Do you believe in God?

[MatskiMonk]

OK, let's grant for a minute that God did it. What did God make that "something" out of?

I assume you're sticking with "something" as the thing that "something" was made out of. Fair enough, I applaud your willingness to go with "I don't know."

So, what was the something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made of?

And what was the something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made out of something made of?

Of course, the obvious, and most oft-provided solution is that at one point, there was indeed nothing. God created the first batch of something that begat all future batches of something.

OK, who made God?

Who made the God that made God?

I'm sure you see where that is headed...

I don't think the concept of something existing for an infinite amount of time is much easier for the human brain to comprehend than creating something from nothing. One of the two must be true, and both have pretty deep consequences.

 

[Danoff]

"Theories" Okay, you haven't proven that your theory is true. Yet have you to prove that Religion is true. So Christianity is merely a Theory as well. Don't call it a myth.

Scientific theories fit the available evidence. Religion does not, it's mythology.

 

[mistersafeway]

Isn't it possible by believing in him, makes him real?

Nope. That's not how reality works at all, beliefs have been proved wrong by simple scientific experimentation in the past, why would God be any different? Scientists, at least modern ones, don't believe that something is true before they set out to prove it, and while it may (may as in I don't know) have been the case that scientists long ago would believe something before they set out to prove it, the exchange of knowledge wouldn't have been widespread enough that enough people would believe it to make reality change accordingly.

Or, simply, believing something doesn't make it true.

Unless you live on the Discworld.

Edit: I should say, all evidence points the other way, because it's the same as religion, non-falsifiable, and just comes across as religious nonsense to say 'believe, because you can't prove me wrong'.

 

[huskeR32]

Isn't it possible by believing in him, makes him real?

Is it?

 

[Exorcet]

I specifically said that things can't come from nowhere, so we can't come from nowhere. We don't just appear here. There's no possible way. Hell, if that was the case, I could make all the money I need appear right in front of my face.

Well actually, it could be possible to have the ability to create something while failing to utilize the ability. Flight was always possible. No one was able to fly until the 1900's due to a lack of knowledge.

Well I didn't say anything like that, so...

As for my reasoning, I really do believe there is a God. Without one, we wouldn't be here. It's not like we could just appear on the Earth. Someone put us here. Also, I know people who have had experiences with God, and with heaven, but that's not something I'm getting into.

That is what you said. You say us just appearing is impossible. Before this you said someone put us here. What makes the latter more plausible?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Thank you for putting that across in a manner than is far clearer than you have managed in the past.

Your welcome.

would however have to raise concern in regard to the example you have used of playing Gran Turismo, you see while I understand where you are coming from it doesn't work as an analogy. GT is falsifiable, it is a directly share-able with others and can be captured and displayed in a falsifiable form. None of these factors can be said to be true for the 'spirit' you describe, rather part of the core you seem to be describing requires it to be impossible for these factors to be true for it. .

Granted, while not exactly the same, what I refer to is available to anyone at anytime.
There is no way to test it out, its all or nothing basically, so obviously the seriousness factor is very different.
It can only be referred and described from testimony, until one recieves it for themself.

Now the following is not intended to be a dig or insulting, so please do not take it in that manner. From the description and explanation you have given it strikes me that a closer analogy would be that of conditions such as schizophrenic disorders, manic depression and psychosis, and the auditory hallucinations that can come with them.

Well, that could be consistent with a carnal analysis.
Since therein is no established category, for spiritual phenomenon.

don't doubt for a second that this is a reality for you, but I have to be honest when I say that I hold serious reservations in terms of dismissing any and all causes for it out of hand (i.e. those outside of the 'divine').

Well that doesn't surprise me.
Its a reality for literally millions of people, past, present, and future, not just me.

Once again I see your point and thank you for more clearly laying it out, I however disagree at all levels with it.

Your welcome once again, and thats certainly your privilege.

There is more out there, that doesn't mean that science (knowledge) can't answer it.

Doesn't mean it can either.

However, you do not have to have illness to study it, to understand it, or even to empathize.

To some extent, thats correct.
But to know what it is to have it, you must have it yourself.

