The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

You have to believe he exists first. Which means, you must believe the premise to be true before you accept anything else. That is not a logical position, that is a logical fallacy. Well then how can you follow this reasoning with... Is a thought some how outside of existance? Is that what you're saying? That thoughts happen somewhere outside of existance?Because if they don't, if they happen in existance, and if your god is "all there is in existence," then it follows that so are your thoughts a part of god as well. If it can be comprehended, evaluated and understood, then it is a part of existance, a part of reality. If god is all there is in existance, then thoughts are a part of him as well. You can't have it both ways.- Oni

Had you just said "his will and his morality is a straight forward LOGICAL proposition," then I would not have objected.But you didn't, you began with: And while I agree, if we already established he exists, there is no fallacy. But your statement included his existence being logical as well. And that's what I objected to, because it's not a logical position. It is a belief that assumes the premise. You'll have to explain how humans, who exist in reality, are having thoughts outside of existence. No offence, but that's just nonsense.Further, you would have to explain what "outside of existence" actually is. Is there a thought that takes place that lacks cause or effect?Wouldn't the "substance" of the thought be how one applies it to reality and likewise how reality affected the thought?By your definition, spoken words have no "substance" in reality. Explain. What freewill drives the thought?Aren't thoughts determined by outside stimuli? If someone points a gun to you, wouldn't you start thinking what to do because of that persons actions?What I think you mean is that we have freedom of choice. And while I agree that we do, many factors outside of your own personal convictions determines the choices we make. Sorry, but you have not established how the mind is independent of existence.If the mind exists in reality, and god is all of existence, then it follows that the mind and god are one and the same.Or, god could be outside of existence (not everything in existence) and the mind would then be independent of god.So which is it? It can't be both. I don't know what that means. No. First, I can evaluate and comprehend my own thoughts; a kind of self analysis. I'm a part of reality, my mind is a part of reality, therefore anything that derives from it that can be comprehended is also a part of reality.Furthermore, god can evaluate and comprehend my own thoughts too; which as I understand it, that's exactly what he does. If he is a part of reality and can comprehend my thoughts, then they are also a part of reality. Wait...can't you see the clear contradiction here?If he controls it, and he is a part of existence, then the thought exists in reality. They come from the mind of a being that exists in reality. Thoughts don't go into another dimension and then re-appear.You are making no sense. If god controls freewill, and can control your thoughts, then there is nothing free about any of this. It is all predetermined by him.You are trying to find a cop-out argument that exempts god from his responsiblity to mankind.He created, he gave the power to think, he gave the will to choose, so he is responsible for how such tools are used. And he should not punish for using them wrongly, he should correct the functions so that they are used properly.Unless, he had nothing to do with creating anything other than the universe, then sat back and let it all unfold. That I could exept, but that would mean that there is no punishment for mistakes, other than temporal punishment established by humans to police themselves.So which is it? Because it can't be both....- OniEdited by onifre, : misspelled exist(e)nce about 1000 times - thanks for catching that Straggler

Thanks, Straggler. It's the spanish in me that hurts me when I spell. I'm horrible at spelling in english because I constantly fight the urge to spell the word as it sounds. One of the faults of being raised in a predominantly spanish speaking household.I should use Word to type these posts.I'll correct it in the post. Thanks, dude!- Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

double postEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Yes, this thread does assume he exists. But in no way has this thread established his existence as being a logical conclusion. You said it was, and have not shown why.While I will admit that it is off-topic to the thread (and you may choose not to answer based on that), assuming that god exist is not a logical conclusion. By the very definition of the word *belief* one is accepting something is true purely on faith - to include faith in the scriptures that tell of his powers.But I've strayed from the topic enough. Before we go further, please explain what "outside existence" is.If you're saying that thoughts don't exist, then how can you have them?Also, are you disregarding the inner workings of your brain, more so of your neurons.In fact, lets get to the heart of your issue: What is a thought?And your explanation should be based on objective evidence, not just, "it's an abstract thing that takes place outside of existence."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? It does when I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a "thought". You have not been clear. You have been vague in your description.If it has a cause, then your sensory functions receive the information. If it has an effect, then your central nervous system processes the information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.Now, can you please tell where the actual thought happens outside of this system? So, spoken words have "substance" different from thoughts? Please explain. How so? This is nonsense.You have a cause which is sensed, you have an effect which is the result of your body processing information. That's it. That's all "thoughts" are.Thoughts are not independent of stimuli or of your environment.Here's a fun question: Can a person who was born completely blind think in the color red? Please explain. Thoughts are the by product of a being that interacts with reality. Thoughts are the beings reaction to reality. They are derived from the central nervous system that processes the information and tells the body how to act.Thoughts are NOT an abstract thing, they are reactions to stimuli.Please give me a clear definition of what a thought is, that is somehow different from what science explains it to be. Scientifically, thoughts are the reaction to stimuli.However, my only other point is this: Do humans have the "thoughts" in reality? I'm trying, Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd. If they exist in reality, and god is all of existence, then he is our thoughts too. You can't get around this obvious flaw.Unless you can give a clear definition of what "thoughts" are that somehow explains how they are derived at through some other mechanism. In Message 82 you write:

quote:

