The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

Dont mean to butt in here, DA, but try and stay focused. Your are reasoning from the faith and belief thread and your perspective is one of a biblical nature. that is your argument is from a book we are assuming to be true FOR THE SAKE of argument. Proceed as if the doctrine of hell is TRUE, if for argument sake only.Dont interject another principle as to whether the Bible is true in the first place, that is separate argument. proceed on the question of hell as if it is true and the God of the Bible is its author.Do you understand?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

You and I have already been down that road together, but Ill let you proceed with Iano, unless I see a good spot to interject something, if that is OKEAM

I really dont see why this is so difficult to understand. The existence of God, his will and his morality is a straight forward LOGICAL proposition. God is all there is in existence, everything is God mateial, it follows therefore that any decision determined by him is therefore absolute and complete.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. It is because of these qualities that HE holds an individual responsible, as a result of freewill. Keeping in mind there is nothing in existence except God in the first placeThis is the distinquishing marked difference between man and beast and the way in which we are created in Gods image.DA, it is really a straight forward LOGICAL PROPOSITION that cannot be assaulted in any real fashion. if you think it can be have at itEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

DA writes:This is actually just the opposite of what I said and donsrtrated. Things can be God material without being Gods conscience. freewill in a mechanism of human exisistence and is by itself both God material and separate from his essential existence. There is no game where freewill is involved. there is no pre-programmed anything, these are your unwarrented conclusions without dealing directly with my arguments. You have simply set my position aside without considering its validity, there is no evil except that which proceeds from a mind that possess free will, that is a thought process. hence Jesus' statement:"It is not that which goes into a man that defiles him, but that which procceds from his heart (mind) I have addressed that so called delima by the proposition I set Out, it is counterfactual to that position Negative, pay attention. It is real in the sense that it proceeds from a physical verifiable mechanism, the mind, they are not real because they have no actual subtance, no reality, but can be observed, demonstrated, examined and evaluated, and are therefore independent of even Gods exsistence, because they have no actual reality in and of themselves Because he is all that there is in reality or existence, it would follow logically that any decisions or deteminations from him would be the ultimate source of knowledge or morality. There is no other source outside of God to base a decision. While you may not like this conclusion, it conclusion is inexcapable. its the simplest of all propositions By logical absolutness.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

O writes:In this instance we have already determined that he exists, for argument sake, that is not a contention. When questioning the quality of a diety or anyone for that matter it is assumed you are granting its existence atleast temporaily, to see if the specific item can be jutified by its overall character, as described by the same source from which derive your contention. This is not a logical fallacy.If you wish to fall back to the idea that he may not exist in the first place, then the quailty you are describing is of no consequence in the first place, in other words ther is no reason to assume the validity or invaldity of its measure, pitted against a possibility of non-existence in the first place. Such an argument would be nonsensical Its outside of exsistence beacuse it has no SUBSTANCE in reality in and of itself in the first place. Plus you are ignoring the freewill that drives or initates the thought in the first place. god is not responsible for a thought derived from an independant mind. thats the beauty of being created in his image.Besides existance and salvation, the thought process is the most amazing of all creations. It has a kind of reality with no reality another mechanism namley the mind of another is doing the evaluation of thoughts, the thoughs have no reality and are therefore independant and non-exsistent of both physical realities and Gods basic essence. God may control and know every thought from eternity but they are indepedant of his total existance because they have no actual reality. Only the mechanism and the creation of freewill can be said to be under Gods control, if he so desires, but he lets the individual choose and produce THOUGHTS that are soley the decision of the individual.EAM