They are differentiable, but I wouldn't call them separate. Where do you think your spirituality occurs if not your psyche?

The psyche is of the mind, and a separate part from the spirit.

 

[mistersafeway]

Granted, while not exactly the same, what I refer to is available to anyone at anytime.There is no way to test it out, its all or nothing basically, so obviously the seriousness factor is very different.It can only be referred and described from testimony, until one recieves it for themself.

We're talking about a physical thing in the case of Gran Turismo, so it's not like God at all, more like The Bible. Let's try it with that in mind.

Gran Turismo is the ultimate truth, and it describes a state of being one can acquire if one only believes*.

*And, in certain cases, pays Kazunori Yamauchi, or his successor [or earthly representative] 10% of their money for life.

No, that just sounds like one huge, crazy scam... 💡

 

[Scaff]

"Theories" Okay, you haven't proven that your theory is true. Yet have you to prove that Religion is true. So Christianity is merely a Theory as well. Don't call it a myth.

You are mixing up the common colloquial use of 'theory' with the scientific use of 'theory', the common use of the term 'theory' is actually incorrect and people should be using the term 'hypothesis'.

A scientific theory is the model that fits all of the laws we have on a subject, scientific theories sit above laws.

Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses, and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence.[23] However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[24] Scientific theories are broader in scope, and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources, and may contain one or several laws.[25]


Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact.[28][29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

So no Christianity (or any religion) is not a theory at all (not even close), at best its a hypothesis, but the description of myth is in my opinion closer.

Why continue believing in it? Well, isn't it possible, that God is real? That we created his image, not vice versa?
Isn't it possible by believing in him, makes him real?

Do you maintain that position for all other gods? What about Santa or unicorns?

No critical mass of belief exist that then causes anything to exist, doesn't matter how hard you try.

 

[Imari]

Let me digress a little. Atheists; what do you think happens after we die? I don't know about you, but turning into nothingness isn't the most pleasant thought.

The answer is: we don't know.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So the personal spirit is the mind, emotions, intellect, psyche, reasonings, philosophy, logic, desires, etc. Right? Because that's what gives you consciousness and free will.

According to science.
But as already mentioned science does not recognize its existence.
The spirit is connected to the mind, but is a seperate part.

The answer is: we don't know.

I must say, I appreciate your honesty.
Like many other questions and mysteries that confront the life of man, they are yet to be confirmed.

BTW all of the references to Unicorns and Spagetti monsters and such, are wholly irrelevant, since they hold no consequences for me one way or the other.

Unlike the God of the Bible, wherein if he does exist, huge and irreversible consequences are involved for everyone.
Its irrelevant as well, who made him or where did he come from.
Is he who he says he is? Thats the only relevant question.

When you get your tax bill from the government, is it relevant, where the government came from?
Hardly, the only relevance is, you better pony up the money.
Why? Likewise serious consequences, thats why?

Since this reflects the universal law of exchange, it is reasonable that if God is who he says he is, there would be some expectations involved. Does your life have value? Obviously the answer for the rational person, is yes.

So, it is consistent and correlatable, that would be the case.

 

[Exorcet]

According to science.
But as already mentioned science does not recognize its existence.
The spirit is connected to the mind, but is a seperate part.




I must say, I appreciate your honesty.
Like many other questions and mysteries that confront the life of man, they are yet to be confirmed.

BTW all of the references to Unicorns and Spagetti monsters and such, are wholly irrelevant, since they hold no consequences for me one way or the other.

Unlike the God of the Bible, wherein if he does exist, huge and irreversible consequences are involved for everyone.
Its irrelevant as well, who made him or where did he come from.
Is he who he says he is? Thats the only relevant question.

When you get your tax bill from the government, is it relevant, where the government came from?
Hardly, the only relevance is, you better pony up the money.
Why? Likewise serious consequences, thats why?

Since this reflects the universal law of exchange, it is reasonable that if God is who he says he is, there would be some expectations involved. Does your life have value? Obviously the answer for the rational person, is yes.

So, it is consistent and correlatable, that would be the case.

The problem here is you're making Christian God more special than he is. If you want to ask if he's real because of the consequence of believing, and you're doing it on that basis (consequence) alone, you need to consider every other god that can become angry with you. This includes the one that sends christians to hell and sinners to heaven.

