an answer to Patty - re: Creationism

[Freodin]

A try of an answer: It is quite long, because I copied all of the original argument. Only so I was able to answer each part continously. The original is in plain, my answers in bold.

Hi folks,

I’m going to set aside the discussion of basic terminology for a bit, and offer some esoteric philosophy.
NOTE: I will return to basic terminology at a later time.

People are asking for proof of Creationism.

Why does anyone desire to know how life got started?
If you discover the answer, what will be the benefit of having the answer?

Simple.
Can such an answer provide a clue as to what’s going to happen to us after we die?
I have a feeling that that’s a big, big concern for most, if not all people who are studying Creationism.

Do we continue on after we leave this lifetime? Or, do we not?
Annihilation is a big fear.

I challenge any Christian who has faith in the hereafter to say, in truth, that he has no fears about what happens after death.

And, why would Christians, or anyone else, who have been taught that there is a hereafter be afraid of whether or not a hereafter exists?

Simple.
The information that is taught is vague, at best.

And, what empirical evidence does anyone have to support what is taught about any hereafter?
I never got any through my years in parochial school or through attending church services, or even through Bible study classes. Did you?
I heard about saints. But, what empirical evidence can you cite that proves that people are in the hereafter?

Keep in mind that I, too, have faith.
And, I’m really looking forward to going on to the hereafter. Happy Days Ahead!!
Why? Because I learned a lot of stuff that did prove it to me – empirically.


Here are my notes, that I told you about in an earlier post. I call this treatise:

Considering What Is

I am interested in proving that the afterlife exists. I would like to see how it can be proven through the use of deductive logic, by examining what I know exists.

Afterlife

I worried about what would happen to me after I die.

Some people believe that there is an afterlife. Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians, Norse, Druids, North American Indians, Inuits, Shintos, Mythrians and many more believe in an afterlife.

Some people claim to be in contact with people who had died and now live in an afterlife.

Other people say that when they die, they just die and no longer exist.

What proof is there that an afterlife exists, or does not exist?
Can “mediums” really contact those on the “other side”?
Do people who have been recognized as saints really continue to live?
As a Catholic, I was taught that saints communicate with people here, and that proof of it is in miracles that occur after the saints’ deaths. I had a tough time accepting that miracles really happen and needed empirical proof myself.

I sure did not want to believe something that was not true because I dreaded that if I misled myself into believing something for which I had no proof, I would be terrified beyond terror at the time of my death. Far better to prepare realistically for going out of existence completely than to mislead myself by simply accepting that “heaven” exists when I didn’t really have enough concrete evidence to prove it.


What is the GOOD reason that all things exist?
Once I prove that there is a good reason that things exist, I can then explain why I feel that the afterlife exists.

The “good reason that things exist” would require me to do something with my existence.
What is it that I am to do?
How am I to do it?
What if I don’t?


There has to be a good reason that life exists.
Why would a person be born, live, learn and experience things, then die and no longer exist? What a stupid waste, in my opinion.

That is your opinion, and as yet not reason for the existance of a "good reason".

People do goofy things. Why do men make efforts to live good lives? What is a good life, anyway? How does one know what’s good and what’s not good? Where’s it going to get anyone if he’s good, regardless of the cost? Any better off than a guy who causes trouble for others, or even for himself? Why would anyone want to cause trouble for anyone, anyway?

As yet, no answer, only questions - and polemic question as it is.
I can recognize rethoric questions when I see them, and yours seem to ignore the possibility of reasons for a "good life" in this life.


Why aren’t we all whiling away our time from birth to death, waiting for the inevitable? Some of us seem to be. I felt that I was, at times. “When will it all end for me? Let’s get it over with, big guy,” I might have said to God, whoever he was.

Personal opinion, personal doubts. Do you deny that there are people that have a happy and fulfilled life NOW?

What’s in it for God, if we all zap out? What would he have gained from us if some of us are good, some trying to learn how to be good, and some not even giving a hoot about how they cause harm, then all of us going to the same end - nothing?

Now, where does God come into this so suddenly? We have as yet not established that there is a God who created humans, so why should we bother with his gains - at least at this point of the discussion?

Well, if I were God, I sure wouldn’t be very pleased with that kind of scenario.
Alright, you talked me into it. I’ll play God, for a little bit:

Here’s a guy I gave life to.
He grows up and wreaks havoc wherever he goes. Then he dies. Yippee. What do I do now? Grieve? Heck, no. Glad that one’s gone. Write him off, for sure. What a waste of my time he was, I’d say. If I were God and a guy like that came and went permanently, what does that say about me? Did I goof? Did I really waste my time? Anybody got a better way of putting it?

