[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

Why do you assume that those who don't believe are in need or seeking anything?

I was a Christian, I was in need of real answer. Atheism gave them to me, being a kind man and wanting others treated well, took me to be a Humanist.

This is a take on having the "spirit". One has to believe in it first to have it, which defeats the object.

As for believing in an all powerful god who can do anything. I ask why he would kill so many and not save/teach/enlighten them first. On many occasions he never even tried to save people.

1. Life is full of struggles. All humanity seeks something more.
2. There are no x-Christians. In order to "be" a Christian, you die, and then it is no longer you who live, but Christ who lives in you. ...That doesn't sound like your experience. Sorry that it didn't go well for you.
3. Your question is great, one many have, and it deserves an answer. Let me try: God hasn't actually killed anyone, nor will he. On the contrary, he has given all people the opportunity of safe passage, and to rise above the suffering of this world. The reason that I say that he actually hasn't and will not kill anyone, is because the world is only contrived. It's all make believe. That may sound crazy from our perspective of living in it...but his message, is that we are not living, but actually not, and if we want to live, we need to be born out of this world into the next (born again, as it were). This world was created like a pixelated cyberspace or animated movie. The characters simply don't know anything else, they don't know they are not actually living, and if they bleed real pixelated blood and die on the set...it's not real. Nothing from nothing, is nothing. Nobody dies. Just the opposite is true. Some live.
4. The difference with Atheism and Humanism, is, nobody lives.

 

[ScottA]

The Universe isn't make believe, you can see a little bit of it every night.

You can see a universe by turning on your computer too. Is it really real? Did an all powerful God make cyberspace? If some geek can do it...then...

 

[ScottA]

I can accept gods as just make-believe.

But can you accept that cyberspace is not real? ...Then why not space, time, and matter? It just takes a Supergeek

 

[ScottA]

You mean: "Not-True-Prophets (tm)"?
Well, most of them where people who asserted that they were in possessing of "truth"... and that "truth" included to knoweledge of events that, quite obviously, didn't happen.

I explained all that. The end did happen, every time. Every lifetime soon ends.

Hm. So when you say "...the universe is like make-believe temporary passion, soon to be complete and thrown in the trash." you really mean: "You will die. The universe will carry on for all the other people, but you personally will die."?
But that doesn't jive either: if you were making that statement from "the greater, eternal reality"... the universe would not be completed and thrown in the trash "soon". It is all simulaneous. It would be "now".

No, not "soon" in eternity, "soon" in every lifetime in the world.

But of course neither the terms "now" nor "soon" do have any meaning in an atemporal setting.

Exactly.

 

[Freodin]

But can you accept that cyberspace is not real? ...Then why not space, time, and matter? It just takes a Supergeek

Infinite regression, I see you comming!

Why is cyberspace the way cyberspace is? Why are stories the way stories are?
Because of the way we, the creators of stories are.

If we now, from that premise, start to ask the question of "then why not space, time, and matter?", we do indeed get to conclude "a Supergeek". And he/she/it is a creator, like us.

And "not real" - created, part of a story or cyberspace, like us. Created by a Megasupergeek. Which in turn... etc... etc...


And another "analogy": stories are never reflective. They cannot be. They don't depend on an (existing or imagined) reality - only on the limited imagination of their creator.
This view of a "higher reality" does not work. If we are not "real" here... not "really real"... we are not "real" there either.

 

[Freodin]

I explained all that. The end did happen, every time, every lifetime ends.

The rapture? The earthquakes that destroyed the planet? The 1000 year rule of Jesus? All that happened?

Let me guess... it happned "simultaneously from the perspective of a higher reality"?

No, not "soon" in eternity, "soon" in every lifetime in the world.

Congratulation, you have managed to remove meaning from your whole reasoning.

Exactly.

And you even admit it! You are a real treat!

 

[ScottA]

Davian
Anger is hard on the health and emotions.
I am not religious, I have never gone to church so studying religion is off the list. That is just an intellectual path, not spiritual.
I can easily see, you are not ready, when you find yourself sick or in some serious problem, that could make your life miserable, perhaps that is what it will take for you to need a relationship with a higher source.
I was a very angry person, migraine headaches, angry, emotionally ill. That pain caused me to cry out for help and I found it.
So worry not, life has its downs and if that is what it takes, so be it.
Please don't study religion to learn, scan scripture and see what stands out to you, let all the rest go.
Good luck
Madera

Awesome!

