hearing your thoughts, this all you have to do.Thirdly, I simply have point out that thoughts are real, I can hear them and there seems to be no way to demonstrate them in the process to establish my positon. while that is not ROCK SOLID, it does appear to be the case at present. But I am sure you can clear this up for us real easy. Ok, simply demonstrate where this takes place, show me the stimulus substance of a thought and a thought in physical form and we can move forward. Simple enough correct? Nooooo, the reaction is not the thought, reaction is a physical Reaction as a result of an abstract thoughtEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

DA writes:Holy Moly, put that in English for me Albert E, so I canunderstand it, very impressiveEMA

Nemesis writesOh ok,rather simple. Although his would not affect my position in this context, because in this instance I am not refering to the spirit world, which i also believe in. Nothing abstract about the spirit worldThanks EMA

AN writesOh, no no no no, I was in no way trying to be facetious, my friend I was simply pointing out that abstraction in this instance would not equate to the Spirit world, or dualism as you described it, because if they do exist and I believe they do, they would not be abstract in character and substance as a thought might be. Sorry you misunderstoodEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

I never misunderstood that you didnt mean audibly, do you understand? My point is that you hear inSOME RESPECT , your thoughts in your mind. In an effeort to avoid this very obvious conclusion, youhaphazardly offered the idea that you were having the illusion of hearing your thoughts. Now you areside stepping the fact that I have asked you repeadly to explain and pinpoint in the process, where thistakes place. Display from the process this hearing. here is a simple questionQuestion? Do you hear your thoughts in you mind in any respect? explain the exact physical process What exacally are you trying to say when you say, nothing in the stimuli is refering to the thought?
Its not that its nonsensical, its tha, its only nearly, or impossible to capture an abstract idea or thought,becuase it has no substance, but is definatley in some way separate from the process itselfWhether you think it is nonsense or not you would need to demonstrate from the process itself, the exactpoint and in what way you hear your thoughts to make it completley a part of the process exlusively. Ofcourse this will be your position, your a materialist, but you have not supported your position you have simply circumvented the obvious reality of the thought itself Hmmmm. ? I wonder what an "emergent property" might be, perhaps you could identify this emergentproperty in the strickly physical processHmmmm? I wonder what conscouious and introspectively might involve?The ironic part in this context ONI is that you are actually describing a thought apart from the process byyour very verbage. I know i cannot objectively identify a thought because it has no actual substance, Youon the other hand cannot identify it in the process, because it is an emergent process of the process. Ihowever can verify its existence in knowing that it is there, hearing it in some fashion and seeing itsaffects. Dualism seems to be an attempt to disregard and do away with the Spiritual concepts and limit all thingsto a material context. abstract thought would not fall within the confines of dualism. One may wish tolimit the abstract thought to materialism, but ther is much they would need to demonstrate toaccomplsh this task I understand what you mean by Introspective thought but it needs to be exacally identified inthe process If a thought is the ACCULATED PROCESS of stimuli, could it not in an abstract way, be independent of theor a result of the process. Arent you essentially saying the same thing I am in different verbage.Not to be argumenative but how can a thought be the accumlated part of the process, but not take placein particular place in the mind. Shouldnt it be the end result so to speak of the entire cumlative process.Dualism, notwithstanding, you are attempting to explain something that is not explainable from aphysical stanpoint, yet it eixsts in reality with no clear substance to allow it to be identified. it is realnonetheless Really?
Not to be facetious here but remember, I am only partially stupid not completely stupid. the chemicalprocess produces an abstract thought that is both real and caontains so substance, which you have yetidentified.Question. is it possible for me to close my eyes and contemplate and create a situation or storyindependent of any incoming stimuli, can i use my mind to compose a stricly fictional situation that hasnot taken place.But notice, in this situation, this ability has nothing to do with the fact that the abstract idea may or maynot be independent of the process. We are discussing a different thing than tha whaich you refer to inyour examplesDualism has nothing strickly to do with what we are discussing.Thoughts and there abstraction notwithstanding, freedom of choice alleviates God being responsible forany of my actions. Your very elaborate explanation of what takes place in the mind and as a result ofintelligence even backs this position. Thanks for the confirmationThanks for the discussion, maybe we are both learning somethingEMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

