The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

It might be more loving but it isn't more wrathful. Is there some reason why his wrath shouldn't find expression and that only his love should?To destroy a person utterly would be an admission-of-sorts that to create a free-willed being was an error of judgement. Better that God is vindicated in his creating those beings and one way for him to be vindicated is to let each being exist subject to the conditions promised for it as a consequence of it's expression of own will.Although appreciating your appeal, I'd see it as an appeal based on sentimentality. Most would (or should) suppose a God who doesn't deliver on the promised consequences of our choices to be one who doesn't actually value free will.-The environment of hell would appear to be one in which a persons evil is throughly bound up - so that it cannot manifest (other than against itself by way of self-hatred and self-disgust). Evil will have been, for all practical purposes, eliminated* whilst at the same time permitting Gods wrath against that which is evil to be expressed.The issue has to do with God being vindicated and just, fair, right - not our comfort. To think the later is to be, in my view, man-focused and thus wrongly focused. *if we define evil as 'that which runs counter to Gods will', then a persons willful expression in self-loathing and self-disgust wouldn't be evil - for it would be the will of God (in his wrathful expression) that a person be self-tormented so. They are in hell because they loved the consequences of evil and rejected a love of truth. The consequences of evil, even though evil itself is destroyed in hell, is that which the occupants of hell spend their eternity.

​

Not for nothing the warning to flee the wrath to come.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : 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

EMA,Not a problem. Let me break this down.Dualism is the idea that there is more to our mind than just our physical brain. That is a non-physical reality exists outside of the physical realm we interact with everyday. Some call it the spiritual realm in which our mind/spirit/souls exists and functions. As a result the mind/soul/spirit is much more than just the physical entity of the brain and can continue to exist after the physical body and brain die.Materialism however states that the brain and body is all that exists and there is no seperate entity called the mind that exists on another dimension of reality outside of the physical brain. Thinking is the by-product of a functioning/cognitive brain, nothing more. Once the brain dies, all the cognitive functions of that brain (including thinking) cease to exist as well.Hope this makes sense.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

Your response was thoughtful....I guess that the God whom I imagine exists only for MY comfort while the God whom may actually be is fair towards all and desires not to punish but to teach and correct

And how demented and sadistic your god is for predeterminately creating billions of living beings who he knew would spend eternity in agonizing torment in hell.Your god is so ridiculously inconsistent in his ethical standards it is to the point of absurdity.One minute he elimates the entire human race off the face of the planet (minus a half dozen people), the next he is ordering mass infanticide and ethnicide, the next he is all lovey dovey and forgiving in the Gospels, and at the end he throws the majority of humanity into a burning lake of fire for eternity with no chance of redemption.Wow, I can't see how that is morally inconsistent. This would be like telling your son not to beat up other kids and if he disobeyed you, you would kill him. Than you go and murder your next door neighbors kid for trespassing on your yard. You than reiterate to your son not to hurt other kids. He then stops believing anything you say and becomes rebellious. You then kill your son and say it is justified because you told him that you would kill him for disobeying you.Now go try defending the above in a court of law and tell me how far you get.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

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

Are you being facetious?

---

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

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.

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

Once you read my other post, I hope you have a better uunderstanding of how it does affect your position.If not, I'll explain: You see it does.You claim that thoughts are not real because they are an abstract concpet. This is the same philosophy held in Dualism - read the links and you'll see that it is.However, in materialism, since the most fundamental aspect of existence is matter, even thoughts are considered real - WHY - because they are an emergent property of the accumulated processes that comes from our interaction with reality.In other words: the entire process includes your subjective interpretation (or your thoughts).Dualism seperates the mind and body - The mind being the abstract concept of thoughts, and the body being the chemical processes in the brain. This is basically your argument.Materialism connects the two (mind and body) and says that the abstract concept of thoughts AND the chemical processes are one and the same. This is basically my argument.Now, the reason Dualism is not right is because there is NO area in the brain which neurologist can pinpoint thoughts to take place. What they (neurologist) have found through research is that thoughts are an accumulation of the entire functioning brain, and as such, are not seperate from the process - making thoughts objectively real. Connecting all this back to our original debate:If materialism holds true, in other words, if the mind(thoughts) and the body(processes) are one and the same, then they all exist in reality. Meaning, that if god is all of existence, the mind/body is also part of god.- Oni

Thoughts/cognitive thinking as an entity apart from the physical realm of the realm is what dualism advocates vice materialism which state that thoughts/thinking are merely products of process of thinking in the brain in which there is no seperate existance.So are you advocating that thoughts are merely products of the physical and cognitive process of thinking by the brain or are you advocating something else.It really makes no sense to ask if a product of a physical process is real or not. If a process is real than the product of a process is real as well. It is like asking if a sneeze (thought) is real. The act of sneezing (thinking) is real and therefore the single sneeze (thought) is real as well. Whether you determine thoughts/thinking to be abstract or not depends on what you consider abstract. If by abstract you mean anything that is not physical (composed of matter & energy) than yes the spiritual world would be considered abstract by this very definition. Whether thoughts/thinking are abstract than depends on whether you believe thoughts/thinking exist seperately from the physical entity of the brain or not.

---

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

Sorry Oni I wrote my post before I saw yours,I will bow out of this one as you seem to have wrapped it up pretty good.

---

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

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.