You can avoid this problem by narrowing down the list, but this requires evidence. As Christian God has no evidence, he actually gets knocked off the list and become irreverent no matter how badly the Bible or anything else says he'll burn you in hell.

A tax analogy, you get a notice from the government about taxes. You also get a notice from the "government agency of taking your money". The latter is a scam run by some guy in a shack. The paper you get from this guy says the agency is real and real punishment will occur if you don't pay, but when you do a Google search and find that the agency doesn't exist (and that the real government exists) you ignore the scam letter and pay the government.

 

[Scaff]

I must say, I appreciate your honesty.
Like many other questions and mysteries that confront the life of man, they are yet to be confirmed.

They do indeed, but would you agree that simply replacing 'we don't know' with anything unfounded is inaccurate?

BTW all of the references to Unicorns and Spagetti monsters and such, are wholly irrelevant, since they hold no consequences for me one way or the other.

OK so what if we make it less flippant and say we are talking about Vishnu?

The exact same claims that you make in regard to a direct and personal connection apply to a massive number of Hindu's, why are they wrong and you right?

Unlike the God of the Bible, wherein if he does exist, huge and irreversible consequences are involved for everyone.
Its irrelevant as well, who made him or where did he come from.
Is he who he says he is? Thats the only relevant question.

That predisposes existence, which is rather fundamental given that its never been objectively proven.

When you get your tax bill from the government, is it relevant, where the government came from?
Hardly, the only relevance is, you better pony up the money.
Why? Likewise serious consequences, thats why?

No.

First its relevant where and how the government comes about and again you are assuming accuracy (and both the tax office and the Bible are full of errors) and once again as an analogy is not valid. Once again an assumption of existence is being used.

If you are wrong then no consequences exist after death.

Since this reflects the universal law of exchange, it is reasonable that if God is who he says he is, there would be some expectations involved. Does your life have value? Obviously the answer for the rational person, is yes.

So, it is consistent and correlatable, that would be the case.

No deity is required for a life to have value and its not rational to claim that one is.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The problem here is you're making Christian God more special than he is. If you want to ask if he's real because of the consequence of believing, and you're doing it on that basis (consequence) alone, you need to consider every other god that can become angry with you. This includes the one that sends christians to hell and sinners to heaven.

From a purely uninvestigated, objective standpoint thats true.
However, from my perspective, he does stand out as completely unique and more credible, from the rest.
In that his claims and explanations, go much further and deeper than others, and more accurately defines every aspect of life as we know it.
In any event, the question still exists, and again invokes a costly miscalc, if true.

You can avoid this problem by narrowing down the list, but this requires evidence. As Christian God has no evidence, he actually gets knocked off the list and become irreverent no matter how badly the Bible or anything else says he'll burn you in hell.

That depends entirely on your standard of evidence.
If your standard is infallible, then your bases are covered.
However, if it is not, then you are at risk for considerable loss.

A tax analogy, you get a notice from the government about taxes. You also get a notice from the "government agency of taking your money". The latter is a scam run by some guy in a shack. The paper you get from this guy says the agency is real and real punishment will occur if you don't pay, but when you do a Google search and find that the agency doesn't exist (and that the real government exists) you ignore the scam letter and pay the government.

The point is, when the official authorities that be, send the bill, you better pay it.
Likewise, the God of the Bible, has clearly claimed he is the authority that be, and a debt is owed to each of us, unpayable, except by one provision. In the event he is who he claims, you will get the bill. But will you have made provision to pay it?

 

[mistersafeway]

From a purely uninvestigated, objective standpoint thats true.However, from my perspective, he does stand out as completely unique and more credible, from the rest.In that his claims and explanations, go much further and deeper than others, and more accurately defines every aspect of life as we know it.In any event, the question still exists, and again invokes a costly miscalc, if true.

Try living in a country where most of the people don't belong to a subset of your religion then claim that.

In the event he is who he claims, you will get the bill.

"He" has not been proven to exist, not even slightly. 'If "He" is who a bunch of long dead simpletons claim he is' would be a more accurate statement.