Here’s another guy I gave life to. I’ll call him Joe.
He grows up and behaves himself. He does nice things wherever he goes. Then he dies. Yippee. What do I do now? Grieve? Well, there’s one less nice guy in the world. Sorry he’s gone. Oh, well. I’ll just write him off, for sure, huh? Why? Wish I didn’t have to, but that’s the way I made the ball bounce. So, back to the drawing board and do it again. Let’s see what the next guy’s like.

What the hey am I doing? Playing marbles? Or did I lose a few? What does it say about a guy like me if I knock off permanently a buddy like Joe? Tell you, don’t buddy up to me. I’ll knock you off, buddy or no buddy.

Anthropomorphismus - no! even worse: Pattyismus. You apply your personal views and motivation to a yet undefined being.
Perhaps I would deal with thing completly different, if I were God. Does that mean your whole argument collapses at this point?

Look, pal. I’m God, alright? I told you guys through my friend Moses, and the rest of them, that you gotta behave yourselves. Do it, or else, I said. Yeah. For what? If you’re good, I’ll knock you off. If you’re bad, I’ll knock you off, too. No difference in the end. So, why don’t you all just settle down and behave yourselves before I knock you off. Isn’t that nice?

Why’d I tell you to be good? My own reasons. Period. ‘Nuff for you? Ain’t for me. I want you to love me. How are you going to love a guy like me if I’m gonna knock you off whether you love me or not? You guys probably think I’m pretty foolish by now.

Regardless of the fact that we have not yet established that humans have been a) created b)by a divine being, who c) gave them certain rules to behave - you are again projecting your way of thinking to this assumed God - while ignoring any other possible answers.

Well, weird as this story sounds, lots of people believe it. At least, that’s how it seems that they live. They seem to say things like:
“I may as well enjoy life while I can. I’m gonna end up dead pretty soon, anyway. God knocks us all off in the end, so I’m gonna get my kicks while I can.”
Or,
“There ain’t no God. First you live, then you die. That’s it in a nutshell. Of course there’s nothing after death, stupid. You can’t prove that there’s an afterlife to me, nohow.”

What’s the sense in life if this is true? Hard to figure. If you have an answer, let me know.

You don´t know, so you assume that no-one knows. This is wrong.
A possible answer: there is no sense in life, beyond living.
I may assume, based on your previous statements, that you don´t like this answer.
So what? Do you think you can discard possible answers based on your preference?

(Continued)

 

[Freodin]

Reason for Life:

My theory is this. There is a good reason that life exists. When did life begin? I don’t know. Either I forgot or somehow I never learned when life began. I don’t care when life began, anyway. All I know is that life exists.

I also know that if there’s not a good reason that life exists, why have it in the first place? That would be really stupid. So, I figure, somehow life got started. And, whoever started it, had to be at least smarter than me. And had to be at least smarter than all of us here. Otherwise, we’d be doing stuff that we can’t do now.

Wrong reasoning, and wrong use of the word "reason". We may agree that there would have to be a "cause" for life to exist, but not that it had to conform with your line of "reason".

There is also no reason to believe that the person who started "life" had to be smarter than you. As yet, we have still not concluded that there IS a person who started life.

You cannot try to proof the creation of life and start with the assumption that life was created.

How do I know that somebody started us living? Easy. Look at the moon. How many years has it been where it is? Long time. Have people ever seen the other side of the moon from here? Nope. Can you set your watch by the moon? Yep. Pretty precise timepiece, that moon, eh? Pretty precise in the way it turns around so we can’t see what’s on the other side of it from here - ever. Amazing, but true.

Amazing, but not true. Neither can you set your watch by the moon (perhaps you can - I don´t know where you buy your watches. McDonalds?) - nor is the movement of the moon precise and unchanging. For example, it can be shown to move away from the earth.

But be that as it may - there is no reason to believe that the (roughly) precise movement of the moon points to its creation in this state - the laws of physics account very well for that - and even for the irregularities.

And, look at the sun. Same precision there, too. Sun’s precision is also seen on the face of the moon, isn’t it? You can set your watch to that, too.

