Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

I always get stuck in what seems like an infinite loop of paradox and contradiction when contemplating the concept of God.

I guess that indicates that I'm an agnostic. Or maybe I'm just dense?

Would you agree that related to the concept of God is the concept of a higher form of intelligence which shapes our reality? Such a higher intelligence might be gods and angels, or it might be an AI-driven holographic universe like in The Matrix, or it might be a reality, local or otherwise, shaped by aliens, or it might be a universal consciousness which links and binds all matter analogous to the basic force of gravity. Maybe we simply don't have enough data, experience or wisdom to really know at this point in our evolution?

 

[TexRex]

 

[Dotini]

There was a Dynasty in ancient Egypt which worshipped the Sun. Does it make any sense to worship a star, particularly if it's the one in your very own solar system which is the source your very own existence and sustenance?

<---hint, hint

 

[UKMikey]

There was a Dynasty in ancient Egypt which worshipped the Sun. Does it make any sense to worship a star, particularly if it's the one in your very own solar system which is the source your very own existence and sustenance?

<---hint, hint

Not if your society is sufficiently scientifically advanced to know that it'll come up the next morning whether you worship it or not.

 

[Dotini]

Not if your society is sufficiently scientifically advanced to know that it'll come up the next morning whether you worship it or not.

There were several primitive American Indian tribes which worshipped a particular part of the Milky Way they called "The Path of Souls". It was part of their religion focused on the journey of the soul after death. Like I said, very primitive, and worthy of great scorn from sophisticated suburbanites like us.

 

[TexRex]

 

[TenEightyOne]

At this point I don't care to type much... dust to dust, dead to dead... same concept. See post 21564: "ancient Hebrews had no idea of an immortal soul",

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. The righteous could go through one or two stages of afterdeath and eventually become disembodied, blissful souls, according to texts from the first millenium BCE. We also know that other people from the surrounding regions were equipping graves with plenty of afterlife-ready clothes, weapons, tools and fancy consumables. The concept of an afterlife and an immortal (or a-mortal) soul definitely existed at the time.

The possibility of having that beautiful, eternal happiness taken away from you by sin is a primary driver of religion as social control.

In every sense that one cares about the experience or state of their own death, they have once been dead.

That's the bit I want to jab my finger at! In using the word dead we have to separate things that lose life and things that never have life. It might be a philosophical difference but it's there in language and human thought. @Danoff was not alive until he was alive, the bits that @Danoff is made from were dead (essentially all the matter and protein consumed by his parents that enabled his biological creation followed by the bits he consumed himself)... but @Danoff as a thinking entity could not be dead until he had attained Being Alive. Until he was, he was not. Once he was, he could be referred to as either dead or alive, state depending. I hope it's the latter for a long time, a compulsive feeling driven by our shared humanity.

 

[Outspacer]

The original phrase was written in the bible. You know... religion? God and Adam and Eve and heaven and all that?

To reject it because it was written in the bible is playing the man not the ball - you'd do better to address the meaning of "dust to dust", not the whole bible.

Are you arguing with a straight face that the bible does not have a concept of an immoral soul?

Of course I'm not, that's a straw man argument.

(I presume you mean immortal?)

Unfortunately, you made me look this up, because it sounded ludicrous and I wanted to make sure (since you're so insistent). The use of the word "soul" as you quote here is not the one we think of. They used it more like "people", as in "the ship carried 20 souls". Maybe this is in your link, I went elsewhere to find it. So the idea of an immoral person was not really an OT idea (aside from really extremely long-lived people like Adam and Eve). The OT did however have a concept of a spirit. Your spirit was breathed into you by god, and returns to god when your body dies (and returns to dust). The OT makes reference to the spirit of people returning to the house of god, or the presence of god, and just in general to the spirit returning to god from which it came. This, of course, is exactly what I've been explaining doesn't exist.

So... as you might expect given that it's the bible, there's immoral soul stuff in there. Again, I don't care about the word here (soul in the case)... I care about the concept.

So you accept now that the early books do not include an afterlife as you've been explaining doesn't exist. Why should we argue over what it means when they talk about "spirit returning to god"? It is not any form of afterlife, or there as a notion to provide comfort.

Ecc. 12:7 says, “Our bodies will return to the dust of the earth, and the breath of life will go back to God, who gave it to us.” When God receives His spirit back, our bodies return to the dust of the earth. This is indeed the case, for when life is gone from the body, it decomposes back into the ground. The spirit that returns to God at death is the breath of life. Nowhere in all of God's book does the "spirit" have any life, wisdom, or feeling after a person dies. It is the "breath of life" and nothing more.