 

[GBO Possum]

"Theories" Okay, you haven't proven that your theory is true. Yet have you to prove that Religion is true. So Christianity is merely a Theory as well. Don't call it a myth.

I believe that there is an afterlife, I don't believe that God created adam and eve. Being descendants on incest seems pretty messed up. I don't believe that there will be a rapture. I believe in most of the scriptures in the bible.
Why continue believing in it? Well, isn't it possible, that God is real? That we created his image, not vice versa?
Isn't it possible by believing in him, makes him real?

The word "Theory" probably shouldn't be preceded by "merely".

The distance between "Theory" and "myth" is vast.

Examples of "mere" theories include Gravity and Electromagnetism.

 

[Famine]

If you are wrong then no consequences exist after death.

Only if we're right. If it turns out that the Jews, Muslims or Scientologists are right, devout Christians are really in for it.

Let me digress a little. Atheists; what do you think happens after we die? I don't know about you, but turning into nothingness isn't the most pleasant thought.

I don't know about you, but having cancer, being tetraplegic or suffering severe brain damage aren't the most pleasant thoughts - but they still happen.

How unpleasant a thought something is does not make a good reason to believe it doesn't happen.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

They do indeed, but would you agree that simply replacing 'we don't know' with anything unfounded is inaccurate?

No, I wouldn't.

OK so what if we make it less flippant and say we are talking about Vishnu?

The exact same claims that you make in regard to a direct and personal connection apply to a massive number of Hindu's, why are they wrong and you right?

From my perspective, I believe the God of the Bible is more credible, and more intimately knowing.

That predisposes existence, which is rather fundamental given that its never been objectively proven.

No, it's a presupposition.

No.

First its relevant where and how the government comes about and again you are assuming accuracy (and both the tax office and the Bible are full of errors) and once again as an analogy is not valid. Once again an assumption of existence is being used.

Well you can argue that point to both parties, if you like. Good luck.
Once again a presupposition is being used, wherein the end result is the same.
You will be held accountable for the bill.

If you are wrong then no consequences exist after death.

Even if I'm wrong, consequences could still exist, although, they would be unattributable to the cause and effects described.

No deity is required for a life to have value and its not rational to claim that one is.

Thats not what I'm claiming.
I'm saying that if the God of the Bible is who he says he is, then his terms for us are consistent and reasonable,
based on the inherent value of life.

How unpleasant a thought something is does not make a good reason to believe it doesn't happen.

Sad, but very true.

 

[GBO Possum]

<snip>
Thats not what I'm claiming.
I'm saying that if the God of the Bible is who he says he is, then his terms for us are consistent and reasonable,
based on the inherent value of life.

Does this mean you accept that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death? And that it's OK for me to sell my daughters?

There's a whole heap of inconsistent stuff in the bible.

Try this article "40 Problems with Christianity"

And what evidence is there that the "god of the bible" actually said "who he is"? Given the content and limited geography of distribution it's consistent with having been written by men, and shows no evidence of being written by a being capable of building planets, stars, galaxies and universe(s).

Clearly whoever wrote this stuff had no knowledge of the long process of universe creation.

 

[R.S]

I believe in some form of higher or underlying intelligence, some level of intelligent design yes but not in the typical God Bible type sense.
Almost like a Gaia sort of idea, but on a universal scale, not just Earth and certainly not revolving around humans. I would consider that it has no care whatsoever for individuals.

I don't believe in heaven, hell and that stuff because I consider all beings are simply machines developed and shaped by the physical laws and designs created by the 'intelligence'.
IMO we have no purpose or meaning, we are not special, we are mostly no different to any other living organism, difference is that they do not (or do not appear to) overcomplicate their life.

Science, yeah, great stuff (mostly), it would be an attempt to consider yourself special (non-human) to argue with collectively millions of years of thinking from a human perspective by the best human minds.

However the picture of the universe and existence has not at all been completed - the gaps, the unknown I like to fill with my idea of some sort of "other" intelligence, one which I can not and will not detail because that would just be puny human imagination talking - imagination 100% shaped by the sandbox we live in - the known physical universe.

 

[Scaff]

No, I wouldn't.