Same as above. You choose to see the "perfection" of all this because you deny to see the imperfections.
Why is this? Well, for some reasons or others, the human mind is very good at recognizing patterns. In fact, it does it so well, that it will even see patterns where there are none.

Then, take a gander at the stars, the other planets, and other stuff up there. All of them, ‘cept for a few stray meteors you might think (and who’s smart enough to say that meteors aren’t precise - nobody), are predictably in place, all the time. How long has this precision been observed? Years? Nope. Hundreds of years? Longer than that. Thousands of years? At the very least. Why? Logic. Precision. Perfection.

Here we go. You even acknowlegde that there are imperfections (a few stray meteors), and then discard them with a flick of your hand. How good is your knowledge of astromony? Have you ever read about the vast number of asteroids running will in our solar system? The comets from the Oort cloud? Whole galaxies colliding?

Have you ever read about the difficulties of medival astronomers with stellar positions, because they were NOT at the predicted positions?

Precision. Perfection. Indeed!

Then, look at what’s here on the earth. Take water, for example. Do we drink water? Yep. Do we cook with water? Yep. Do we use water for other things? Yep. Can we rely on water being water? Yep. Why? Logic. Precision. Perfection.

Can we rely on water being water? No, as we know now. There is a kind of water - undistinguishable from the "water" you know, with exactly the same chemical properties - that will kill you when consumed. Heavy water - water bases not on the normal hydrogen/oxygen combination, but deuterium/oxygen.

If there existed just one single flaw in one of the components of water, chaos would reign. Why? Because water would not be predictable. Who knows what would happen if that one flaw were encountered? Also, if one flawed component existed, there could be more. We could not at all determine what water was, what it could be, or what water could do. You could say that if water contained a flawed component, it simply would be something other than water. I’m talking strictly water, here. For example, if hydrogen affines to oxygen as it does, then, if a flaw in a single hydrogen molecule caused the hydrogen to be weakly attached, how would the water behave? What a gas!

Ok, I accept that your point is right. We have to rely that the natural laws are constant.
But that does not necessarily imply that they were created.

Could anyone know anything about anything that exists if elements were, or could be, flawed? How could one know whether what he was studying was precise or flawed? How could someone say anything about carbon and its properties if it could be flawed? How could anything be said conclusively about anything at all?

You are building are false dichotomy here. If you study chemistry and nuclear physics, you will see that there are indeed "flaws". Radioactive decay for example is not very precise on the atomic level. Scientists don´t have the slightest idea why certain atoms decay, and others don´t.
The further we go down into the basic build of matter, the more we see chaos, and not order. And yet, we can make conclusive statements - but they are not "precise" not "perfect".

Could a “big bang” have resulted in such precision? What had to exist for the big bang to happen in the first place? Something, for sure.

Rethoric question. Why couldn´t the "big bang" have resulted in such "precision"?

That same perfection can be seen in so many places, in so many things. that I can only conclude that such precision, such perfection, such predictability is all logical, and caused by a logical being.

There has to be a God who created everything.

YOU can only come to this conclusion, because you started your argument with the assumption that it was so.

But it is not conclusive. You have to take into account the possibility of an (roughly) ordered system resulting from a set of simple rules. Rules that may very well be inherent to existance.

There MAY be a God who created everything - but the does not HAVE TO be one.


And there is a major flaw in this whole argument.

You assume that for this "logic" to come into existance, there had to be a "logic" being. But where did that "logic" being come from? According to your reasoning, it would have to be created by another "logic" being.

Sometime you have to put a stop to this line of thinking, and the moment you do, you have discarded the conclusiveness of your first argument.

(continued)


Logic:

Does logic have anything to do with being good? Yep. First of all, if everything in existence was created, it had to have been for a logical reason.

What is logic? The dictionary states that logic is “the science which investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inferences”.

Let’s look at that definition carefully:
The science(1) which investigates(2) the principles(3) governing(4) correct(5) or reliable(6) inferences(7)

1. Science: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts
or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of
general laws.

2. Investigate: To search or inquire into systematically; search or
examine the particulars of; examine in detail.

3. Principle: 1. accepted or professed rule of action or conduct.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived.

4. Govern: To exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide.

5. Correct: To set or make right; remove the errors or faults from.

6. Reliable -> Rely: To depend confidently; put trust in.

7. Inference -> Infer: To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from
premises or evidence.

In order for logic to exist, truth must exist, as can easily be seen by the components of the above definition.

No, in order for logic to exist, truth must be ASSUMED.