---

Only the mechanism and the creation of freewill can be said to be under Gods control

---

So, god created freewill and he chose to give it to mankind. In other words, god CONTROLS who receives "freewill".In Message 68 you wrote:

quote:

---

Thought are produced by a mechanism made by God

---

So, god created the mechanism that helps you evaluate and process information so you can come up with thoughts.My point (which you said I'm making stuff up) - god controls who gets freewill and was responsible for how thoughts are made.(1) If he chooses who gets freewill, then there is nothing free about it.(2) If he is responsible for the mechanism that makes thoughts, then he is responsible for the end product - (the thought). Wait, EMA, am I also supposed to assume the Jesus story is real too?How many premises do I have to just accept?This thread assumes GOD was real, I gave you that one, now Jesus too?Why couldn't god just fix the mechanism that makes thoughts? That's my question.- Oni

I will let go of the "logical" portion of this discussion because it's off-topic.I'll find a thread we can discuss it in when I get a chance, if you'd like to continue there.There is enough in your post to fill many threads. I'm sorry, what?! Did you say you can "hear" your thoughts? Audibly "hear" your thoughts? So you're saying "thoughts," this abstract thing which you originally claimed (with much confidence I might add) does't exist, now exists but isn't made up of sub-atomic particles, atoms, etc?Are you saying they exist (now) but have no fundamental structure?Am I anywhere near close to understanding you? No, no, follow it properly. Obviously the "thought" must come before the reaction, right? You think THEN you react, right? So the process that produces the "thought" is the neuron that carries the stimuli to the central nervous system since that is what happens before the body can react.So lets follow it in action:(1)Neurons respond to stimuli, and communicate the presence of stimuli to the central nervous system.(2)The central nervous system processes that information and sends responses to other parts of the body for action.So, first you receive the stimuli - (then something occurs) - followed by a reaction.Now, if the reaction is after the thought, then the thought is before the reaction. If the thought is after the stimuli, then the stimuli is before the thought.So, first stimuli, then thought, then reaction.Going with that, if neurons communicate the presence of the stimuli to the central nervous system, and the central nervous system sends the information to the body for the reaction, somewhere in between that is where the "thought" takes place, does it not?Now, if you can't pin-point anything made of any "substance" ie. has no fundamental properties, then what in fact are you talking about that takes place after the stimuli BUT before the reaction? And WHERE does it take place?The REACTION is the end result, the "thought" happens before that BUT after the stimuli. So where does it happen? OR, could it be that that's all a thought is? Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong in what you thought a thought was?Could a "thought" simply be a reaction to stimuli dictated by the central nervous system? - If not, if there's more to it, then please explain. 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. Crazy, insane people usually can't tell the difference. I don't presume you're one of them, so I can only assume you mean the "illusion" of an audible sound. I don't. And I hope for your sake you don't think you do either. But again, the "thought" is not the end result. That's where you are making your mistake. The "thought' is somewhere in the middle of the process. Remember - first stimuli - then thought - then reaction.Once again:
The REACTION is the end result, the "thought" happens before that BUT after the stimuli. So where does it happen? OR, could it be that that's all a thought is? Are you allowing for the possibility that you may be wrong in what you thought a thought was?Could a "thought" simply be a reaction to stimuli dictated by the central nervous system? Please explain further, don't just say, "it's not the same." We're here to learn from each other, I can't understand what you mean if you don't explain it.Also, you mis-read what I wrote and answered something I didn't claim.What I said:

quote:

---

So, god created freewill and he chose to give it to mankind. In other words, god CONTROLS who
receives "freewill".