first let me apologize to IANO and Jaywill here, two masterful expositors, artisans of no little character and talent. Especially that last post by jaywill, that is a piece of art. if you pay no attention to my intimations please read thiers carfully and try an comprehend what is being communicated by themTo Onfrie. every position or belief assumes its premises, depending on the amount of information that can be brought to bare on its conclusions. the existence of of God certainly falls within this category., ie if God exists then it would follow that nothing could exist outsideof him, otherwise he could not truely be called God. the existence of God is not a logical contradiction and is therefore a logical demonstratable proposition. In other words nothing prevents it form being resonable or LOGICAL. Enough said I hope, this really to simple to miss.This thread I believe was assuming his existence, because it refernced his character in the expressions of heaven and hell, which assumes his existence too Only because your not paying attention. if you dont like the expression "outside of existence", then I will limit it to nonexistent. A quality with no real susbstnace could be considered outside existence itself, hardly nonsense Probably not, but, since I never said this, it is not applicable here. Cause and effect have nothing to do with its properties or lack of property No, your describing its effect to physical properties. there is no such thing as a SUBSTANCE of a thought it has none in the first place, it only has affect twords physical actions Why, they are not the same as thoughts It does not matter what produces a thought, the thought still has no substance in reality. besides this if someone points a gun at me I employ the two oldest forms of marshal arts, I scream like a girl and run as quickly as possible. Laugh but it works. while the assalant is recoiling in disgust from your scream, it gives you that split second to make your escape. like the smoke from an octopus I didnt say the mind was independent, I said thoughts were, they are two different things neither is correct. God is existence and thoughts, not the mind, are independent of him because they have no reality . yes he created the mechanism of thought process, but freewill of the individual produces the thought, which then becomes independent of the mind the mind yes, thoughts, no True, but God can comprehend and HEAR your thoughts, the same as you can in your own mind. the mechanism that he created to produce thoughts is not hidden to him. thus the scripture that says, "and Jesus percieving thier thoughts", because he is and was God. this was not possible for anyother than God.Lets take it a step further, jesus did not need in that instance need to evaluate or comprehend anything, it was known to him from eternity. god does not comprehend or evaluate points of knowledge, they are apart of him from eternity. If there were ten billion UNIVERSES, every particle of knowledge has always been known to him No and i challenge you to demonstrate otherwise they exist in reality because you see thier effects, they still have no substnace.
He can be in charge and choose to not to control a thought or ones thoughts and remain independent of the conclusions of that thought. His control is manifested in the responsiblity he applies to the thoughts you wish to concieve. he only asks that you contemplate (think) correctly, as relates to his absolute principles. Thoughts dont "GO" OR "REAPPEAR" anywhere, they have no substnace in the first place. they only have reality because your mind can produce this amazing creation, which manifests itself in CONTEMPLATION or actions. God holds us accountable for thoughts, because he has endowed us by being created in his image, THINKING
It makes perfect sense Your making stuff up, I never said he did any of this, as a matter of fact, I said just the opposite he did in Christ Jesus, but you are disregarding that as well.. Whos is it that is coping out? Its neither as you have described it, youve misrepresented it again.EAM

