What is God’s Heaven or plan at the end? Would you like it?

quote:

---

Most theistic believes(did you mean "beliefs"?) are unverifiable, and so their truth or falsity is relative.

---

I must admit to not understanding how a belief being unverifiable renders the truth or falsity of that belief relative.Please explain.

quote:

---

Like many things, rationale (did you mean "rationality"?) is relative to belief.

---

It is my understanding that for something to be a rational belief it must be verifiable. It also must be logical.

quote:

---

The rational remains the same even between these instances.

---

No, there are great differences between the man donating a kidney to his son and the idea that a supernatural being impregnated a human female with His offspring in order for the world to be "saved" in some way after his offspring was tortured and killed.The first scenario can be undertaken with no requirement that any of the parties have faith without knowing exactly what the risks are. They can know exactly what is going to happen to them at every moment along the way. They can speak to others who have gone through the same operation and recovery. There is a great deal of positive, verifiable evidence to work with.By contrast, the second scenario is just one baseless assumption after another. It is based on a lot of "if X is true, and if Y is true, and if A is true, and if B is true, then M is a rational belief."Well, sure. That makes belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn a 'rational belief'. It makes any sort of baseless thing one wants to hang their hat on a "rational belief".In other words, you have rendered the term "rational" to be mostly meaningless. Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

If God gave us all the answers we were seeking, then what would the next generation have to work towards. Nothing. They would have all answers to all questions. The end of human evolution and study.Kind of boring for them.This reality that a god would have to see as Perfect, if He was a God of merit, would need to include things like the uncertainty principle to keep something for future generations to occupy their time.
This also indicates that God has allowed for His reality to evolve with the acquisition of new information. Less boring for Him as well.
We split hairs here and it is likely that our Heavenly host do the same.The only clear consensus I see is Christians, waiting for a God who by definition is Perfect, and can only create Perfect universes, to return to fix what ain't broke.They completely ignore Jesus and His position of redeemer and savior. They wait for another one while still giving power to the one that has passed. Strange.Regards
DL