In the end, life ceases, and we "return to dust". It's not complicated by other factors at that point. Without an afterlife, it's irrelevant to us or our outcome whether it is God that gives/takes life or not. The concept of "dust to dust" essentially stands on its own.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. The righteous could go through one or two stages of afterdeath and eventually become disembodied, blissful souls, according to texts from the first millenium BCE. We also know that other people from the surrounding regions were equipping graves with plenty of afterlife-ready clothes, weapons, tools and fancy consumables. The concept of an afterlife and an immortal (or a-mortal) soul definitely existed at the time.

The possibility of having that beautiful, eternal happiness taken away from you by sin is a primary driver of religion as social control.

In later texts, sure. That neighbouring regions (particularly Egypt) already had a concept of an afterlife only makes it more remarkable that the earliest books of the OT were so materialistic.

 

[Danoff]

That's the bit I want to jab my finger at! In using the word dead we have to separate things that lose life and things that never have life. It might be a philosophical difference but it's there in language and human thought. @Danoff was not alive until he was alive, the bits that @Danoff is made from were dead (essentially all the matter and protein consumed by his parents that enabled his biological creation followed by the bits he consumed himself)... but @Danoff as a thinking entity could not be dead until he had attained Being Alive. Until he was, he was not. Once he was, he could be referred to as either dead or alive, state depending. I hope it's the latter for a long time, a compulsive feeling driven by our shared humanity.

You're getting hung up on a particular use of the word. I want to talk about the concept of existence or non-existence. From a first person perspective (yours), after you die, how is your existence different than before you were born?

To reject it because it was written in the bible is playing the man not the ball

Context.

you'd do better to address the meaning of "dust to dust", not the whole bible.

Which I did.

Of course I'm not, that's a straw man argument.

So you accept now that the early books do not include an afterlife as you've been explaining doesn't exist.

Except for the afterlife part. Where your spirit (soul) returns to the house of God.

 

[Outspacer]

Context.

Most of it wasn't in existence at the time "return to dust" was written.

Which I did.

I suppose you did, sort of. You did agree that "dust to dust" is referring to the body. So you moved on to 'context'

Is it though?

It sure is. That the bible contains a concept of afterlife is not in question.

Except for the afterlife part. Where your spirit (soul) returns to the house of God.

Except that isn't an afterlife, and spirit does not equate to an eternal soul (again, at the time "return to dust" was written).

 

[Danoff]

Most of it wasn't in existence at the time "return to dust" was written.

"Most of it"? Any bits that are particularly relevant? Or were you just looking for a way to argue.

I suppose you did, sort of. You did agree that "dust to dust" is referring to the body. So you moved on to 'context'

The context of an afterlife being the defining, pivotal, crux of the point... yes. Sorry were you just looking for a way to argue?

It sure is. That the bible contains a concept of afterlife is not in question.

Does seem germane though does it not? Given that it's rather the entire point being discussed. If feel like you're gonna pull a NT rabbit out of your hat here, and I want to save you the trouble by explaining that that would be just looking for a way to argue that completely dodges the point.

Except that isn't an afterlife, and spirit does not equate to an eternal soul (again, at the time "return to dust" was written).

Except that it does, yes. It is the spark of existence, provided by god, and returns to god when you die, and exists in the house of the lord in perpetuity thereafter, as written in the OT.

Edit:

I'd like to bring you back around to the reason we're having this rather boring discussion. The reason is because you claimed that the notion of not existing and then returning to non-existence was championed by the bible (the particular bit you quoted... your entire quote... was Christian btw), because of the concept of the material body.

And this is precisely not what I was talking about. And you know it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In later texts, sure. That neighbouring regions (particularly Egypt) already had a concept of an afterlife only makes it more remarkable that the earliest books of the OT were so materialistic.

Okay, provide some sources please, so we know exactly where you're digging. Kohelet? Olem ha'ba?

Most of it wasn't in existence at the time "return to dust" was written.

I don't think there's any doubt that people of all times were well aware of how earthly bodies decompose. Such knowledge does not preclude the existence of the afterlife. Unless you can show where the Torah says it does.

You're getting hung up on a particular use of the word. I want to talk about the concept of existence or non-existence. From a first person perspective (yours), after you die, how is your existence different than before you were born?

You go from never been to been. In your never been stage there is no idea that you might ever be. When parents talk about the baby they intend to have they arguably aren't even talking about the actual person who will be.

 

[Danoff]

You go from never been to been. In your never been stage there is no idea that you might ever be.

And why does this matter from the point of view of the person who no longer exists. Your consciousness ceases to exist, and therefore does not care whether it has been, because it doesn't exist to care.

 

[PocketZeven]

As a belief, we could say say you are "a bit spiritual" if you really want a label I honestly don't mean that in a mocking way at all.