first let me apologize to IANO and Jaywill here, two masterful expositors, artisans of no little character and talent. Especially that last post by jaywill, that is a piece of art. if you pay no attention to my intimations please read thiers carfully and try an comprehend what is being communicated by them. I hope this detour has not taken the discussion to far off track. My purpose is to emphasis the weight and responsibility involved in free moral choice in connection with the doctrines of heaven and hell.To Onifre. every position or belief assumes its premises, depending on the amount of information that can be brought to bare on its conclusions. the existence of of God certainly falls within this category., ie if God exists then it would follow that nothing could exist outsideof him, otherwise he could not truely be called God. the existence of God is not a logical contradiction and is therefore a logical demonstratable proposition. In other words nothing prevents it form being resonable or LOGICAL. Enough said I hope, this really to simple to miss.This thread I believe was assuming his existence, because it refernced his character in the expressions of heaven and hell, which assumes his existence too, from a common source, namely the Old and New testaments Only because, your not paying attention. if you dont like the expression "outside of existence", then I will limit it to nonexistent. A quality with no real susbstnace could be considered outside existence itself, hardly nonsense Probably not, but, since I never said this, it is not applicable here. Cause and effect have nothing to do with its properties or lack of property No, your describing its effect to physical properties. there is no such thing as a SUBSTANCE of a thought it has none in the first place, it only has affect twords physical actions Why, they are not the same as thoughts It does not matter what produces a thought, the thought still has no substance in reality. besides this if someone points a gun at me I employ the two oldest forms of marshal arts, I scream like a girl and run as quickly as possible. Laugh but it works. while the assalant is recoiling in disgust from your scream, it gives you that split second to make your escape. like the smoke from an octopus I didnt say the mind was independent, I said thoughts were, they are two different things neither is correct. God is existence and thoughts, not the mind, are independent of him because they have no reality . yes he created the mechanism of thought process, but freewill of the individual produces the thought, which then becomes independent of the mind the mind yes, thoughts, no True, but God can comprehend and HEAR your thoughts, the same as you can in your own mind. the mechanism that he created to produce thoughts is not hidden to him. thus the scripture that says, "and Jesus percieving thier thoughts", because he is and was God. this was not possible for anyother than God.Lets take it a step further, jesus did not need in that instance need to evaluate or comprehend anything, it was known to him from eternity. god does not comprehend or evaluate points of knowledge, they are apart of him from eternity. If there were ten billion UNIVERSES, every particle of knowledge has always been known to him No and i challenge you to demonstrate otherwise they exist in reality because you see thier effects, they still have no substance.
He can be in charge and choose to not to control a thought or ones thoughts and remain independent of the conclusions of that thought. His control is manifested in the responsiblity he applies to the thoughts you wish to concieve. he only asks that you contemplate (think) correctly, as relates to his absolute principles. Thoughts dont "GO" OR "REAPPEAR" anywhere, they have no substnace in the first place. they only have reality because your mind can produce this amazing creation, which manifests itself in CONTEMPLATION or actions. God holds us accountable for thoughts, because he has endowed us by being created in his image, namely THINKING.
It makes perfect sense. Your making stuff up, I never said he did any of this, as a matter of fact, I said just the opposite he did in Christ Jesus, but you are disregarding that as well.. Whos is it that is coping out? Its neither as you have described it, youve misrepresented it again.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Assuming he exists, his Spirit make-up, whatever that maybe, eternal in character This is ofcurse the unique nature of pure thought, love, hate, anger. All of these proceed from a thoughprocess, yet have nearly no reality, that is no substance. Think about it (no pun intended), you areformulating ideas in your head as we speak, but the thoughts have no real existence as we knowexistence, a truely amazing process. thought nearly has the property of bring and not being at the sametime Undul;y influences are irrelevant to the fact that every choice is made on some evidence outside of onesperson or character. This idea that pressure makes a choice not a choice is nonsense at best. a personhas as much choice not to exercise a choice at to exercise it, this latest attempt to make undulyinfluences as an excuse to excuse the ide of choice are simply silly. Yes, and according to God yes Think about it. You cant create the way God can. he can create a mechanism from his essence that hasthe ability to think and make decision that while the mechanism is a part of his essence, the thought itproduces is not, even though he can KNOW it, resond to it and reward or punish it. it is reinforced andsustanined by freewill Actually most christians would not agree with this idea. While everything is gods essence, not everythingis created in Gods exact image. Physical properties and animals are created by Gods power, thus byGods essence, but there is a sense in which man or humans are created in his image specifically, spirit,mind and thought Capable of doing evil and actually doing it are two different things,correct? As unpleasent as it may seemto you an eternal, ominiscient, being would not be able to use anything besides himself as a standard andwhy would he need to, there is nothing more than eternity an complete existence in ones self.You asked for a logical explanation of such matters, probably from a biblical perspective. It is straightforward and inexcapable as an explanation, unless you percieve the universe by itself as all there is, thennothing in the scriptures matters anyway, correct? I dont pretend to know all the eternal consequencesfor sin, only that as a logical proposition it is really inexcapable, if one accepts the existence of God Observable, testable, experimental, containg substance. Yes exacally, and you can hear its abstract property in your own mind, which makes it both real andunreal at the same time. It is the only thing in existence with this nature Why would you need anything apart from absolute existence and absolute morality. You expressionsseem to indicate you would be looking for something else, what and why would you need anything else?
What else is there besides eternality. It seems there is no way to avoid this conclusionwhat do you use as a measuring rod as to what constitues an 'ATTROCITE? Some positions can be carried no further than thier logical conclusions. Your questions concerning gods judgements and punishments, if concieved from the scriptures and put in logical fashion will involve a type of logical absolutness, so to speak. there is nothing you can offer to set aside these conclusionsEAMEdited by AdminModulous, : Fixed quote tags