Logic is a process that excludes all non-truths.
- Truth is at the heart of logic.
- Truth is at the heart of all efforts to learn anything.
- Truth is at the heart of all efforts to understand anything.
- Truth is at the heart of all efforts to comprehend.

Even a single non-truth inserted in one’s process of learning for comprehension negates all conclusions that could possibly result from one’s efforts.

Yes, that is correct. A wrong assumption invalidates a logic conclusion. But Logic in itself has nothing to do with establishing "true assumtions".

The process of inserting a non-truth
in any effort to learn or to understand
is called Denial.

An often used christian line of thinking, but sadly, incorrect. It is called a mistake.

Denial:

What is denial? The word “denial” is from the word “denegation”.
“De-” is a prefix that indicates privation, removal, separation, negation, reversal, intensity. Since “negation” is integral to the word “denegation”, it can be deduced that “de-” in this instance emphasizes the intensity of “negation”. “Negate” means to nullify or invalidate (something). Thus, the insertion of a non-truth in any effort to learn or to understand (something) nullifies or invalidates such effort to learn or understand.

Therefore, I conclude that God does exist. All that can be seen in the sky, on the ground, in the water - anywhere - is so perfect that it can be studied, tested and proven. That means that all that can be seen exists in truth that cannot be denied. The logic of all things in existence can be proven. Therefore, all things in existence came into existence through a process of pure logic.

Sorry, this is not conclusive.
First, that you see it as "perfect" does not make it "perfect"
Second, as most natural scientists would agree, there is no "perfectness" in nature. Only in the abstract world of mathematics can you achieve "perfection", and only there can you conclusivly prove "all things".
The best thing you can find in natural science is conclusive evidence.

Where is the “reason” to all of this?


Definition of Reason:

Let’s look at the definition of “reason”:
1. A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
2. A statement in justification or explanation of a belief or action.
3. Logic. A premise of an argument.

Taking definition #1, the word “cause” can help us to understand something. “Cause” is defined thus: One who or that which acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result; the producer of an effect.

Taking definition #3, the word “premise” is defined: Logic. a proposition supporting or helping to support a conclusion.

We can say that God is the cause of all things in existence. That is, God had a premise, that is, some specific reason, for creating all things in existence.

What is that reason? There must be one.

Proof, as I previously stated, is in the precision of the placement of astronomical bodies, predictability of elements, predictability of so many things in existence. If those things which exist in “nature”, that is, not altered, modified or affected by man, are so predictable, they are logical. They rely on truth in their existence. They are understandable. Therefore, they are comprehendible.

A simple interjection. What do you believe: that God caused out universe to exist, by starting the "perfect machine", or any of the "creationistic" beliefs - six-days-creating, man from dust, light by command, and such?

The first position is acceptable even to most evolutionists, because it relies on the basic philosophy of natural science: that things can be observed and reasoned, and that they don´t change chaotically.

The second position would invalidate your basic line of reasoning, because a direct intervention by God AFTER the start would cause interuptions of the "perfect" pattern. Things would no longer be comprehendible, or predictable.

Since the things in nature are so perfectly logical, we can, through investigation, determine “laws” that govern them. Put another way, if we can determine “laws” which govern -- anything, those things can be understood, can be tested for truth, and can be seen as having a reason for existence.

Wrong! All the "natural laws" that science has determined are only aproximations. They are not perfect - and science will acknowledge that.
Further, the fact that "things" act according to certain rules does not mean that there is a reason for that behaviour.

All things in nature must, therefore, be in accordance with perfect logic. Anything not in accordance with perfect logic has faults, or errors. Anything that has errors cannot be tested. Any investigation of anything that has errors can never be proven to a conclusion which reveals governing laws. Here it must be noted that investigations themselves can be flawed because the investigator himself may be making mistakes.

So what are you arguing for? That there ARE errors (do you deny that?) would mean, according to this logic, that all things in nature are NOT perfect!

So, if there truly is a reason that God created things, what could it be? It must be a good reason, as I had earlier stated.

Good:
Funny thing about the word “good”. The Old English word for good is “god”. The Dutch word is “gold”. The dictionary definition for “good” is: morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious. “Moral” is defined as:
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong.
2. concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct; ethical.
3. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct.

We can conclude, therefore, that the reason that God created things is good because to be good is to be concerned with what is right and what is logical. If what was created were other than right and logical, nothing could be reliable, consistent, investigable for principles or laws governing them, nor could anything be predictable.