---

Note: I'm saying he controls who receives it. Do you disagree that he controls who receives it? WHY are they wrong? Please explain WHY you disagree, don't just dismiss it. Fair enough. I re-read the OP and it seems it's refering to only the "Christian" definition of god, I wasn't aware that it was specific. Which I guess that means that Jesus is both the son of god and somehow god too ... so there are 2 gods?Sorry I never understood that - not a Christian myself.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Debate evasive tactic #1: focus on anything else but what you were orginally debating and try to shift the focus to that. Please stop being evasive and answer specific questionsPlease answer this, which I asked in my last post: Please explain what you mean by "no substance." No I don't, at all. Furthermore, there is no "some other fashion of hearing." You hear audibly, and that's it, there is no other way to "hear".You can't use the word "hear" to mean something completely different. Definition of Hear: It is the ability to perceive sound by detecting vibrations via an organ such as the ear. Please try to follow the debate and don't be evasive.This is how it went: If there is more to the process then please explain. If you agree with the stimuli-thought-reaction process then say you agree with it.But please don't evade the question. It is completely relevant and I'd like for you to answer it.You say it has no "substance," I can only assume that means it's not made of any fundamental properties (and I have to assume that because you didn't answer it). If it has no substance, but is the effect of stimuli and the cause of an action, then it is somewhere doing something. I'd like for you to tell me what that is.Or, as I suspect, you can tell me you have no clue what you're talking about and were talking out of your ass.I'll accept either one. No I didn't classify it as an illusion. If you're having trouble comprehending the subject we are discussing we can stop here.But I'll try once again. I don't hear an audible voice, I have the illusion of a voice in my head, we all do. Everyone thinks there's a voice in there head, but we know better.The ONLY way you can "hear" something is by an audibe sound (I refer you back to the definition of hear that I provide above). If you are using "hear" to mean something OTHER THAN an audible sound, then you are misusing the word. And I can't follow a debate like that. That wasn't the question or the point. You are again being evasive. Please try to follow the debate.The question I asked came from you saying that the scientific definition for a thought were NOT the definition but in fact were just describing the process. Which is weird because they were both definitions used in philosophy to describe thoughts, but that doesn't matter.I followed by explaining the process and showing you that in fact it WAS NOT just describing the process but was in fact describing a thought. But, since you disagreed, I asked you to point to the moment in the process where the thought happens. So lets try it again.If it happens after the stimuli BUT before the reaction, then when, where, how does the thought manifest?Or, as I suspect, you can tell me you have no clue what you're talking about and were talking out of your ass.I'll accept either one. No, it seems like complete nonsense.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

No, sorry, Jaywill, I don't think I can. Not in the context that it's being used.-Oni

If you're using the word metaphorically, or as a slang, or something else, then be specific. But if you say everyone knows that you can "hear" your thoughts, and then follow that by saying that you can "hear it in some way," then you are either being puposely vague, not using the word properly, or trying to evade from dealing with the actual science behind thoughts.Now you want to jump on Jaywill's position to seek any kind of support you can get.Be clear and specific when you describe what you mean by "hear my thoughts." It's all about CONTEXT.If you use it like "I hear what you're saying," or "hear! hear!" or if you write "I hear you, bro," then I get the context that it is being used in.But you said "I can hear my thoughts," I asked "audibly?" to which you replied "No, but I hear them in some way," fine OK, what way is that?- Oni

I didn't ask you that, I asked you to define what you mean by "no substance." You evaded it again... 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. Of what type? No I didn't. No I'm not implying it either. I have not told you anything is there. I said "thoughts" are the reaction to stimuli, they exist in reality, and as such IF god is all of reality, he is our thoughts as well.That's how this debate between you and I started and I have held to that the entire time. 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.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. If you would understand the process, you would understand that there is no such thing as a "thought" in and of itself, what we call "thoughts" are simply the reaction to stimuli.That's why god is as much a part of our "thoughts" as he is everything else, because it's stimuli (which exists) and reactions (which happen in reality). REALLY?You claimed with much authority that thoughts don't exist, then that they do but have no substance, then you claimed they were outside of existence, then you claimed they are not real, and so on and so on.Everytime you're confronted to explain what you mean you change what you mean.Lets go back to your message that sparked all this in the first place:

quote:

---

If one wishes to argue that this makes God responsible for others evil actions, it must be remembered that free will exists in them and thoughts are both real and unreal at the same time. Thought are produced by a mechanism made by God, but the thought is independant of God because it posesses no reality in and of itself and is a result of a FREE MORAL DECISION. Yet, it has no tangible existence, except as a contemplation, yet that contemplation does posses reality in that it can be comprehended, understood and evaluated.

---

Sounds like YOU THOUGHT you knew what it meant and how it works. Now, you don't know what it means or how it works?You should be a politician, dude. Speak for yourself. Science has a complete understanding of it, you should look it up.I can help: thought

quote:

---

Representative reactions towards stimuli from internal chemical reactions or external environmental factors.