Bailey Of course it is not. However, the existence of something that we have no evidence for or cannot be given properties that we choose to assign it before we discover that something.
We can reason about the existence of things we cannot see , however, in order to assign any level of certainty{ and science cannot have 100% certainty} to a thing we must first be able to test that thing to see if it exists. Incorrect. As an atheist I do not deny the existence of God I simply ask for evidence of the claims made by others for God. Without fail the evidence is non existent. The only thing that they manage to come up with is "what if" stories as though this were sufficient for any thinking person beyond the age of six.
Barring evidence { I am big on that as it helps in the credibility arena} we cannot say there is a God much less what the properties of that God are ,most especially given the propensity of humans to clothe their agendas beneath the blankets of religion.
I am not certain there is no God. I am quite certain that the God contained in "holy books" is so pitifully inadequate to the task of being a creator for the level of subtlety and beauty that is found in the universe that I pay it no mind.
Since rationality and validity requires evidence{ which is verifiable}then I would say that truth demands such first and foremost. I see you are among the 10% of a brain myth adherent. Sorry to bust the bubble old man but we use 100% of our grey matter just not 100% of it 100% of the time. Ok then. What is love and how do you conceive it? Should we view it as a feeling related to sexual overtones? That would fail to explain the love we have for our children. Is it the depth of feeling we develop over time for another then why do we sometimes feel love quickly for relative strangers? or is that something else?
Or is it along the lines of the combat soldier who's lives are in the hands of friends under the most brutal and lonely conditions humans can set themselves to as demonstrated by WW1 second lieutenant Wilfred Owen in these verses From Apologia Pro Poemate Meo The difficulty probably does not lie with love itself but how we should define love in the first place. Let us see. Hmmm..., because incomprehensibility cannot be rationalized? {I have to refrain from the added Homer Simpson expletive here} Do you comprehend the structure of atoms? Something that is mostly empty space can form a seemingly hard surface or that the atoms that make up your body today are not the ones you were born with? We all know that as we sit in a chair that gravity is pulling down on us yet few realize that the laws of nature explain that the chair we are sitting in pushes back with an equal force in the opposite direction. Is it rational to deny the existence of atoms?
Do you comprehend that on a day with no wind that the molecules in the air about you have an average velocity of 700 miles per hour? Is it rational to deny the existence of air if you do not?
could it be we need not because we have evidence for these phenomena without fully understanding these subtleties? Denying does questioning does not. Of course they did not since we can access{concentrate now} EVIDENCE! for the phenomena which we cannot do for God and that is the point. Why did you consistently ignore this? The rationale of the first can be debated because we are dealing with a factual {if hypothetical} situation. The latter,though, assumes things {God} A prori to the hypothetical situation {also A priori assumptions} neither of which are rational since there are no compelling reasons to hold them in the first place. Again we lack the key in all of this which I emphasized once before and shall do again.
EVIDENCE! As Feynman once said
"They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not, but whether it's going on or not."
Again in matters such as the existence of God we must have evidence. Why is this concept so difficult to you? Of course it is. However when there is no evidence for the rationale it ceases to be rational. Theism consistently fails to provide evidence. Have we got that word down pat yet? But that is the point Bailey. Please prove false to us the existence of either 1} a being who may be timeless, higher dimensional, and all knowingor2}a jar of coagulated jello who may be beaming love throughout the universe. Nor can I. However the fact that drills the deepest into the problem is that we cannot evidence God at all. This does not mean that God does not exist. It does however support the other possibility of there being no God at all.Go figure. We can know nothing and that is the point. Until we can evidence the concept we cannot say at all. The default position is that there is no God up until there is evidence otherwise. LOL. Only if we make a measurement Bailey. That is why the root word in unsubstantiated is substance. But it did so on the basis of experiments that provided that wonderful thing we call EVIDENCE You are putting the cart before the horse though Bailey. We assume the existence of something before we even get consensus as to what that thing make be. However if you have evidence that even implies God then go for it.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

---

"The tragedy of life is not so much what men suffer, but rather what they miss."Thomas Carlyle