"logical" is not a synonym for "good". And yet, even as a logical conclusion based on untrue assumptions may come to a true conclusion, a unlogical or wrong reason may come to a "good" effect.

So, this reasoning is not conclusive.

(continued)

 

[Freodin]

Considering that God exists, and that God created all things, and that that which God has done is good, what is that good reason for what he has done?

Approaching the question from man’s perspective alone, for the sake of simplicity, we’ll ask it this way:
“What is the good reason that God created man?”
Man is born, man lives, then man dies. While man lives, he is taught to be good. During a man’s life, from the time he is born until his death, he strives to learn.

Observe the newborn. He struggles to see what is around him. He struggles to understand. Consider his smile. It communicates that something is pleasing to him. Consider his cry. It communicates that something is other than pleasing to him. He struggles to turn from one side to another. He works hard to lift his head and look around. He practices, nearly incessantly, to move his legs and his arms, to pick up objects with more and more precision, to make more understandable and more deliberately formed sounds, to do more and more things for himself. Had anyone told the infant that he must do these things? Nope. Had anyone told the infant that he must do for himself? Nope. What motivates him to do, then? It seems that he has an inherent desire to learn. And this desire to learn continues throughout his life.

Does this desire to learn give us a clue as to the reason that man was created? In my opinion, yes. It sure does. How does it feel to learn something? “Yay, I did it,” one might say when he accomplishes something for the first time. The feeling of accomplishment gives a man something called “awareness”. The more that one learns, the more aware one becomes of things. The more that one becomes aware of things, the more that one can do. The more capable a man is of doing things, the better he feels about himself. I heard a man, who had just learned something that was profound to him, say, “I feel like I just became aware that I exist.” What joy could surpass that feeling? I haven’t encountered any yet. Would it come to mind that such a joyful man would desire to stop learning? Hardly. More likely, he would strive ever more fervently to learn more and more.

And why is that a clue that man was created? Evolution does give a good explanation for that behaviour.

What for? It seems that there is a pattern here. Through the ages, men have learned many things. Things learned and treasured have been passed down from one generation to the next, and the next, and so on. Thus, learned things have become what is known as “tradition”. Such tradition accelerates the learning process for the recipients of things passed down. The methods used to learn some things from scratch are often not needed when tradition is employed. Thus, some things may be lost or forgotten.

I claim that this is where man is at. I claim that man has forgotten so many things that proof of the existence of the afterlife had first been taken for granted, then ignored and forgotten. Thus, I stand here today, seeking the proof that my soul cries for.

An assumption without any evidence. With the same certainty I could say that man had evolved, taken that for granted and forgotten it. Then he had to make up stories to cover up this forgotten fact.

Physical Afterlife?

I claim that there is a pysical afterlife. Can you even figure it out yourself? If you can, you’re millennia, many millennia ahead of the rest of the species of man on our planet. I did it. So can you.

Starting to get polemic? The image of a physical afterlife is ages old. It is not something very far from human minds, but very close in fact. For what could be closer, a continuing of things as they are now, or something so completly different that is does not relate to anything we experience now.

I just decided to look at the stuff that I’ve been given, here in this life, in the simplest way that I could. Whammo! Miracle? Nope. I just used common sense.

What exists here on this planet that I can call my own?
Me. All of me. My body, my mind, my attitude, my emotions, my thoughts, my appetite, my ability to make my own choices. Yup. They all gave me a clue, each and every one, as to what the afterlife is all about. Easy. Simple.

Easy, simple, delusional. "Cogito, ergo sum" may be a conclusive statement; "Cogito, ergo ero" (I think, therefore I will be) is not.

I did not take the approach that God is some mysterious, grandly profound and ethereal being who is so unapproachable that I could never discern His Glorious existence or reasons for doing. I did not embellish on what I have - now. I did not make up a fabulous high-fallutin’ story about something so phantasmagoric that even I could not relate. But, my predecessors, those men who called themselves great thinkers, sure did.

If you don´t do so, why do you use mysterious phrases like "His Glorious existance"?

God is simple.

God is - - or isn'’t. Period.
Nothing more.

Proof?
Proof? For what? That the above statement is right, or that he exists?
God desires us to know him.
Does he? How do you know?
Why?
To know him is to love him.
Is it? How do you know? Why wouldn´t I hate him, if I knew him. God desires us to love him.
Does he? How do you know? What is "love"?
This is not petty bickering here. You claim "I did not make up a fabulous high-fallutin' story ...", but you keep making unbased assumptions about God.