I definately wouldnt say spiritual. That would bring incorrect assumptions about my personal beliefs. I wasnt looking to be labeled, but I was sharing how I look at religion from my point of view.

 

[Outspacer]

"Most of it"? Any bits that are particularly relevant? Or were you just looking for a way to argue.

Sorry, "most of the bible", in case it wasn't obvious.

How is so-called context relevant which hadn't been written at/around the time of "return to dust"? It just isn't.

Does seem germane though does it not? Given that it's rather the entire point being discussed. If feel like you're gonna pull a NT rabbit out of your hat here, and I want to save you the trouble by explaining that that would be just looking for a way to argue that completely dodges the point.

No, it's not germane to drag in the whole bible when examining the writings/beliefs of a certain group at a certain time. Anything after that time quite obviously has no bearing on what they believed.

Except that it does, yes. It is the spark of existence, provided by god, and returns to god when you die, and exists in the house of the lord in perpetuity thereafter, as written in the OT.

A spark of existence - "breath of life" - is not the same concept as the afterlife you were talking about, not at all. And as I said before, without an afterlife, it's irrelevant to us or our outcome whether it is God that gives/takes life or not.

Also, a spark of existence that enters and leaves is symmetrical - so your notion of being just as dead before life as after still holds.

I'd like to bring you back around to the reason we're having this rather boring discussion. The reason is because you claimed that the notion of not existing and then returning to non-existence was championed by the bible (the particular bit you quoted... your entire quote... was Christian btw), because of the concept of the material body.

And this is precisely not what I was talking about. And you know it.

We've already gone over that, doing so again won't make it less boring. Yes, I was wrong not to use the original Genesis quote to begin with. But that is what's germane - the Judaic concepts at that point in time, when "return to dust" originated it was not tied in with the spirit going on to an afterlife.

Okay, provide some sources please, so we know exactly where you're digging. Kohelet? Olem ha'ba?

Genesis mainly, since that's where "return to dust" originated. The Torah/Pentateuch more generally.

I don't think there's any doubt that people of all times were well aware of how earthly bodies decompose. Such knowledge does not preclude the existence of the afterlife. Unless you can show where the Torah says it does.

I'm not saying that such knowledge precludes the existence of the afterlife, I'm saying the afterlife wasn't part of the message at the time...

The Torah doesn't state "there is no afterlife". But nor does it state that there is... the closest appears to be "gathered to his people", "go to thy fathers" (not father's) and variations on that, but it isn't elaborated on. There's Sheol, but as a place to sleep forever in silence I don't consider that an afterlife (certainly nothing like the same sense as the afterlife described later, spirit rising to heaven and all). I think the neatest way to interpret "gathered to his people" is as joining the others in Sheol, but I am aware that it is interpreted by many (later people) as a hint of an afterlife (with the Sadducees as a notable exception).

 

[Danoff]

A spark of existence - "breath of life" - is not the same concept as the afterlife you were talking about, not at all. And as I said before, without an afterlife, it's irrelevant to us or our outcome whether it is God that gives/takes life or not.

It is an afterlife, it's (as well established as anything) in the OT. Your particular spirit returns to the house of God after dead. In some cases if you're righteous. Anyway the bit you quoted is Christian, so more afterlife then.

Also, a spark of existence that enters and leaves is symmetrical - so your notion of being just as dead before life as after still holds.

Yea I don't remember hearing about the soul or spirit's presence in the house of god, or in heaven, or anywhere, prior to it being breathed into them by God. The idea here is that it's created when they are. And it lives forever.

This, by the way, is pretty middle-of-the-road for religion.

 

[Outspacer]

Your particular spirit returns to the house of God after dead. In some cases if you're righteous.

Do you have a reference to that in the Torah/Pentateuch?

 

[Dotini]

I don't remember hearing about the soul or spirit's presence in the house of god, or in heaven, or anywhere, prior to it being breathed into them by God. The idea here is that it's created when they are. And it lives forever.

This, by the way, is pretty middle-of-the-road for religion.

Enoch visited and described the throne room of God in an amazing vision. (Highly recommended reading!) He was one of only two humans who was supposedly translated to heaven while still alive.

 

[Danoff]

Do you have a reference to that in the Torah/Pentateuch?

Most of the concrete references in the OT are in Psalms. Is your goal here (as usual) to prove that you yourself were right? Or to prove the point that I haven't invented a lack of afterlife? If your goal is to prove that you were right, you shouldn't have quoted a Christian burial prayer only to try to move goalposts beyond the OT. If your goal is to prove that I haven't invented the concept of a lack of afterlife, I happily concede the point.

@Dotini mentions a decent entry.