So your quite happy for anything made up to be used when we don't yet know the answer or do you have a specific 'go to' one, and if so what and why?

From my perspective, I believe the God of the Bible is more credible, and more intimately knowing.

Why?

No, it's a presupposition.

Which is what I was originally typing, but Chrome's autocorrect kind of messed that about a bit. My apologies.

Well you can argue that point to both parties, if you like. Good luck.
Once again a presupposition is being used, wherein the end result is the same.
You will be held accountable for the bill.

In regard to the tax office I have argued over an incorrect tax code/bill and had it correct, and done so on more than one occasion.

In regard to the other what objective means would you suggest I use to start the discussion?

Even if I'm wrong, consequences could still exist, although, they would be unattributable to the cause and effects described.

My error, they could based on the myriad of religions that have existed in the course of human history, however that brings us back to the same question. Why is your one the right one?

Thats not what I'm claiming.
I'm saying that if the God of the Bible is who he says he is, then his terms for us are consistent and reasonable,
based on the inherent value of life.

His terms are not consistent or reasonable. Slavery is not reasonable and the bible is contradictory on that subject, ditto child abuse, rape, etc. All told the value of a life in the bible (and no I do not discount the OT) at times does depend on following the right religion (although this again gets contradicted).

 

[zzz_pt]

BTW all of the references to Unicorns and Spagetti monsters and such, are wholly irrelevant, since they hold no consequences for me one way or the other.

Even the ones found in the bible? There are a few... but this is my favorite:

Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns.


Apparently god believes in unicorns.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Does this mean you accept that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death? And that it's OK for me to sell my daughters?

There's a whole heap of inconsistent stuff in the bible.

Try this article "40 Problems with Christianity"

First off, I would just say, that if someone believes they are in a position, to second guess God, then go ahead, at your own peril.
Personally, besides being extremely dangerous territory, I do not believe I am in a position to do so.
Already knowing my carnal predisposition for imperfection and hypocrisy, I don't believe that puts me in a postion to judge God. Not to mention, such a stance would put me back under the law that I already know I can't keep and render me guilty as charged. No thanks.

However, the acts mentioned, were committed under the law.
The law is a brutal, merciless taskmaster, as evidenced.
Nonetheless, an apparent necessity.
Since no one could say they could live under the law, less it be instituded to prove otherwise.
Not even his covenant people could keep the law.
Additionally, God's plan to provide a savior, revealed in Genesis, had to be preserved, and perhaps some or all of the events of that era, were essential for that progress.
I don't know all the factors involved, so thats another good reason for me to abstain from a critical posture.
Thank God I am under grace, having been afforded, through Jesus Christ.
I'll take that any day.

I'm not even going to attempt to address all of this, since its mostly a hodgepodge of nonsense, he-said, she said, conjecture, innuendo and speculation.
It reads like a book on Nostradamus.

And what evidence is there that the "god of the bible" actually said "who he is"? Given the content and limited geography of distribution it's consistent with having been written by men, and shows no evidence of being written by a being capable of building planets, stars, galaxies and universe(s).

Clearly whoever wrote this stuff had no knowledge of the long process of universe creation.

We are not talking about man's estimates, perspective, or capability, but God's.
Obviously, he would supercede that understanding and time frame.
And it was written by men, moved upon by the Holy Spirit.

Try living in a country where most of the people don't belong to a subset of your religion then claim that.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

"He" has not been proven to exist, not even slightly. 'If "He" is who a bunch of long dead simpletons claim he is' would be a more accurate statement.

Or here.

 

[GBO Possum]

@SuperCobraJet, the Holy Spirit didn't seem to know much about the universe, but I'm sure you can find words to avoid that issue.

So let's just deal with the requirement to put people to death if they work on the sabbath.

Doesn't this require you to kill people? I mean, we don't have laws which ensure this requirement is acted upon, so shouldn't you, as a good Christian, step in and obey the words of your god?

 

[mistersafeway]

@SuperCobraJet, the first point was that western society changed in line with Christian beliefs, so there's no surprise that it matches up with what you see of society. The second part, which part did you mean? The first sentence states the obvious, as does the second. I'll elaborate on the second by saying that they demonstrably knew nothing about science (all science) or history, and couldn't even hide their plagiarism or prevent the many logical inconsistencies in "the word of God" as they wrote it.