onifre writesONI you are responding to something IN THIS QUOTE you said, NOT WHAT I ASKED YOU. I never askedyou in he first place, whether you could hear your thoughts AUDIBLY, go back and read what I said. Nowyour getting excited about something you think I am misrepresenting and I never asked you in the firstplace. Your responding to yourself, son.Explain to everyone here what "the illusion of hearing your thoughts" IS in and from a technicalstandpoint. That is explain where in the process this "illusion" takes place and how it is accomplished, ifit is an emergent property, as you suggest separate from the process.If its all a process show me in the process how, where and why you are SOMEHOW hearing your thoughtsExplain to this audience how (technically) you are hearing something and I don mean AUDIBLY. Got itnow?A device can measure, translate and manipulate radio and television SIGNALS (which are invisible to us)into pictures and sounds, because there is SOMETHING THERE TO MANIPULATE. My contention is thatthat which is in the process here and produced by the process is not measurable or testable to allow it tobe translated thusly. It (thoughts) exists and we know they do, yet they have no real substance. Or am Ijust like Oriville and Wiburs daddy? ONI I dont doubt you have complete confidence in your scientific method, Yet I am more interested inhow you are CONSCIOUS of your thoughts. this is why I firmly believe the thought to be both a part ofthe process and separate, because as you suggest it 'PRODUCES THOUGHTS"If on the other hand it is simply a part of the physical process show me the part where either in part orwhole the thought itself. This should be no problem since its all physical correct? it should bemeasureable, translatable and testable much like a radio wave. No problem correct? By stimulus process I simply meant the physical process. these "functions" produce thoughts, which isat present underconsideration. Your problem is that you percieve these functions and thoughts theyproduce as exclusive to the physical process. I see that which you hear and the thought itself as anabstraction produced by the process.In my view these cannot be demonstrated in a physical sesnse but exist nonwtheless , as we surelyunderstand. If not the physical process should allow us to accomplish this task. IOW we should be ableto see them as more than a physical process firing and going about its busniess I already have. We know they are there and are real. It is seperate because there is no way to measure,translate or produce that which has no substance, but they are there nontheless. Do you deny theexistence of your thoughts? Heck Im still waiting for you to explain from the process how you have theIllusion of hearing them then it should be measurable, teastable and more importantly TRANSLATABLE, into what you are thinkingand hearing, that is the body of the thought, your thoughts, your images in your thoughts No problemcorrect?I say its not because the thought that is produced has no real substance Are you listening? I am not saying the mind and the body are different, I am saying the mind and thethoughts they produce are distinctive, not seperate from eachother completley . the thought is nottranslatable into anything visual, but if it is only a physical process, it should be like a radio waveor anyother signal Im sorry I meant to say Materialism not Dualism, is an ATTEMPT. What I meant to say is that dualismdoes not apply to my contentions, because the thought is both produced by the mind and exists but withno substance. Im not talking about anything Spiritual here at present, only a physical process in bothareas, or one as you described it.Im not debating without reason, I believe you are simplistic in your thinking (as when I have debated youin the past)and have been conditioned to one area, specifically the scientific method and are missingwhat I am saying. You dont understand the debate method because you are missing and mistating mypoint, trying to make it comparable to something I am not equating it with I dont think they are wrong, I agree with them. They are not addressing what I am advocating. Im not advocating a difference in mind and body, as I have already explained. If your are correct, it should bepossible to measure in some physical sense or type the ACCUNULATION of the process, correct Whether a person can think is red is irrelevant that they can produce thoughts at all. Questions. can theyproduce thoughts, ofcourse they can. a thought is a thought whether it has enough or not enoughstimuli to assist it. of course if a brain it is dead (not, unlike yours, just kidding comedy boy), it canrecieve and produce no thoughts.Your test is to simple. if you wish me to close my eyes to picture God I will, it however, is not necessary.To picture God all one has to do is see or hear existence itself and know logically nothing could existoutside of God. God is existence. hence the statement to Moses, "Say I AM THAT I AM HAS SENT YOU"
He is telling Pharoah, the only true thing in existence is telling you to let my people Go. Im all that thereis pharoah, there is nothing besides meAnyother tests? I have no contention with your links, they are not saying what I am saying and they are not addressing it.
My position is not dualism, its physical in all respects. You simply need to TRANSLATE your purelyphysical process into images, sounds or whatever, the same you way you would anything else physical. Isay you cannot because the thought itself while produced by a physical process has no substance ATALL, unlike a spirit which has probably substance unknown to us.Ball is in your courtEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I am not computer savy, I ll try and figure out what you are saying, thanksEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

oni writesNo problem
working on a response to your last post, be out later this evening. Mr Brooks just showed up, though I dont know how he got in here, I didnt let him in. Wait a minute, hes gone again. Well Im sure hell be back in a few minutes, Ill finish it up this eveing, if he is not here to distract me.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Not really, we are making progress twords the main theme or threadEAM