Apparently you don't have children. There are some things that can be passed down from generation to generation and some that can not.You can tell your children about Disney World but you can't give them the experience. They have to go themselves.You can teach your children to read, but you can't tell them what to think about what they read. You can teach them to walk, but you can't control where they go.They won't learn from your mistakes, only their own.Every generation has to find its own answers and every individual has to find his own answers. So there's no excuse for God not doling out answers.Since He doesn't tell us explicitly what His plan is, it seems probable that He has none.World without end, forever. Amen.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yessir. Thank you. In any example, to believe an absolute (truth) that cannot be ascertained aids in the development of said belief as a matter of opinion. The uncertainty (or opinion) itself gives credence to faith or hypothesis.
Do you feel an opinion cannot qualify as a belief?
Do you think the truth of a belief is relative to its certainty? If so . It should prove logical to you that the disputability of an unascertained belief renders the truth or falsity of that belief relative to a matter of opinion.. I hope the lack of appropriation, due to haste and callous, in exact terminology didn’t cause your sense of befuddlement.
If so, my apologies. Not necessarily, but either term will serve the essence of the statement. It’s assumable your definition for “rationale” didn’t aid in a clear understanding.
Rationale can be equivocated to an explanation of controlling principles of opinion as well as belief.
Opinions are often unsubstantiated . For something to be a rational belief it needn’t be logical.
Again, rationale can be equivocated to an explanation of controlling principles of opinion as well as belief. Logic itself may be relative to ones opinion, when contemplating an unsubstantiated belief.Although logic and rationale (or rationality) are related, they aren’t synonymous. There’s no reference to these staples of your fundamental Christian fanaticism. If you’ve correlated one you’ve muddied your own waters. Irrelevant. We are not rationalizing the risks at stake. But for the sake of debate...
A surgical (informed) consent is necessitated to perform a kidney transplant. This removes liability in case of an undesired consequence that can be traced to the surgery. Any hope of a positive result is certainly a matter of faith, whether the risks are established or otherwise. Consider .
Faith is the evidence of things hoped for. This is irrelevant, and nonsense. These surgeries , although common, may, at any moment, produce a result other then the one hoped for or predicted. Malpractice insurance gives credence to this fact. Again the waters become muddied by irrelevancy. The tender subject of the rationality of your non-evidential fundamental Christian means of “salvation”, nor the means by which the “Son” of God became into existence, are not being disputed, or even debated in this instance. The underlying reasoning (or rationale) of a sacrifice being made by one in order that another may remain in existence alone is being rationalized in light of the contrast of the tangible scenario (belief) and the hypothetical scenario (opinion). Perhaps this will clarify the term rationale for you.
Rationale is an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena. Rationale can also be considered an underlying reasoning or basis for a belief or opinion.As they are not being discussed, the rationality of your axioms regarding your fundamental Christian dogmatism is irrelevant to the conceptual relation and rationale of a sacrifice being made by somebody in order that another may remain in existence.The equivocation of a tangible and hypothetical scenario is presented simply as a means to provide underlying reasoning, or rationalize, the concept of a sacrifice being made by one in order that another may remain in existence, period. The distasteful, irrelevant, and seemingly bitter introduction of your “immaculate conception” and your torturous murder into the topic have attempted to render the term "rational" to be meaningless. Nonetheless, I have provided you with a concise definition for the term "rationale" free of charge.Be good, nator.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Sidelined . in matters such as the existence of God your demand for evidence has not been met.
And again, I totally respect your opinion and procedural methodology. Our requirements for the standards of evidence to personally establish the existence of G-d are not synonymous.
It’s not that difficult for me. Consider . Agreed. This is nonsense . by definition, evidence is not necessary to establish a rationale, or maintain its rationality.
Please differentiate between logic and rationale.
Rationale is an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, belief, practice, or phenomena. Rationale can also be considered an underlying reasoning or basis for a belief or opinion.No charge. We agree on this for the most part.
There is a reason for this. Your missing it good friend . all we would have to do is prove that this “being” cannot be proved false.
No one can, or has, in thousands of years of recorded history, proved the existence of G-d false.
Until they can or do, that is one axiom on which my belief in His existence is premised.
You demand evidence for G-d’s existence to be proved . I demand evidence for G-d’s existence to be disproved.
A belief whether one method is better or worse will remain relative to a matter of opinion . but they will always remain different.
