Time to move on.
The thing is I believe I am understanding what you are trying to say and stating it doesn't add up.
Hi Freodin,
Yes, I am understanding you are stating your belief in the scientific principle but rejecting that which I would call "the soul" and which I believe continues to exist after bodily death. But I also believe you are still not understanding my point and so, once again, we appear to be missing each other. I believe you miss the points of reference I give because you may have an incomplete understanding of Christian theology. So let me make another attempt to expand on my position.
***snip***
In spite of your claim, your nice explanation (thank you, but I was already aware of this. Most atheists know quite well what they disagree with) shows that you do not understand my point.
And it is quite simple.
This is what you said before:
"... in the Atheistic Worldview one would assume the reality after death is non existence and you would be transformed into nothingness, the void, nihlo. However, that’s not what we see in the universe with regard to the physical. Matter and energy can be transformed but not destroyed. Matter may become energy and energy matter but it doesn’t become nothing."
and
"They believe that is the final reality and hence disregard the truth before them. Truth be told It is a principle which even contradicts the naturals laws of Physics which states that 'Energy can neither be created nor destroyed rather it can only be transformed from one form to another.'” (taken from your posts #151 and #152)
This is what I adressed. This, and nothing else.
Paraphrased, you claim that the "atheistic" position of the non-existence of the "self" (or life, or awareness, consciousness or whatever you may call it) contradicts a scientific principle. You made this claim twice.
And in response to my correction, you now claim that this atheistic position contradicts
the Christian view of things.
I agree with this second claim. But it is irrelevant for your first claim, which is still false.
The Christian position on souls is not the scientific principle of energy conservation. Do you understand that?
Perhaps there is room for some semantical interpretation, If one thinks of the reality of God as the primary reality then I could see your point but only if there was no creation. I don't though because with creation God has provided all of with realities, both in this world and in the world to come. Our reality may differ in the Light of God's Truth and as to whether we accept His truths in this world. There certainly are consequential realities/states of being based on whether we are living in the truth or not in this world. The light of Truth is far dimmer in this temporal reality and that is on purpose. Still the truth is active and operative in our world and we see there is eventually a price to pay for wickedness. In America we have a saying that every dog has its day sooner or later you reap what you sow. However, in the final judgment there will be no hiding place from the Truth. We have the images God's light will see through all the hidden lies that covered up by the world. It is the realization of the Truth that primarily causes our final reality and whether we wake to our eternal shame or our eternal joy in Christ.
- Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life. Some to shame and everlasting contempt.
- 1Co 15:34 Awake to righteousness, and do not sin; for some do not have the knowledge of God. I speak this to your shame.
I think we can agree to disagree on whether reality is primary or whether Truth is primary. Just so we are clear, however, my context is with respect to both God and His creation. I'm not trying to split hairs but my context is within the provision that both you and I exist - even if our existence is dependent upon God. He has willed me to exist and for you to exist as well. I believe our existence has a purpose. This of course is from a Theist position.
Cheers, Patrick
Is this really that difficult?
Let's take a step back at your last post, and try to understand some of what you wrote here "in the Light of your last post's truth".
"Our reality may differ in the Light of God's Truth and as to whether we accept His truths in this world."
"Reality", as you had defined it, is "The quality of state or being actual or true in objective existence."
So here we have my reality: there is no God. Death is the end to life. Truth is an abstraction.
This is actual and true in objective existence. Indepedent of thought or language... (or observation or interpretation). It IS the state of my existence.
And we have your reality: God exists. There will be eternal life in a transformed state after death. God is Truth.
This also is actual and true in objective existence, independent of thought or language. It IS the state of your existence.
These (except for the part in paranthesis) are your words, your terms.
But these two "realities" cannot coexist. They contradict each other. It is not possible for God to exist AND not exist, for life to end and go on eternally.
And contrary what you said in your definition - that "reality" is objective - "reality" now depends on your acceptence of "His truths"... it is subjective.
His whats? I asked you repeatedly to define the way you use the term "truth"... and you never did. You keep throwing it around... and you keep using it in different ways, each of them unexplained.
God is Truth? So now our "objective, independent of thought and language actual existence" differs in the Light of God's God, and as to whether we accept His Gods in this world?
You are not making any sense. You are even contradicting yourself.
When you asked for my definition, I provided it. I explained where and why I disagree with your position. I didn't simply restate my position and declared my disagreement with you.
If you cannot do the same, this conversation is going nowhere.