---

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.Thanks,- Oni

Hi DA,But my argument is not about "thinking" or any other process.This debate between EMA and I is about "thoughts" and what they represent in reality.He is ignoring the scientifc definition of what a thought is (reaction to stimuli) and replaced it with a nonsensical explanation about a "no substance, abstract thing," as if that explained anything at all.Our central nervous system processes the information communicated to it by neurons in response to stimuli, and we have words that represent this processed information. So we don't "hear" our thoughts, we try to represent our outside world with words in our brains, and we recognize the words.- Oni

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
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. 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. 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

Hi DA, Same here, bro. Hope all is well. 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? 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 111In 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. 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

Let's deal with one issue at a time.Do you recognize, now, that what I meant by "illusion" was the hearing your thoughts audibly concept?That's all I meant by "illusional" - the audible part, not the thought itself.However, to your overall question: What you are describing as the "abstract thought" IS part of the process. The part of the process that connects the physical process of (stimuli-neurons-reaction) with the consciousness, or the "self awareness," that is unique to humans (as far as we know).BUT - the point DA and I are making, is that there is no seperation of body and mind. Which means, there is no seperation of the "absract thought" and the "physical process"; It is one and the same.This is the difference between dualism and materialism. Definitions:

quote:

---

Dualism:
In philosophy of mind, dualism is any of a narrow variety of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which claims that mind and matter are two ontologically separate categories. In particular, mind-body dualism claims that neither the mind nor matter can be reduced to each other in any way, and thus is opposed to materialism in general, and reductive materialism in particular. Mind-body dualism can exist as substance dualism which claims that the mind and the body are composed of a distinct substance, and as property dualism which claims that there may not be a distinction in substance, but that mental and physical properties are still categorically distinct, and not reducible to each other.

---

quote:

---

Materialism:
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance. As a theory, materialism is a form of physicalism and belongs to the class of monist ontology. As such, it is different from ontological theories based on dualism or pluralism. For singular explanations of the phenomenal reality, materialism would be in contrast to idealism and to spiritualism.

---

I suggest researching the two a bit more for a better understanding. This is a nonsensical question. The "stimuli" is external to your sensory system - a stimuli can be a tree, a picture, a color, etc.So nothing in the stimuli is refering to the "thought".What the process consists of is "stimuli-to-neurons-to-nervous system-to-reaction." - that's the entire process.Now, as humans, we can reflect on this because we are conscious, or aware, of our mind and it's functions. Introspectively and subjectively, you are conscious of it - that's what is refered to as a "thought" - Which is an emergent property of the chemical processes themselves.What this does is give the person a feeling that their mind and their body are seperate entities that function independently of one another - this is the mind/body problem found in dualism vs materialism.Long ago, philosophers believed dualism was the correct interpretation, but currently, and actually for a long time now, it has been changed to a materialism philosophy that brings the mind and body together as one. Basically, what that means is, the most fundamental aspect of consciousness is matter and the chemical processes in the brain. And there is tons of evidence to support this.If you read the two links I provided ithey will give you a more detailed explanation. Right, and what that basically means is that you are consciously aware of the processes that are working physically in your mind. They manifest themselves as introspective thoughts which you can contemplate on - this, as far as we know, is only unique to humans. And it's an attribute that has helped elevate the human mind to the level of intelligence shared by our species.BUT - the important thing to realize is that, it's not seperate from the process; It is an emergent property of the process and more so, an emergent property of matter. Again, this question is nonsensical. The stimuli is the outside world - a tree, a chair, any object - that's stimuli.If you are asking where a "thought" takes place, my answer is, IT doesn't take place anywhere in particular, because a thought is the accumulated process of stimuli-neurons-reactions. It takes place in the entire brain. And, different stimuli activate other processes in your brain. Like for example, face recognition or voice recognition.If you look at a tree, you see a tree. If I show you a picture of a random woman, you see a random woman. BUT - if I show you a picture of your mom standing next to the tree you built your first tree house on, a lot of other functions take place in the brain (face recognition, object recognition, place in time recognition, etc.) where they didn't when I showed you a random tree and a random woman.So, where the picture of a tree and a random woman brought about one type of thought, the picture of your mom next to your childhood tree brought about other thoughts. The function is still the same, the thought is still the end reaction, but the different pictures due to it involving different stimuli gave you a completely different thought.My point: the entire process is what we refer to as a "thought," and humans are consciously aware of it, and can introspectively contemplate it - but that too is part of the process, and functions in the same way, as chemical reactions in your brain.I hope this, and DA's post, are bringing us closer to a common ground understanding of what "thoughts" are.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

You've hit the nail on the head, DA.Now let see if we can show EMA where he is misunderstanding.- Oni