A jar of coagulated jello may well be beaming love throughout the universe too, but it hasn’t been disputed long enough, nor by any prominent philosophers, so as to strike my interest apparently. Ageed. You have yourself quite a crux .
In that regards, I tend to side more with the likes of Aristotle, Spinoza, Einstein, Maimonides, Aquinas, etc.. Your default position is that there is no God up until there is evidence otherwise.
Consider . the notion of freewill “may be due to the fact that people are conscious of their actions, but not of the causes of their actions” . I will say it one more time because I believe it’s not the duty of a man to give evidence, whether it exists or otherwise, to another man in regards to the existence of G-d .
I totally respect your opinion and procedural methodology.
Again, even though the luminiferous aether is now regarded as a superseded scientific theory and ultimately proved inefficient, and even false, it aided in the formulation of the quantitative connection between light and electromagnetism . one of the great triumphs of 19th century physics.This will remain my steadfast example of how immeasurable “scientific make-believe” can be a means to achieve a greater end. LOL . The luminiferous aether wasn’t evidential. That’s what’s being referenced here. To the contrary, it’s superseded scientific theory . it proved false and impossible to reconcile to the evidence that was being, and has been, collected. It sure did serve its purpose though, even if it was “make-believe”. Wouldn’t be the first time someone ran their cart over with a horse . and I doubt it’d be the last.
We have a consensus of what it may be . a jar of coagulated jello beaming love that holds the universe together and keeps everything from imploding. Be good sidelined . Edited by Bailey, : punct.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Sure we can and it’s done quite often in science. I’m sure you could locate an expansive list of examples. Consider the aether once more; even though it eventually proved impossible to reconcile, it was assigned properties in the mean time. When the existence of these assumptions, whether properties have been assigned or otherwise, is finally verifiable it becomes evidence. And in contrast, when the existence of the assumption is proved to be impossible or illogical it’s considered a superseded scientific theory. Many times a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated, yet is considered as an initial necessary consensus for theory building or acceptation, is scientifically referred to as an axiom. In many contexts, "axiom," "postulate," and "assumption" are used interchangeably. Agreed. Nor can faith. Your uncertainty in regards to the existence of God, will not somehow cause Him to desist existence if He indeed exists. In this instance, your belief, in regards to your uncertainty of the existence of God, need not be true or even verifiable to be rational to you, correct?Or due you feel uncertainty does not qualify as a belief? Italics and paranthesis added for emphasis and clarification.
I am equally dismayed with the ever so popular agenda cloaking techniques. Although Scripture remains one of the closest means by which any faith based evidence can be even postulated, I am probably close to equally disenfranchised with the inconsistent ability of people to reflect the true design and nature of G-d. Rationality and validity aren’t synonymous. Rationale can be equivocated to an explanation of controlling principles of opinion, and opinions are often unsubstantiated .
I would agree that “truth” and validity requires evidence. Should we be uncertain of the existence of love ?Perhaps when we have assigned love its relevant properties based on factual evidence we will be closer to defining G-d. Rationale can be considered an underlying reasoning or basis for an opinion. Must all underlying reasoning in regards to an opinion be understood (or comprehendible) to exist? DOE!! I like that rationale. The perplexity of the universe, and these phenomena themselves, evidenced or not, give sway to the credence of a creator G-d for many, scientists and laymen alike, without fully understanding the subtleties. I’m not sure what your trying to convey here.
But I’ll take a stab .
Denying the questioning of something you cannot fully comprehend causes mental atrophy and scientific sloth as well. Your missing it sidewinder .
Whether we have evidence or not, the phenomena still exists.
Before the properties of electromagnetism were established in 1864, the phenomena had been occurring for G-d only knows how long. No pun intended.
I must admit, I’m at a loss as to what, “for the phenomena which we cannot do for God” means.
Ima gonna givita stabaggin,
I think you are trying to reaffirm your position that you do not have any scientific evidence to institute a credence in the existence of a G-d.
If that’s right . I didn’t, and am not trying to ignore it.
I totally respect your opinion and procedural methodology. Rationale can be equivocated to an explanation of controlling principles of opinion as well as belief.
Opinions are often unsubstantiated.
Why do you keep ignoring this??
EVIDENCE IS NOT REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH A RATIONALE, WHICH BY DEFINITION CAN BE AN UNDERLYING REASONING OR BASIS FOR AN OPINION!!
The underlying reasoning (or rationale) of a sacrifice being made by one in order that another may remain in existence alone is being rationalized in light of the contrast of the tangible scenario (belief) and the hypothetical scenario (opinion). The equivocation of the tangible and hypothetical scenario is presented simply as a means to provide underlying reasoning to the concept of a sacrifice being made by one in order that another may remain in existence, period.
Cont..Edited by Bailey, : punct.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