 

[Outspacer]

Most of the concrete references in the OT are in Psalms. Is your goal here (as usual) to prove that you yourself were right? Or to prove the point that I haven't invented a lack of afterlife? If your goal is to prove that you were right, you shouldn't have quoted a Christian burial prayer only to try to move goalposts beyond the OT. If your goal is to prove that I haven't invented the concept of a lack of afterlife, I happily concede the point.

LOL, why the "as usual"? I don't post here much! Heck, it's only because you wanted to challenge my use of 'dead' and espouse your not so novel idea that we went through any of this.

 

[Danoff]

LOL, why the "as usual"? I don't post here much! Heck, it's only because you wanted to challenge my use of 'dead' and espouse your not so novel idea that we went through any of this.

...and yet in those posts we've gotten to argue about the origination of the phrase "ashes to ashes and dust to dust", "dead", "soul" and "spirit" pretty much, from what I can tell, just for you to try to avoid being wrong.

As you know, I never claimed the lack of an afterlife was novel. So I have no idea why you'd mention it.

I'm not here to score points in some kind of unit measuring contest. I don't care if your posts are always 100% unimpeachably correct. Heck I don't even care if mine are. I'm here for the discussion, and that has proven almost impossible with someone who is trying to write a legal document with every post, and then argue (with no one) about whether there was enough wriggle room in the post clauses to enable a re-interpretation that remains valid.

 

[AUTISTICBOYX]

I definitely believe in a deity, a master, if you will (call it/them God(s)). I'm inclined to think that we live (exist) in a simulation and our habitat is an entropic multiverse predicated on chaotic structures. To our master(s) the perception of time differs to ours in the same way that higher dimensions are hidden for us. For instance, in our linear perception of time, the five billion years for our Sun to burn out could merely be a fraction for our superiors.

 

[Danoff]

I definitely believe in a deity, a master, if you will (call it/them God(s)). I'm inclined to think that we live (exist) in a simulation and our habitat is an entropic multiverse predicated on chaotic structures. To our master(s) the perception of time differs to ours in the same way that higher dimensions are hidden for us. For instance, in our linear perception of time, the five billion years for our Sun to burn out could merely be a fraction for our superiors.

That's a lot of assumption without any evidence or basis. What questions does this master/habitat relationship answer for you? And are you sure that it doesn't yield more questions?

 

[TheGeologist]

I definitely believe in a deity, a master, if you will (call it/them God(s)). I'm inclined to think that we live (exist) in a simulation and our habitat is an entropic multiverse predicated on chaotic structures. To our master(s) the perception of time differs to ours in the same way that higher dimensions are hidden for us. For instance, in our linear perception of time, the five billion years for our Sun to burn out could merely be a fraction for our superiors.

What has led you to this belief?

 

[Vegard]

What has led you to this belief?

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps it's because he doesn't have rocks for brains

Sorry.

That's a lot of assumption without any evidence or basis.

You don't have to study the fields of cosmology and quantum physics for a lifetime in order to find supporting evidence for his hypothesis.

And are you sure that it doesn't yield more questions?

That's kind of the point; as we expand our sphere of knowledge the boundary of nescience expands even more.

For instance, in our linear perception of time, the five billion years for our Sun to burn out could merely be a fraction for our superiors.

Unless time is eternal and space is infinite, in which case it's not even that. That would imply that it wasn't created though so we're back to square one.

 

[Imari]

Please don't take this the wrong way but perhaps it's because he doesn't have rocks for brains

That seems like a really rude answer to a polite question that wasn't even directed at you.

The idea that we live in a simulation is not obvious or trivial. It's an interesting idea, perhaps more interesting than many in this thread in that people who take it seriously can usually discuss it in more detail than "my magic book says so". Unless people degenerate into abuse before the discussion even starts.

 

[Vegard]

That seems like a really rude answer to a polite question that wasn't even directed at you.

It was a joke, he's a geologist.

 

[TexRex]

Original sin...

So we all* bear the burden--at least until we undergo a ritual meant to cleanse us--of supposed acts committed by individuals who came before us however long ago? Bullpucky.

*Well not all of us, of course. There was this one guy who it was deemed should not be seen as flawed like the rabble, so someone decided he was conceived magically by God and therefor not subject to original sin.

 

[Vegard]

I has dawned on me that I'm guilty of making the exact mistake that I'm protesting.

@TheGeologist I'm sorry for being a rude buffoon. You may proceed to stone me if you like.
@Imari Thank you for lending me your perspective.

As you were.

 

[Daz555]

I don't believe in god any longer. I was raised catholic and was a believer but became atheist when I was about 13.

I have many reasons for no longer accepting the god hypothesis and there is no need to go into those here. However I would also add that I don't even want to believe in a supreme, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. Why? Well, if our universe was created by a god then that god would appear to exhibit the behaviours of a raving psychopath and perhaps deserves our contempt, not our worship.