 

[ScottA]

Infinite regression, I see you comming!

Why is cyberspace the way cyberspace is? Why are stories the way stories are?
Because of the way we, the creators of stories are.

If we now, from that premise, start to ask the question of "then why not space, time, and matter?", we do indeed get to conclude "a Supergeek". And he/she/it is a creator, like us.

And "not real" - created, part of a story or cyberspace, like us. Created by a Megasupergeek. Which in turn... etc... etc...

VERY good! Except, in the case of the geek...he's it. Which does fit the analogy.

And another "analogy": stories are never reflective. They cannot be. They don't depend on an (existing or imagined) reality - only on the limited imagination of their creator.
This view of a "higher reality" does not work. If we are not "real" here... not "really real"... we are not "real" there either.

True...unless, there is a built-in backdoor.

 

[Freodin]

VERY good! Except, in the case of the geek...he's it. Which does fit the analogy.

Which turns the analogy on its head and destroys it. Not that you care.

True...unless, there is a built-in backdoor.

True... unless it is false. But keep dreaming.

Be back later, I have some living to do.

 

[ScottA]

The rapture? The earthquakes that destroyed the planet? The 1000 year rule of Jesus? All that happened?

Let me guess... it happned "simultaneously from the perspective of a higher reality"?

Congratulation, you have managed to remove meaning from your whole reasoning.

And you even admit it! You are a real treat!

Wow, you're just not getting the timelessness thing. It's not that difficult: "I AM"...not "I was, I am, I will be"...simply, "I AM." But you are not the only one...the I was, I am, I will be (yesterday, today, and forever) is written in the scriptures...because that is the best way to "begin" to understand. But, heavens to mergatroid, obviously...we're not ready for advancement.

Sorry. As you were.

 

[ScottA]

Which turns the analogy on its head and destroys it. Not that you care.

No, no, hang on there...focus, focus... The [G]eek is the [C]reator. What he creates is like cyberspace which is not real, but he builds in a backdoor, a secret ID and Password, that activates a kind of 3D Copier. Jesus...help me out here!

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's why I said that we are "much more than a mixture of mechanical/chemical/physical chunk of meat". There's a lot of other stuff going on in side of us that makes us who we are.

I agree with you -- I'm an emergentist -- but I don't think that this observation supports your conclusions. There is a wide range of views consistent with that stance, including many atheist/naturalist views.

If I were to follow your logic, I could even say to you that "there's a lot of stuff going on inside of us that makes us who we are", and so you should view us as purely natural beings, because that stuff that is happening inside is part of our natures as living beings in a natural universe.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[paulm50]

Is it possible for you to view me as a reasonable person, rather than a religious zealot? It's very important for you to be able to view me as a reasonable person, is this something you can do? If you can't do this then you automatically assume I have religious motives, when all I really want to do is get you to think. I'm just looking for honest answers to these honest questions.

The honest answers are everywhere online.

You realize this is no different than you asking me if I can prove God and me saying "disprove it"...do you see how its very unreasonable for you to ask me to disprove non-existence? How about instead, we actually think about it and determine what is most reasonable to believe? capeesh?

I cannot prove nor disprove the existence of a god. Science has disproved the bibles record of so much that was claimed as his work. Evolution isn't a theory, it's 100% proven. All there is now are gaps in the ladder, which are being filled in by the day.
Then there are other natural disasters which were claimed as god's work. Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Plagues, these kind of events are attributed to all gods of all kinds. So attributing them to the Judaic god isn't unusual.

First of all, it would be reasonable to believe that if an entity were to prove that existence can exist outside of time and space, this entity would have to actually be outside time and space in order to prove this, does that make sense?

Yes, now prove the entity exists. Because you just claimed we can't prove it exists, all we can prove is every ancient society needed a god to bind them together. And keep them apart from other societies.

Also, we can think about non-existence from our perspective. It seems unreasonable to believe in non-existence because in order for non-existence to be proven to something that exists(like us), non-existence would have to exist in order to be known, so why believe in something that can never be proven as true? Does that make sense?

So linking real events, like a flood, plague, evolution, crop failures, etc. Gave this being of non-existence, reality to the primitive people who needed to be led. The existence of a god, was shown by simple, natural events. When those events are proven to be natural, the god theory falls apart. This isn't just the Judaic god, this is all of them. Once the Judaic god is linked to natural events, the credibility of the writers, falls apart.

Right, so then after gaining this knowledge it becomes unreasonable to believe the earth is flat, correct?

Except some still believe a god made us, rules us, saves, us. To do this we have to believe Bronze Age and Romans had communication with a god. Even though the evidence shows they didn't.

For instance, we used to believe the Earth was flat, the Sun revolved around the Earth, that bleeding people would cure them, or praying would do the same. We have learnt otherwise. YET!

Some refuse to believe in the truth of evolution, the flood was a local natural event, plagues happen all the time in Egypt, crops fail, it rains too much, or too little and sometimes the Earth does open up and kill people.

That god needs men to slaughter innocent people so the Israelites can live on their land. Take that last one forward to today and see how many will die today for that same reason. I don't care if people in 1500 BC or 3500 AD believed in the bible. I care if people believe in a mythical god today and use it to oppress innocent people. From controlling their sex lives, to killing them.

This shows its reasonable to believe in something that you can't physically see, simply because its reasonable to believe that Australia exists because you might of seen images or videos of Australia, but these images and videos are not physically Australia. So you trust Australia exists based on indirect evidence of physical Australia, does that make sense?

It makes sense that Australia exists, because I can speak, hear and see someone on Skype from Australia. It doesn't make sense when relating it to a god. I can't see, speak or have him speak back to me. Except using my imagination.

That calls into question everyone who claims to have to have spoken or heard from any god. Especially when so much of the evidence points away from any god.

 

[Freodin]

Wow, you're just not getting the timelessness thing. It's not that difficult: "I AM"...not "I was, I am, I will be"...simply, "I AM." But you are not the only one...the I was, I am, I will be (yesterday, today, and forever) is written in the scriptures...because that is the best way to "begin" to understand. But, heavens to mergatroid, obviously...we're not ready for advancement.

Sorry. As you were.

Oh, I do get "the timelessness thing"... a lot better than you would think, and, I'd say, a lot better than you.
See, timelessness is a interesting philosophical concept... but what you do is jump between time and timeless within a single argument as it suits you.

No, no, hang on there...focus, focus... The [G]eek is the [C]reator. What he creates is like cyberspace which is not real, but he builds in a backdoor, a secret ID and Password, that activates a kind of 3D Copier. Jesus...help me out here!

Oh, if only Jesus would help you out!

I'd say you are suffering from a massive analogy fail at the moment.

First, you assert that there is a creation that is "not real"... and then a second creation that somehow is "real". But from the famous timeless, infinite, higher reality, there is no difference between these creations.
Christians are quick to point out that "the universe cannot create itself". The creator cannot create something that is "real" either.
Second, you missed (or ignored) what I previously said: your analogy of... well, every analogy you use... only works because there is indeed a reality - our reality - that it is analogous to. If you use the geek-cyberspace analogy, you have to realize that the geek exists in our reality... and can only work as an analogy, if you assume the Meta-geek. And the Meta-Meta-geek. And so on.

The creator is created. Else the analogy fails from the start.

 

[paulm50]

Actually, there would be something to prove because I don't believe in non-existence, simply because its unreasonable to believe in something that can't possibly be proven to be true.

If you say "there is nothing to prove" does that mean you don't believe in non-existence, meaning you accept the truth that non-existence is impossible?

So something that doesn't exist, spoke to men, caused the flood, plagues, earthquakes, etc???

Can you think of reality as being subjectively objective (when a human mind is trying to be as objective as possible) as well as unalterably objective (when there is no human mind involved at all)? If you can think of reality in this way, then reality is either subjectively objective or unalterably objective, make sense?

Can you think of a human mind creating a myth that binds people together. to organise, control and exploit them?

"measuring" would become irrelevant without time and space. If an entity exists outside time and space it would simply "be". It would be in a state incomprehensible to our current subjective state of existence.

If it was outside space and time, why is it given so much credit?

And this is where all the gods fall. What they are credited with. What they demand. And what the penalties are for our disobeying the priests.

These non-existent beings can't be disputed for what we can't see. They can and are disproved by what we are told we can see. I can ask you to prove what they are credited for, including your god, and your failure to do so, and my success in proving the events were natural. Leads to one answer.

That the gods we are told about, are all man made. The real one is nothing except imagination. Until proof is provided.

 

[paulm50]

2. There are no x-Christians. In order to "be" a Christian, you die, and then it is no longer you who live, but Christ who lives in you. ...That doesn't sound like your experience. Sorry that it didn't go well for you.

Makes no sense.

3. Your question is great, one many have, and it deserves an answer. Let me try: God hasn't actually killed anyone, nor will he. On the contrary, he has given all people the opportunity of safe passage, and to rise above the suffering of this world. The reason that I say that he actually hasn't and will not kill anyone, is because the world is only contrived. It's all make believe. That may sound crazy from our perspective of living in it...but his message, is that we are not living, but actually not, and if we want to live, we need to be born out of this world into the next (born again, as it were). This world was created like a pixelated cyberspace or animated movie. The characters simply don't know anything else, they don't know they are not actually living, and if they bleed real pixelated blood and die on the set...it's not real. Nothing from nothing, is nothing. Nobody dies. Just the opposite is true. Some live.

God has killed people, he killed the people in Egypt who had no clue Moses was asking Pharoah permission to leave. The Canaanite had no opportunity to leave, they were just killed.

As for the world being make believe and a make believe one being real. LOL

4. The difference with Atheism and Humanism, is, nobody lives.

I'm living now.

 

[paulm50]

But can you accept that cyberspace is not real? ...Then why not space, time, and matter? It just takes a Supergeek

Can you accept the Mayans, Hindus, Druids, Canaanite, Atenism, Minoan, Mithraism, Manichaeism, Tengriism, Ashurism, Vedism, Olmec, Norse paganism, Mesoamerican, Wakan Tanka, KA-RO-RA, the 100s of Chinese gods, and the 1,000s of other gods as being real. Or only your one?

There's one constant throughout all ancient societies. The need for a mythical power, no one can see, prove or disprove. That's responsible for everything, and everyone should do as the priest tell us to.

What's easy to prove is when an event claimed as his work, isn't anything to do with him. The Universe is real. The Flood was real to those in the area of the Black Sea, it was also very real in the Indian Ocean, Boxing Day 2004. Because we know what caused that one, we don't claim it was god punishing them. Unlike the flood in the bible, that was another local event killing a lot of innocent people. They had no clue the Ice Caps were melting and about to create a huge breach in the landbridge turning a lake, into a sea.

Just a local natural event, turned into a punishment for those who didn't do as they were told.

 

[KCfromNC]

But...have you considered that not allowing magic in a make-believe world, will never produce any?

Why would considering that be useful in this situation?

Oh, how I wish there were no children who were never allowed to play, to make-believe!

Are you comparing your religious beliefs to those of children making up stories?

 

[KCfromNC]

Wait - when did this happen?

Maybe we've hit the point in this conversation where the person preaching for a god confuses himself with one?

 

[Chriliman]

So something that doesn't exist, spoke to men, caused the flood, plagues, earthquakes, etc???Can you think of a human mind creating a myth that binds people together. to organise, control and exploit them?If it was outside space and time, why is it given so much credit?

You're missing the point. I'm saying its unreasonable to believe in non-existence, therefore, I accept the truth that I exist and therefore I believe I will never cease to exist, simply because I do not believe in non-existence because I think its unreasonable to believe in non-existence.

So what are the implications of reasonably believing existence is all there is? Well the implications are that existence must be infinite and timeless, but I myself am not infinite and timeless, therefore, my existence has a beginning, but no end. The only logical answer for where my existence came from is infinite timeless existence, which is how I would expect God to describe himself to me if I were to inquire about Him, simply because it makes sense. So this is my logical, reasonable answer to why I believe in God and since I believe in God, He has made himself known to me, but whats even more important is that He knows me and therefore I will exist forever with Him.

Its from this basic understanding of God and believing in this God because He makes sense, that we can then move to understanding the purpose God has for the Bible, however, if you refuse to believe in this God that does make sense, then you will not understand the purpose of the Bible and will continue to be blinded to the truth that God wants to give you.

I have a sound reason that makes sense for my belief in God, therefore, anything you bring up about the Bible not making sense to you has no effect on me because what doesn't make sense to you, makes perfect sense to me and I'm sure even you would consider me unreasonable if I chose to not believe something that makes perfect sense.