DA writes:Whoa, I think we just made history here at EVC, two opposing sides are in agreement on a point, thatsgreat. I was realating this to the topic simply to demonstrate that God is indepenent of ones thought asa result of thier freewill, another amazing creation. Wow, progress is a many spendored thing. Whoa, even more progress here. I would agree in these instances. Again more agreement, this has to be some kind of record.
In the instances you are dealing with extreme and fringe situations that could influence ones decision. God nor the courts would hold these individuals accountable probably in such extreme situationshowever, if I could point out just one example where these types of situations dont exist, it woulddemonstrate that freewill actually does exist.i would point as well that making no decision in a situation where out side stimuli is present is alsomaking a decision. In other words, freewill can exist and is real whether a decision is made or not.Again, when dealing with absolute rule in the form of omniscience, IF YOU BELIEVE IN IT, leaves you nological alternatives. One has no other means on which to base a decision, other than to IGNORE the forceof that logic and ignore the principles set out by omniscience. Indirectly atleast, it seems you havechosen that path.If heaven and hell are a problem for you from a LOGICAL standpoint, be happy with your decision andmove forward, like Carl SaganIf nothing else here you seem to be remotley OBJECTIVE, which is a very good trait and I dont mean to indirectly imply others arentEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Oni writes:This is simply to easily done, but it is not necessary here. My intimation was that morality from anobjective omniscient standpoint is a simple straight forward logical proposition, that cannot bechallenged in any serious manner, that is assuming he DA was speaking about and using the samesource of the scriptures to mount his acusations against God. My illustration about the existence of Godis the exacally the same Sure belief CAN BE seperate from logical propositions and conclusions, but that does not mean a logicalproposition and conclusions cannot be demonstrated to be accurate, given enough evidence in the formof logical information twords a conclusion. Your being to restrictive with the word belief, the dictionarynotwithstanding, my belief can be rooted in the best possible logical deductions available, which rendersthe conclusion believable, whether it is proved or not. This is really funny. Your asking me to provide you with objective evidence for something I DONTBELIEVE HAS SUBSTANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE, how can I do that ?(laughing really hard while writing) Butwe both know they are real in a sense, because we can hear them in our minds and see thier effects inaction, but the affect is not the thought itself.I didnt say they dont exist I said they have no substance, or appear to not have substance.Secondly, I tole you that I simplified my response to NO SUBSTANCE, verses OUTSIDE EXISTENCE, senseno substance would be like not really existing. Nope, these are the processes that produce a thouhgt, look carefully at the words in the definitions. Athought cannot be described or captures as you would a picture. if a thought has substance in reality itshould be avalibe to translated into visual stimuli. My guess is that it cant be. but what do I know Im justa bag of hammers. Really? duh, thats the whole point, but I can hear them cant you? great, now explain to me how you hear the words in your mind. Explain the action that creates and letsyou hear them as if you were being spoken to. Youve only explained the process which leads to thethought, not what the thought is, nor have you showed the substance of the processes end result, thethough itself I didnt say it happens outside this process, I said the thing it produces (a thought), the end result of theprocess has no substance, or it seems to have none. if it does show me a thought, or simply tranfer athought into images. if it has substance you should be able to do this with no problem, correct? Ohyeah thats science fiction I assumed by spoken words you mean Audible noises from the vocal cords. If you mean the word "Blue"as spoken by a mouth, then NO, it has no substance in reality, other than a contrived definition then explain how you hear the thoughts in your mind. If as you suggest here, that is all thoughts are, anEFFECT processesd by your body, the body is producing something, an abstract idea that is heard andwhich has no substance, yet produces cause and effect, after the chemical process is complete the mind produces an abstract idea, that is a result of the process, that I can hear and act upon. if theyare not independent in some sense, it should be easy enough to show the properties of the thought ortransfer them into images, somehow, correct? Then reproduce it, show me its properties, show me the end result of the process yes but it has no substance that is identifiableWhos Ringo? god created freewill to regulate thouhgts. freewill and thoughts are abstract concepts with no substance,much like your arguments, ha ha, just kidding. God does not regulate this part of his essence, eventhough it is under his essence, but not his mind. absolutley no contradiction Creating freewill and giving it is not the same as controling it Your to smart of an individual to see that neither of these explain the CONCEPT of freewill. You would dobetter in trying to explain why freewill is not freewill
No.1 wrongNo.2 wrong I f you are going to question the motives of the God of the Bible, Jesus whoever, then talk about the motives and behavior from the same source you derive your complaints. If you want to talk about whether he actually exists find another thread. Here it is being discussed whether Heaven and Hell can be justified from a Biblical and logical standpoint assuming he exists in the first place.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Oni writes:Your last post was very through and very funny, I mean that in a nice way ofcourse, I will get to it and DAs progressively today, sorry for the delay, very busyEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