1) What on earth led you to believe I am a fundamentalist Christian?2) I like to think that I have a decent reading comprehension ability. I did get a nearly perfect score, years and years ago, on the verbal portion of the SAT. Nevertheless, even after careful reading of your reply to me, I still don't have a clue what the heck you are trying to say, overall. I get the general idea that you disagree, but if asked to put why you disagree in my own words, I wouldn't be able to do it.Perhaps a bit less of the flowery prose, a lot less assumption about what my position is, and in general, much more simple, clear explanations of your position would help my obviously waning reading comprehension powers.

I have 4 children thanks and i tell them the truth as I see it. Including the reality of God.The other truths and how God fits into their reality I cannot do much about.
My duty is to try to decrease the mistakes they might make.This same duty is what brings me here.
Religion , It can be said is carried from generation to generation. How many are in a certain religion just because of tradition. Many I would think. Perhaps the majority of adherents.Regards
DL

But truth is not. Every generation has to learn its own truth.You haven't responded to my post at all. You made the claim that God doesn't give us "the answers" because we could pass them on intact to our children. I countered that we can never pass on "truths" to our children, so there is no excuse for God not to give "the answers" one generation at a time.I also suggested that God's reluctance/failure to give "the answers" might be an indication that He doesn't have any - i.e. that He doesn't have a "plan". (That was my attempt to steer toward the topic.)Edited by Ringo, : Changed verb from "can" to "is" to correspond with quote.Edited by Ringo, : Changed "their" to "there".

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Nator, I’m fairly certain this matter is off topic . “What is God’s Heaven or plan at the end? Would you like it?”. You brought your own fundamentalist Christian baggage into the post . it wasn’t relevant to the discussion then, and it doesn”t seem relevant now. Your position, unless it has bearing on the topic, is irrelevant as far as I am concerned, period, and I don’t mean this in a harsh way. Your certainly entitled to your position on G-d, whatever it may be. I'm empathetic. Although, by comparison to many others on this forum, the post is a simple read. Nevertheless, I do tend to over articulate occasionally. I’ll give you that. As they apparently don’t prove effective anymore, you may consider disregarding your old SAT scores and at least touching up on your reading / verbal comprehension abilities in a modern arena other than online forum. Consider...a rolling stone gathers no moss. Some of your definitions have proved inefficient and that may aid in your struggle to make sense of things. Matters will be simplified as much as possible when replying to you. I’m able to produce posts on a basic reading level. In light of your situation, a note shall be made to refrain from using big words such as rationale, disputability, unascertained, appropriation and such, whenever possible. Let's try, together, to keep things on topic,
Thanks for the exchange .
Be good nator.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Hopefully your reading comprehension is up to this: Take your smug superiority and cram it up your ass. We can all recognize gibberish when we read it, thank you very much. I doubt it. You're certainly not able to reason on a basic level, or any apparent level. Perhaps if you used those words correctly, it would be better. Of course, then it would be immediately obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about.Seriously, if there's one thing I can't abide, it's people who act like every idle thought of theirs is a treasure that must be hoarded and concealed behind a smokescreen of obfuscatory nonsense. Bailey - you're simply not that smart. And we're not very likely to esteem the intelligence of someone who refuses to just come out and say what they mean.

See how Crashfrog just wrote?I understand him perfectly.Please write more like Crashfrog....or Ringo, or Archer, or Percy, or RAZD, or Omniverous, or anglagard, or Coragyps, or Trixie, or any one of a number of posters on this forum who can express themselves, well, much more clearly that you do.

Daaaaang crash frog.
Yur an animal. I didn’t know ya had it in ya. I must admit, I’m a lil’ sad you think this of me. For one, you have no idea of my background. Secondly, I’ve declared openly on numerous occasions that I’m mildly retarded. On the other hand, I’m a lil’ flattered too. Although, until recently, I haven’t participated . I feel back at home. That being said, obfuscation, arrogance, and sarcasm seem to be a touchstone of this forum. I thought I was adapting nicely. I don’t mean serious insult to anybody, whether they deserve it or not. Your, and my, and everybody’s displays of smugness and taunting, from time to time, are all pointless and childish (as well as very amusing). I hope I haven’t pissed you and nator off past the point of reconciliation. I’d hate to lose any of you folks. And I’m not kidding. The variety of personality and discussion at EVC is more than refreshing to me. Thank you for the formal initiation.And when I say this, I’m not being a smartass, I mean it .
Be good crashfrog.

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Gotcha...

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary