Heaven and Hell

[Noxot]

Both concepts are inventions of men.

so is all language

 

[SteveB28]

so is all language

Yes.........and??

 

[Noxot]

So what's the best way to determine if my beliefs are justified, then?

But there's only one reality. Surely you have a suggestion or method that best helps us determine what's true. What's real for you, is real for me.
I'm simply asking what's the best way to arrive at true beliefs? It's not a trick question.

I acknowledge the scientific method as useful but I would not say it is something that is capable of being cut off from the person and so I think finding knowledge always includes the self as there is no knowledge without a knower. when you say "what is real for you, is real for me" i see it to be true in some ways and not in others. but I assume you mean that we both exist in this universe but when I say that it assumes that objective reality is an absolute and the only form of reality in some peoples minds. it assumes things such as you know exactly what the universe is. since we all are limited we must assume some things about reality. but there are always going to be metaphysical assumptions about reality and when we have different metaphysical assumptions about reality it might mean that we have different views about what is true and what is false and it might mean that we favor different methods of obtaining truth.

I see the object world as only an expression of the greater reality which is closer to a kind of absolute and collective reality of God and all the souls he made. but obviously we both exist in an object world, I just don't go assuming that that is the only part of reality that is real. I also know my brain is subjective in nature and that i can't escape from myself when it comes to processing information.

so those are a few things about me that goes into trying to have true beliefs. since i'm religious I think the best way is to be as near to God as possible since God is the ultimate reality.

 

[Noxot]

Yes.........and??

well is it not obvious? you are calling your own concepts about heaven and hell an invention of man. I guess I should mention that language is thought.

that is true, we all have thought about things. but you can't prove it (heaven and hell being real) in an absolute sense but you can abide by certain kinds of rules of logic to make certain types of conclusions based on those rules you abide by.

 

[Noxot]

I guess that is the point of the thread though! we are all just giving our opinions about this subject since reality will be reality no matter what our ideas about reality happen to be. if I made a short opinion in this thread I would just say something like:

heaven and hell are real because they are parts of reality that I experience on a daily basis though since I have a spiritual understanding of the bible and I see very many errors and assumptions about how people view it, it is natural for people to assume they are not real things. also in todays modern world it is becoming more and more popular of an idea that the only reality is the stuff we can study regardless of what we experience in reality and so it would be a common thing to think that heaven and hell are inventions (false ideas) created by men. and I agree. when others talk about heaven and hell they often have very many inventions about what they are because of the ignorance they have of other parts of reality such as the nature of good and evil.

obviously atheist who do not believe in God or heaven or hell would conclude that they are not real. that is why they are atheist. humans tend to think that what they believe is truth. I suppose that you have to start somewhere.

 

[Colter]

your language makes as much sense to me as I mine does to you. I like how the atheist in this thread keep trying to insult me.

contrary to your beliefs about what a person must know before he can think, I actually don't understand the language you are speaking very well at all. just pat yourselves on the back and call me stupid if that will help you be at ease.

it's all good fun though. I hate how off topic this thread is becoming but I hope no authoritarian wishes to try to get me to go back on topic. I like trying to think and having a conversation even if I can't relate much to the people I try to speak with. I wish the english language was more fluid and practical and less legalistic. it is annoying trying to abide by the rules of speaking proper English especially after I have forgotten so many of them. sadly words are so cumbersome and they seem to take forever before they start to properly express truth.

View attachment 180364

Atheist insist that they are just a material phenomenon despite all evidence to the contrary. Once committed to the religion of godless idealism, it becomes a kind of suicidal faith of it's own. Watch the ego of the atheist, it will out itself.

 

[Noxot]

i used to be an atheist myself. seems like humans can do good or evil with most things. atheism in particular is a strange phenomenon to me. I think God wants some people to be atheist and I admit that if there were no atheist that i certainly would not be able to experience them.

 

[HitchSlap]

i used to be an atheist myself.

What convinced you a god/s exist?

 

[HitchSlap]

I acknowledge the scientific method as useful but I would not say it is something that is capable of being cut off from the person and so I think finding knowledge always includes the self as there is no knowledge without a knower. when you say "what is real for you, is real for me" i see it to be true in some ways and not in others. but I assume you mean that we both exist in this universe but when I say that it assumes that objective reality is an absolute and the only form of reality in some peoples minds. it assumes things such as you know exactly what the universe is. since we all are limited we must assume some things about reality. but there are always going to be metaphysical assumptions about reality and when we have different metaphysical assumptions about reality it might mean that we have different views about what is true and what is false and it might mean that we favor different methods of obtaining truth.

I see the object world as only an expression of the greater reality which is closer to a kind of absolute and collective reality of God and all the souls he made. but obviously we both exist in an object world, I just don't go assuming that that is the only part of reality that is real. I also know my brain is subjective in nature and that i can't escape from myself when it comes to processing information.

so those are a few things about me that goes into trying to have true beliefs. since i'm religious I think the best way is to be as near to God as possible since God is the ultimate reality.

Exactly. We all have different bias and baggage we bring to the table. So if you and I were to sit down and have a discussion about the nature of reality, what would be the best way to go about it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

what are you assuming is a logical fallacy? I suppose I can still try to take a crack at your question though i don't understand what exactly you are trying to get me to say or agree or disagree to you about, or whatever other reason it is that you said this to me.

what is a logical fallacy? how do they have the power to invalidate an argument? does it matter who is presenting an argument or does it not? there are so many things to think about and to try to know.

to me that is just a word that has no meaning until I have more context. that is why i asked for a concrete example of what you mean rather than to leave it as a blurry and abstract idea in your mind that you assume I know about. how I see it atm is that saying "logical fallacy" is already an assumption about a specific concrete reality. is a logical fallacy something like 1+1= 1 ? because depending on what someone is talking about that is true or false. so then, what is this magical logical fallacy in the sky you are talking about?

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning which invalidates an argument. There's a large number of logical fallacies of different types. Here's an example of one:

X is true because everyone believes that X is true.

The fallacy here is called "argument from popularity". The reason we know it's a fallacy is that we can construct a statement in which case it isn't true:

"During the early days of civilization the world was flat because everyone believed the world was flat."

Because we can construct these statements, we know that any argument that uses popularity as a means of validating a premise is considered wrong.

It doesn't matter who's making the statement, how smart they are, where the statement is being made or under what context the statement is being made. It's always wrong.

Now, it still can be the case that "X is true" despite the flawed argument, it's just that the argument itself can't be considered a valid reason to believe that "X is true".

Does that help?

 

[SteveB28]

well is it not obvious? you are calling your own concepts about heaven and hell an invention of man. I guess I should mention that language is thought.

that is true, we all have thought about things. but you can't prove it (heaven and hell being real) in an absolute sense but you can abide by certain kinds of rules of logic to make certain types of conclusions based on those rules you abide by.

What "logic" leads you to think that heaven and hell exist?

 

[miknik5]

Heaven will be in His Presence
Hell will be shut out from His Presence

 

[HitchSlap]

Heaven will be in His Presence
Hell will be shut out from His Presence

I heard aitch is where the beer is!

 

[miknik5]

I heard aitch is where the beer is!

Well I'm not interested in that

 

[HitchSlap]

Well I'm not interested in that

Too bad!

 

[miknik5]

Too bad!

Not really

 

[HitchSlap]

Not really

Really?

 

[miknik5]

Really?

Yes. Really.

This is going to be a merry go round also?

 

[Noxot]

What convinced you a god/s exist?

I could not point out any one thing. in general I just wanted to know if God was real or not and so I searched out the people who seemed most qualified.

 

[Noxot]

Do you believe that logical fallacies invalidate an argument, no matter who is presenting the argument?

I wish i could give a simple yes or no but reality never seems to be that simple.

in some ways I can't give an answer because I do not know all the different things that you would consider to be under the umbrella term of "logical fallacies". so I can't give a 100% yes or no. I don't think that logical fallacies always have to invalidate an argument in the sense that no one can agree 100% on what logical fallacies are and also because most humans are not 100% rational and therefore they might themselves be trapped in a logical fallacy which defines for them what logical fallacies are.

A logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning which invalidates an argument.

Do you believe that logical fallacies invalidate an argument, no matter who is presenting the argument?

reason and reality are the same thing and so a flaw in reasoning is a flaw in knowing reality. i guess what you are telling me is that error is not the same thing as truth and I agree.

arguments are not a 'first thing' because reality is reality. so arguments are secondary things that either more or less comply or agree with reality. an argument about something is not necessarily the same thing as the thing itself. an error about a thing is not the same thing as an erroneous thing. if the logical fallacy is the same thing as the argument itself then yes an error is an error. reality is always reality and we each know it as much as we have the ability to know it.

if bill cobsy told me X and X=X
and if jerry seinfeld also told me X and X=X

then X = X

I guess one thing that is strange thinking in my eyes is that people try to closely link arguments with truth. truth does not require arguments. truth is always truth. so how can an argument become invalid? arguments are just arguments and they are either true or false depending on their nature.

so to me it is dumb when people assume that arguments denote what truth is. so saying something like "that's not an argument" is foolish in my eyes because I don't define "argument" in the same way as certain other people define it. why is it that in some human psychological structures that 'argument' and 'truth' are so closely linked together? do they believe that they can fight the truth into existence by arguing hard enough? only truth can produce truthful arguments. lies produce arguments of lies.

Do you believe that logical fallacies invalidate an argument, no matter who is presenting the argument?

yes, even if it was God. but since i'm a rational creature and God is super-rational as well I would inquire more deeply into the matter rather than to so quickly dismiss what he said. quickly dismissing something that i may or may not fully understand is irrational.

one last thing. I think that "logical fallacies" are not the same thing as "reason" because God is reason and we can only be as reasonable as our mind conforms to and partakes of reality. our brain is what makes up the "logical fallacies" rules in our heads. all logical fallacies are are thoughts that are either rational or irrational due to human beings being subjective beings and due to them having a capacity to be right and wrong. so what a human denotes in his brain to be 'reason' or 'truth' or 'lies' is just memory, language, and thoughts that conform more or less to reality. so to assume that "logical fallacies" in your own head is objective reality is delusional thinking. for some it might be that the human subconscious mind is what the conscious mind thinks is objective reality but I am not certain.

so it is important that we are on the same page and that we understand what a person means when they say something. so to assume words are objective, especially since they are created from subjective minds is just a foolish assumption. just because many thoughts and labels share a kind popularity in the world does not make a certain word to always be what the popular thought of the word is. therefore there is much confusion of what exactly hell and heaven are.