ONI writes:I never said audiblyDo you mean to tell me you cant hear in some fashion, your thoughts. Oh that right you said it was an illusion. Hold on a minute, lets examine that thought (No pun intended) I already have explained, and not explained what is not explainable I cant explain something that has no substance or obvious properties, yet is something that exists because I can hear it and react to itTake this in the spirit it is intended in the spirit of deeeeebate and funYouve heard the expression, "When you cant dazzel them with brillance, baffle them with B...S..."I think that is what is taking place here.It is flat irrelevant where the thought takes place, before during or after, the PROCESS produces an abstract idea or concept that is notible and verifiable by my mind, heard in my head and acted upon as if it had actual substance and yet it appears to have no substance of its own, even as a part of the process.To drive this point home, you have now admitted that what you hear in your mind is an illusion. To avoid the obvious conclusion that you are hearing something in your mind, in some manner, first you laugh at this OBVIOUS occurance, then you classify it as an illusionNow since you are the man that always requires OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for things, I would ask you to provide evidence that what you KNOW you are hearing, is actually an illusion and not a product of the thought process. If on the other hand it is a part of the physical process, exacally how does this illusion work? Where excally in the PROCESS does this happen, identify it for us with OBJECTIVE evidence and identify this self-proclaimed illusionWouldnt an illusion in this instance be something that is obvious yet with no apparent substanceIllusion or not, you have now demonstrated my point that an idea (thought) is without any substance as we know substance and it certainly appears to beHow can what you are hearing (and I never said audibly) in your mind be an illusion and still apart of the very complicated chemical process. So is it an illusion or not and how specifically does this illusion occur?I think you have your work cut in trying to explain HOW, rhis ILLUSION takes place. Now remember it wont be enough to repeat the chemical process as you have,to which I pretty much agree, show me how, where, why when and what this illusion is or is not.Can you really show me the properties of an ABSTRACT IDEA, this should be interesting. I THOUGHT about it and , not at all, am I wrong, because you havent explained the properties of an abstract idea yet, youve just said they were an illusion, which i believe is an abstract idea, which by the way, I can hear in my mind.Didnt you learn anything from Bruce Almighty, just to many prayers (thoughts)to handle at once Thats the point ONI, I cant explain it or deduce it, or analyze it, but its there nonetheless. Now if you can just explain this "illusion", with no real substance, we can close the case on this mnystery Close the case and solve the mystery for us Yoda Your not being objective for me or your readers. hey everybody else, reading these posts, please raise your hand if you dont hear your thoughts in some fashion we dont understand I love discussing this one more than the thought one. Just keep in mind that God is all there is in existence, that is, everything is God material or God substance, except an absract thought or concept, which is a result of substance, with no substance, yet a reality of its own.Heavy dudeEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Jaywill writesOni writes:Working on a response to your last post, but Im having a hard time HEARING what you are saying,since its not audible, its only in written, computerized words. Stop it EAMEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Son let me explain something to you that is fundamental to debate. I am claiming it has no substance, itwould therefore be a nonsensical idea to show you what that substance may be, since I dont believe ithas substance, yet has existence of some type. Now you can refer to it as a physical process or thehearing of it as an ILLUSION if you wish, but you would be obligated to provide OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE tothis contention.Now I mean by substance anything , verifiable from a touch and see experience, something that can betested in a testable way. I cant believe you dont know what I mean by substance. If I am wrong show me a thought or why what I am hearing is an illusionEAM writes:Oni writes:So if you are saying you are hearing your thoughts, (which you just implied)but it is not audible, how isthis happening, where is it and what is it. Identify the part of the process without telling me it is anillusion. If it is an illusion how does it work, to produce an abstract idea and identify that part in thePROCESS for me. Dont just keep telling me its there.You have worked yourself into a position you know isimmposible I do agree that it is apart of the process, but there must be something more in an abstract form. Nowwatch this, if Im wrong, and its only a physical process, exlusively, you should be able to PINPOINT theTHOUGHT ITSELF and explain, why and where, when you HEAR IT, it is only an illusion, where in theprocess does the illusion take place and what is the, ILLUSIONARY EXACT POINT and how does it happen.Please explain Yoda, this should be no problem since its all a physical process. I did My simple friend, if I knew this there would be no mystery or question on my part. But to answer yourquestion directly, its called an ABSTRACT THOUGHT. Again if I am wrong show it to me in your elaborateexplanations Weeeeell, I never...... Does this illusion of hearing happen as a result of the physical process, if it does could you pleaseidentify it in the process for me, along with the abstract thought If you didnt mean it was an illusion, as apart of the process, what did you mean, where does the illusion take PLACE?I suspect you cant follow the debate because you are making statements you cant support, but hey wewill overlook that if you are willing to move forward. Did You HEAR me audibly, just then? ThIs would be your responsibility not mine, Ive already told you I dont know what it is or how it works, II can only tellyou that it is there and I can hear it and respond to it. If it is not something else, PINPOINT IT for me , show it to me from your very scientific methodology, Ill wait as long as you need me to.We all know thoughts exist, we just dont know how or what they are exacally. God evaluates us from them and holds us accountable for them. it is an unbelievable process"the word of God is quick powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword......"." and is a decerner of the THOUGHTS and INTENTS of the Heart (mind} HebrewsEAM

ONI writes: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 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 no type that we are aware of. 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 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. 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? 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 upyes 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 meansEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.