Of course, if you mean the way I typed "He", firstly you could have bolded it, secondly that sort of nonsense (God is a man, He can only be a man) should be considered a relic of an unenlightened age. Why does God even need gender? So "He" can masturbate?

 

[Dotini]

@Dotini Enjoy the fishing 👍

Thanks for the kind wishes, MatskiMonk. 👍 We dropped the four pots in yesterday and came up with 13 Dungeness crab this morning, so of course my cousin Karl and I were delighted with the catch!

I'm a little knackered at the moment, so I'll be back in game tomorrow with the juicy stuff on consciousness.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So your quite happy for anything made up to be used when we don't yet know the answer or do you have a specific 'go to' one, and if so what and why?

Well the most accurate substitution that I'm aware of is from those who have made the trip and come back.
Obviously, they are the only ones to have experienced it to some degree.

Why?

Because, it is the only source among those out there that identifies the disease and also provides the cure.
All the others just seem to treat the symptoms.

In regard to the tax office I have argued over an incorrect tax code/bill and had it correct, and done so on more than one occasion.).

Wow, I'm impressed, not generally an easy feat.

In regard to the other what objective means would you suggest I use to start the discussion?.

I'm not sure. Perhaps what you consider is the most glaring error.

His terms are not consistent or reasonable. Slavery is not reasonable and the bible is contradictory on that subject, ditto child abuse, rape, etc. All told the value of a life in the bible (and no I do not discount the OT) at times does depend on following the right religion (although this again gets contradicted).

God didn't institute slavery, man did.
Just another one of his messes, it took years to mostly eradicate. Of which Christianity played a influential role in.
You need to elaborate some on the rest.

 

[Liquid]

God didn't institute slavery, man did.
Just another one of his messes, it took years to mostly eradicate. Of which Christianity played a influential role in.
You need to elaborate some on the rest.

One could argue Christianity also perpetuated slavery for many, many years.

In early Christian cultures and Christian Rome, slavery was part and parcel of everyday life. While it was practiced in all known civilised cultures at the time, 'Christianity' certainly did not do much to counter it. Slavery in the early United States was rife in areas of high religious worship, and many abolitionists did so out of a philosophical or moral principle rather than a religious one.

But, I would argue that individuals helped to end slavery, not a religion as a whole. And I feel the same about those who institutionalised it; some Christians were in favour of slavery, others were against.

I feel it is only fair to talk about religion and slavery if the religion is part of a theocracy or in some way influences the laws of the land. Christian theocracy is the Catholic church, certainly historically, and therefore stands to take the rap for what the Bible says on slavery.

The Old Testament acknowledges slavery as a fact of life and does not prohibit or discourage it.

Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward/

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

Like I said, I don't feel it is correct to say that Christianity helped to end slavery, nor that Christianity, just as a concept, helped to perpetuate it. Individuals did, and many individuals will have turned to the Bible, or the Pope/Rome/Church/Holy Roman Empire, and found that nothing explicitly said slavery was bad.

God didn't institute slavery, man did.

Arguably, man used god's word to institute slavery.

 

[Imari]

Well the most accurate substitution that I'm aware of is from those who have made the trip and come back.
Obviously, they are the only ones to have experienced it to some degree.

You're talking about the afterlife and near death experiences?

The fact that they're largely able to be induced without any actual danger of death is enough to question what is being seen in that situation. I'd be interested to see what common factors, if any, there were between people of different faiths (or no faith) and what they "saw" during near death experiences.

Do they all see the same thing, suggesting that either there's some objective reality there, or at least that all brains respond to those conditions in the same way?
Or do they see what their faith or otherwise has conditioned them to see? Do Christians see the Pearly Gates, do Buddhists see the bardo, and so on?

Without something to indicate that there's some consistency of perception outside of Christians (who have prior biases interfering with any data they produce), I'd be very wary of taking NDEs as actual evidence of a Christian afterlife.

 

[Scaff]

Well the most accurate substitution that I'm aware of is from those who have made the trip and come back.
Obviously, they are the only ones to have experienced it to some degree.