If God desires us to love him,
and to know him is to love him,
then God is diclosable to us.

If God were not disclosable to us,
we could not know him or love him.

If God were other than simple to understand,
our simple minds
could not know him.

Are our minds simple?
Yes.

Proof?
Easy.

Talk to a man,
any man,
about anything.

Then,
ask the man
to say in his words
what he heard you say.

Done.
That may be a proof that you have talked to much to simple minds, but not for more.

Like I said, I prefer the simple approach. Fits my simple mind, my simple existence. If my existence is so simple, then I figured, God is simple, too.

Perhaps you figured wrong with your simple mind. Where is it written that God or the universe had to be compatible with YOUR understanding?

Now, where’s the first place to look for a clue about the afterlife? Right here, man. I’m pointing to myself. Why? ‘Cause I exist. Yup. I really exist. So?

The big deal is that I have stuff, like I said.

First, I look at my body. Yup. I have one. For what? To use. Yeah. How do I use my body? I move. On a cloud? Nope. I move like you move. Figure out how you move and you save me from writing a lot of words, okay? Thanks. However, the next time you see me or any other guy floating by on a cloud, let me know. I’ll go back to the drawing board.

My body moves. I choose that my body move. I decide what choices I make. Whoa! Who’da thought about that as a clue to the afterlife? Me.

I´m not quite sure I can follow you anymore. But, the next time you chose your heart to beat, your nerves to transmit signals or your stomach to digest - send me a PM.

In order to use my body, I must decide how to move it. Inert bodies don’t get anything accomplished. I like to move. I like to walk, to run (sometimes), to swim (occasionally), to sit, to stand, to hold things, and so on. So what? In order to do these things, it takes practice to do them right. The more I practice moving my body, the better I do it. Have you ever taken martial arts lessons and walked up a wall? I have. It’s fun. But, it all takes practice. Dancing is fun when you know how, and really enjoyable when you can do it well.

Have you ever practices the things I mentioned above?

Why all this practice with my body? All my life, I practice doing something with my ole bod. What next, I ask. Well, death. Yay. Now that I’m dead, I can just forget about all that stuff that I did with my body and simply float on a cloud as a spirit. Huh? Hey, God. I kinda liked dancing and walking up walls. I even liked just plain walking sometimes. I enjoy a swim once in a while. How will I ever enjoy these things anymore? I can’t if I don’t have a body. Well, God, why in the world did you make me go through all that practice, anyway? Are you gonna tell me that I wasted a lifetime living with my body and learning how to use it as I went along? If you don’t give me a physical existence in the Great Beyond, you sure are. Yuck!

So your basic argument is: I don´t like it, so it has to be false.

God, I think you’re not that stupid. You made all that is seen and all that is unseen, right? Well, I thought about that and asked myself, what is seen, and what is unseen about me? Easy. I can see my body. It’s physical. I can not see my mind. That’s unseen. I cannot see my emotions, my thoughts, my attitude, my appetite, nor my ability to make my own choices. They’re all unseen. So, I refer to all that I see as physical. And, guess what? All that is unseen is spiritual. Get that? God made all that is seen and unseen, that is, God made the physical and the spiritual. That’s the way I figure it. That’s all I have - what’s seen and unseen.

An age old question: what defines "you". Would you still be "you", if you lost a hand? I think you would say yes. An arm? Both legs? Your head?

The matter that your body is made of is not the same as last year. It is constatly changing. So, what is it that makes the cheese sandwich you have just eaten a part of "you"?

A different question: If you need your physical body to be "you", what happens when you die? Decay will do away with your body. Where does the "you" stay?

All of what I have, I use. Why? Because I can do good things with all that I have, if I choose to. I prefer to do good things. But, God gave me the ability to do not good things, as well. I must practice doing good things, all the time. How come? Because I have a gift of choice. When I do good things, I am doing what is pleasing to me. I also get to learn what is pleasing to God, if I’m really sincere about being good. How can I tell what’s good to know? I stick to Truth like gum to a shoe. I like to put it this way:


A Good Man


Cleanliness and sincerity
are the indicators of a good man.

Truthfulness, purity and wisdom
are the hallmarks of the heart of God.


The five qualities that make a good man an angel are:
- integrity
- sincerity
- truthfulness
- consideration for others
- respect

Again I have to ask: where do you get these facts? How do you establish that this is "good"?