Oni I am still working on your response, i just wanted to add something here.Electrolux, in this context we are not addressing what happens after the grave, only what happens in the brain function process, presently. but please jump in at anytime, the more the marrierEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry, HG, I didnt mean to say Electrolux, I was working on an antique vacum I have in the basement and it was on my mind, it sounds similarEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

In Message 113, I stated You said Did I misrepresent you again or are these your words? Are you now manuvering your words to saysomething different than you did before? Consciousl;y aware of your thinking process, is just another way saying you hear your thoughts in somemanner. I know its hard for you to accept that you actually hear your thought in a manner other thanaudibly, but it does happenNow your getting closer to explaining your original comment, which I have now reproduced for you,thanks. Everybody needs alittle time to think about what they hae said at times. By all means pleaseexplain the cognition part in the context of the illusion. ONI, point TO the illusion that makes it possibleto have this illusion. now dont just randomize it to its entirity, show me where the illusion (that which Icall thought) takes place. Hey, if possible show me this illusion, by translating it into some sort ofimage, that should be no problem since its all a physical process correct?Illusion and explaining it as an illusion and consciously aware, are to vauge a discription to allow us todefine it exclusivley within the physical process If I could do this there would be no mystery and my questions would be answered. I dont need to explainthe OBVIOUS and if I am incorrect show me that I am not actually hearing them. Is your inplication herethat you do not hear them? Your task is simple, show me what I am hearing IN THE PROCESS, show methe ILLUSION of audibility in its TRUE FORM, since its all physical. no problem correct?Do you remember that I am the one maintaing that there is no actual substance to that which I hear andyet I hear it in some fashion? Im telling you there is no need to try and clasify something which cannotbe verified from a physical standpoint. But you seem to think this is no problem, hop to it,EMA writes:Oni writesI didnt say it stops being real I said its has no substance to evalusted, test or measure, but its realnontheless, because I can produce and hear the thought in some fashion. If you think its all, WITHsubstance, show me that thing that you hear, even if by illusion. Show me the physical substance of theprocess or the illusion. No problem correct? Because it should NOT produce SOMETHING that I can ACTUALLY hear in some fashion, that ISexclusively a chemical process. If it is, demonstrate in the process where this action takes placeEMA writes:I understand perfectly what you are striving for, but the questions make no sense to you because you arestarting with a preconcieved idea of what a thought may be in the first place.let me give you an example. When a delusional person sees something that is not there, the image is realbecause it is produced by a physical process that has gone astray in some fashion. the process is realand the image is real as a result of the process, but the image has no actual substance even though itsprocess and its results are physical and real. its both real and not physically real at the same time Because you should not be able to hear a chemical process and a delusional person should not be able tosee an actual image simply from a nurological funtion if this is the case, where in the process am i hearing the thought, where is the actual image the delusionalperson is seeing. Now notice I did not say describe the process again, I said where is the image, where isthe thought and where and how am I hearing it. cognative awareness is only a discription of theprocess,it is not a demonstration of the idea itself or the image produced. those things while real and aPART of the process must be seperate in character because they are not IDENTIFIABLE IN THE PROCESSEAM writesi just did, I can hear it, see it in a dream and nut jobs, can see it while they are awake. the idea is notidentifiable, the image is not ascertainable in the chemical process. if it is only a part , show it to me. I agree with all of that, its not my position or contentionWhether a person can think is red is irrelevant that they can produce thoughts at all. Ok No, but whats the point? Ive already answered this, but you did not answer my response, you just repeated yourself I can hear and see them in dreams and a few crazy people can see them while they are awake., Mr Brooks. Now that boy is a few screwdrivers short of a toolboxEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Msg LinkEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Sorry admin I did it again, Ill try and fix it next time, i thought i had, sorryEAM

ONI writes:I never said you did. Ill wrap this part of the discussion up, later this evening, then we can make it merge into the discussion of Freewill in connection with God, that is the God of the Bible. That is if you are willing to try you luck against the concept of freewill and omnidcience.Im up for this one as well.EAM