Experience doesn't equal an understanding of why events happen. I've taken acid and hallucinated, they were a reality to me, that doesn't mean I understand the exact bio-chemical interaction occurring. Nor does it mean that I should substitute my own version of what I think and expect it to be considered valid.

Yet that is exactly what you are expecting here, and ever worse you are being subjectively selective which with version of 'I made it up' you accept, based almost entirely on your bias to prove your faith right.

Because, it is the only source among those out there that identifies the disease and also provides the cure.
All the others just seem to treat the symptoms.

Said the followers of every religion ever.

Wow, I'm impressed, not generally an easy feat.

Only because most don't try and don't gather the data and facts before doing so.

I'm not sure. Perhaps what you consider is the most glaring error.

? That doesn't actually answer the question I asked.

God didn't institute slavery, man did.
Just another one of his messes, it took years to mostly eradicate. Of which Christianity played a influential role in.
You need to elaborate some on the rest.

I'm sorry but while Christianity has been a factor in helping with social injustices its also been far more of a factor in perpetuating them.

Pick any one you like, slavery, racism, homophobia, systematic abuse of children, abuse of women, etc. (I can keep going a long way). In almost every case you will find the final standouts to be the devoutly religious, using a broze age lifestyle guide to continue to oppress people.

Look at the two 'sides' in the battle for civil rights in the US, yes religion can claim MLK, but it also has to at the same time accept the KKK.

The bible either fails to condone actions (slavery) or is massively contradictory about actions, as such it is neither consistent and reasonable or based on the inherent value of life, how you can claim that last one with the existence of the OT is beyond me.

I share one of my names with a guy in the OT who was instructed by god to murder anyone who committed apostasy, and take the wives and kids as slaves - the more he did it the holier he got. As a result that name means 'slayer of men', a great title for a heavy metal album, less for someone doing gods work. Keep in mind that these people did nothing but move to another god, and for that death was the answer (no trial - summary execution). That is not reasonable nor based on the inherent value of life.

 

[Dotini]

There are a few 800 lb gorillas in the same room with science which remain unconquered. One is consciousness...

I agree that quite a few of those do exist,

Our consciousness, thoughts and memories are simply chemicals and flows of electrons...essentially particles...

Hi-ho MatskiMonk,
In the quoted Dotini/Scaff exchange which appeared shortly before your post, it was suggested that consciousness remains a problem which science has not solved with satisfaction. In fact there are dozens of competing explanations - variously claiming versions of matter, energy, quantum mechanics, other things or even none of these - and there is no consensus.

Hence it was a surprise to see your clear assertion that it was simply matter which gives rise to consciousness. Please accept this post in lieu of my rather hasty initial reply.

Now I do stipulate that the easy problems of consciousness (representing some ability, or the performance of some function or behavior) can ultimately be described with the materialist concept. Examples of "easy" problems:

• the ability to discriminate, categorize, and react to environmental stimuli;

• the integration of information by a cognitive system;

• the reportability of mental states;

• the ability of a system to access its own internal states;

• the focus of attention;

• the deliberate control of behavior;

• the difference between wakefulness and sleep.

But the problem facing scientists and philosophers is called "the hard problem of consciousness".

Says David Chalmers,
The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect. As Nagel (1974) has put it, there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations: the felt quality of redness, the experience of dark and light, the quality of depth in a visual field. Other experiences go along with perception in different modalities: the sound of a clarinet, the smell of mothballs. Then there are bodily sensations, from pains to orgasms; mental images that are conjured up internally; the felt quality of emotion, and the experience of a stream of conscious thought. What unites all of these states is that there is something it is like to be in them. All of them are states of experience.



Leibniz put it this way,
Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.

Isaac Newton said this,
to determine by what modes or actions light produceth in our minds the phantasm of colour is not so easie.


TH Huxley actually said this,
how it is that any thing so remarkable as a state of consciousness comes about as the result of irritating nervous tissue, is just as unaccountable as the appearance of the Djin when Aladdin rubbed his lamp

--------------------

I'll pause here and hope this doesn't go too much farther, or we might have to start using words like ontology, monism, dualism, etc.