God permits me to live as I choose.

He watches me, in my own existence, interacting with others, as I live and learn throughout my life. I learned that I affect others, and others affect me. I observed myself and others, and saw that I could make a difference in the lives of other people if I did things certain ways. So, I decided to live my life in a way that could serve as a good example to others.

I developed the belief that even my attitude and behavior in death could affect others. So, I hoped to go to death in a way that would be exemplary.

I then realized that I could best prepare for a peaceful death by making myself aware that every breath that I took might truly be my last, that every thing that I did might truly be my very last act. And I began to live that belief.

 

[Freodin]

I check myself continually. Every time I do something, I remind myself, “if this is the last thing that I do, how am I going to do it? I choose to do it in a way that will give me a clear conscience about it. If I am disturbed about my choice in what I am doing, then facing death right now would scare me out of my wits. So, better for me to listen to my conscience and do what is right.”

This is a widely spread philosophy, not only among theists.

I know for sure that everyone, without exception, dies. What does that mean? Everyone, it seems, dreads death. Why? I found the answer by taking the steps that I described above, by accepting that I might die at any moment. Who else is doing this? Who do you know that says he is ready to die right now? If you do not say that you are ready to die right now, why not? What is the difference between the person who really is ready to die right now and the one who says he’s not? I say that it’s how much each man lives according to the dictates of his own conscience. The man who adheres to conscience is the one who can peacefully die, now. The man who defies or denies the voice of conscience lives in dread of answering for what he’s done, who lives with and accepts lies and thus cannot fathom what the real truth is, particularly about what people call The Great Unknown.

Again, you use your personal reasoning only and deny that there are other alternatives.
I, for one, do not dread death, nor do I fear answerering for what I have done.
I don´t live in the expectance of death, so, no, I´m not ready to die now. But I don´t see any reason why I should.


An additional question: if you think this is the right way to live this life, what do you expect the afterlife to be? Would you be ready to die there, too?

By heeding my conscience all the time, I learned something. There IS a God. He speaks to me through my body sensations, through the environment, through the things all around me. I began to trust God more and more. God’s voice is the voice of conscience. Conscience is the Voice of Truth.

Your personal opinion. My alternative: conscience is the voice of your subconsciousness.

One fundamental Truth is, I did not create myself. I did not decide that I would have life. So, who did?

There is no reason to assume that there was a "who" who decided.

Is life a good gift? Who would say no? All creatures that live are considered to have a good gift. Well, why do we live? My favorite thing to do in life is to learn. I observed that even the newborn man and animal learns things from the moment the first breath is taken. Working with the dying in hospice, and with the dying animals in a pet store, I saw that learning continues, even to the last breath. Why? The more I learn, the more joy I feel when I become aware of something new. God, it is said, desires us to love Him. It is said that to know Him is to love Him. How do we get to know Him? Simple. By learning about Him. How do I learn about Him? I realized that whatever I learn, I am learning about God. What joy I have in my life now. God truly loves me, and I truly love Him, more and more every day, as I continue to learn.

This is very fine for you. Thank you for stating your personal opinion - AGAIN!

Then, comes the big kicker.

Yo, God. I’m gonna die. Yuck! Most people would say “yuck, I gotta die someday”. Not this kiddo. Nosirree, Bob! I like the idea that I’m gonna be taken from here someday, because I know that God’s gonna put me somewhere else, to continue my learning process. Has to be! Cannot be any other way. How come? Yikes! What a dumb thing to say.

Has to be! No other way! That what must not be, cannot be!
Basically, I like it, so it has to be so. AGAIN!


It does not at all make sense that God would desire me to love Him, give me life opportunities to learn about Him and love Him more and more every single day, nearly every single moment, my love for Him increasing in manifold ways so joyfully, then snuff me out just when I’m getting the knack of giving to Him what He asks of me.

As I don´t believe in this loving God, I cannot really say anthing about his motivation there. But only to remind you - there are a lot of people out there that believe that God really does "snuff you out" when you do not fit his standard.

(continued)








Think of this:
Life’s a good gift, right? Right. A gift given to us by God. All of us who exist have the gift of life. Funny thing about God. To each and every single creature who has been given the gift of life, God gives the gift of awareness that each of us will, for certain, die. Yeah. We all die. No exceptions. So, as I said, if life is a good gift to those who receive it, then death, which accompanies all life, has to be good, too. Can I prove it? Yes.

No, not as you stated that. There is no conclusive evidence that every living being has an awarness of death. As far as we know, humans are pretty special there.

Like I said, when I keep the awareness of death right in my own face every single moment, I think before I act. Keeps me on the straight and narrow, all the time. I don’t “sin” anymore. I don’t get into trouble in any way. When things get tough, I keep my focus on God. I do my best, every moment. Period. I don’t have time to monkey around with naughty stuff. I’m too busy preparing to die.

A nice way to his a life. Again I ask you, what do you think the next life will be for you? Busy preparing to die?

Is that life? Sure. At first, it’s ucky-scary. “Death, death, death. Gotta do the right thing. Gotta be good, or else. I’m gonna die. I’m gonna die. I wanna live, God, I wanna live. Please help me, I’m terrified!”

Well, I can´t help you. I don´t feel this terror of death, this insane wish to live, live, live.

After a while, I just find myself in the habit of being good. All the time. So, I’m gonna die. So what. God knows what’s best for me. I hear Him better. Really do. I trust Him more. Heck. He gave me life. It’s His business that I am alive. It’s for His benefit that I live. Period.

In the habit of being good! That is a good one! With this simple sentence, who have done away with 2000 years of taling about sin.

What’s with me, anyway? So, God chooses when I’ll die. No one else! Emphatic period, end of report. God’s choice when I die. My job, to live to the best of my ability as long as I can, until God Himself is good and ready for me to die. When that time comes, I love Him. I love Him. Yeah, I love Him. I did my best, God. You and I both know it. You did good by me, so far. I’ll trust you that extra mile and let you decide about this life you gave to me for your own purposes. Yup.

Again I say, only the best to you, if your life is running this way. But there are enough humans around who don´t see this loving God, who experience pain and misery that cannot be explained by personal behaviour.
This can be explained - but not by your "simple" view of God.

What’s to worry about regarding death? Nada, nothing, zippo, zilch. God’s business, my death. That’s all there is to it. He wants love from me? He’s got it, now. How’s He gonna get it if I’m snuffed out forever? He can’t. I wouldn’t be around anymore to give Him a single iota of a thing. He’s the one that’s out of luck, pardner, if I die and do not ever experience life anymore. He’s the big, big loser by snuffing this kid. Not me, hey. Because if I snuff out totally forever, I’m in a real good position. I don’t feel a thing anymore. No memory, no conscience, no awareness of even being snuffed by the Big Guy. God’s the only one left holding the bag. What a loser that would make Him!! God goes through all that trouble to get something nice from me by giving me a life in which I can learn how beautiful He is. Then, just when I really get going gung-ho on that neat awareness, He blows it, big time by zapping me. How stupid would that be? God ain’t stupid!!

Do, ut des. Give, so that you are given. Is that the line of reasoning you follow here? And all that on the single unbased assumtion that God wants your love?

So, death is my buddy. I use the awareness of death to get me on the straight path. Then, I learn that death isn’t so frightening. And, then I realize that God, in His Wisdom, not in His ignorant stupidity, would like me to keep on trucking somewhere else. Nice to have a change of pace. Why the heck do we guys on earth like to take vacations? To get away from the humdrum routine, to see new things, to learn new stuff, to enjoy new experiences. What a dreadful drag it would be to me to have to stay right here forever. I got my bus ticket to the next rendezvous. I’m packing my bags for a new tour of duty. Me ‘n God are gonna boogie, big time, somewhere else. He’s got His beach towel all packed, too.

What do I call this type of logical thinking?

Common sense.

I won´t say what I would call this type of "logical thinking" - it might get me banned.

But let me try a conclusion.

You claimed to be able to "prove" creation. This "proof" turned out to be the old argument from perfection", which has been refuted over and over again.

You think this is proof, because you take your conclusion as assumption - over and over again.

The rest of your essay dealt not with creation or the existance of God, but with your own, personal theology.
I will not say anything about the validity of your reasoning. Only so much: there are many other lines of reasoning around, that are as conclusive as yours.

Freodin

 

[Patty]

Hi Freodin,

I haven't yet read your response, but I wanted you to know that I got it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

I copied it to my word processor so I can read it carefully offline.

I'll get back to you.

This treatise that I posted was written years ago, and you're the very first person to critique it. Thank you.

That's just one of my efforts in resolving the issue for myself re: afterlife.

Catch ya later,

Patty