True Believers

[PsychoSarah]

The inability or unwillingness to share the inner life with God is the main feature if the Atheist faith.

No. Again, generalization. That first point might apply to me, but there are all sorts of other reasons that people are atheists beyond those two.

 

[Colter]

Well, I tend to rely on objective verifiable evidence. You know, the kind you can see, touch, measure and verify with outside means.

This tends to increase the probability (quite substantially), that I am accepting reality, as it is.

For the materialist Atheist the material realm is the ultimate objective reality, the conscious of self is merely a temporary dead end phenomenon. For the mind born of spirit, the material is a temporary transient experience, for us God is the ultimate reality. We regard time as "the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?" For us God is the first truth and the last fact.

"Man’s contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB
​

 

[Eudaimonist]

For the mind born of spirit, the material is a temporary transient experience, for us God is the ultimate reality. We regard time as "the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?" For us God is the first truth and the last fact.

That's a nice story. I can see why it would be appealing to you. But why believe that the story is true?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

For the materialist Atheist the material realm is the ultimate objective reality, the conscious of self is merely a temporary dead end phenomenon. For the mind born of spirit, the material is a temporary transient experience, for us God is the ultimate reality. We regard time as "the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?" For us God is the first truth and the last fact.

"Man’s contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB
​

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Colter]

Even if that was proven to be true, it wouldn't guarantee belief in the "right" god

You keep missing the point Sarah, there is only One God, but many finite conceptualizations of him among evolutionary man. Its not possible for any man to completely comprehend the I AM. Only the I AM is absolute, all others relations are relative to the I AM, divine Sons or the finite mortal.

 

[Colter]

Whatever floats your boat.

Whatever sinks your ship

 

[bhsmte]

Whatever sinks your ship

Now that was totally predictable.

 

[Colter]

That's a nice story. I can see why it would be appealing to you. But why believe that the story is true?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Something's true Mark. If for you the material is self existent then I speculate that you are a part of the evolutionary process like the many other lines of life that ended.

 

[Davian]

For the materialist Atheist the material realm is the ultimate objective reality, the conscious of self is merely a temporary dead end phenomenon. For the mind born of spirit, the material is a temporary transient experience, for us God is the ultimate reality. We regard time as "the moving image of eternity and space as the fleeting shadow of Paradise realities?" For us God is the first truth and the last fact.

"Man’s contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB
​

That's a nice story. I can see why it would be appealing to you. But why believe that the story is true?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can only guess, but if it were not true, he would be sad.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Something's true Mark.

Agreed. Something is true.

But we are talking about epistemological issues here -- how we may rightly conclude that something is true.

If [...] the material is self existent then I speculate that you are a part of the evolutionary process like the many other lines of life that ended.

And many that continue.

So, what leads you to speculate that? I assume it is because of the evidence of the senses under the rigor of scientific investigation. We have eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and skin to provide us with sensory information about the world. You'll notice that I have identified the particular sense organs, and we know through science basically how they work.

So, why believe your story? Saying that "something's true" doesn't answer anything. The Lord of the Rings isn't true because something must be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Agreed. Something is true.

But we are talking about epistemological issues here -- how we may rightly conclude that something is true.



And many that continue.

So, what leads you to speculate that? I assume it is because of the evidence of the senses under the rigor of scientific investigation. We have eyes, ears, noses, tongues, and skin to provide us with sensory information about the world. You'll notice that I have identified the particular sense organs, and we know through science basically how they work.

So, why believe your story? Saying that "something's true" doesn't answer anything. The Lord of the Rings isn't true because something must be true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What is your technique for concluding that The Lord of the Rings is not true? Did you first conduct scientific experiments, use the sense organs that you mentioned? The answer to your question to me is somewhere in your answer to these questions.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The progress of science leads to the elimination of previously held false theories, the progress of religious evolution leads to the mortality of false God concepts. Both of these developments in the evolution of the cosmic economy served the purpose as the scaffolding for emerging truth.

If we had a record in a series of books spanning thousands of years of all that so called science speculated about concerning the material world, it would look just as convoluted as the current Bible book list.

How does one determine which God concepts are false? Science has a way of figuring out which theories offer better explanations for particular phenomena. How does religion eliminate false God concepts? Every time we ask you this you become indignant and baselessly accuse us of insincerity.

Bumping this back in for Colter.

Doesn't the Urantia Book have an answer?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is your technique for concluding that The Lord of the Rings is not true?

The burden of justification falls on the shoulders of anyone claiming that the Lord of the Rings really happened somewhere. They are the ones who have to provide the evidence and argumentation. I can, of course, critique the argument and show how the argument does not hold water.

Did you first conduct scientific experiments, use the sense organs that you mentioned?

You'd have to ask the person who is trying to defend that case. I would think that sense organs would probably be a necessity somewhere.

The answer to your question to me is somewhere in your answer to these questions.

I'm not a mindreader. If you have an answer, please post it to the thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

The burden of justification falls on the shoulders of anyone claiming that the Lord of the Rings really happened somewhere. They are the ones who have to provide the evidence and argumentation. I can, of course, critique the argument and show how the argument does not hold water.



You'd have to ask the person who is trying to defend that case. I would think that sense organs would probably be a necessity somewhere.



I'm not a mindreader. If you have an answer, please post it to the thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That's a peculiar deflection, I asked you how you determined that The Lord of the Rings isn't true. You created a hypothetical person who is defending the case and I would need to go talk to them?

For me I intuitively knew "Lord of the Rings" was a fictional movie. This intuition is part of the inherent "reality response" of mind. This ability of mind is an endowment or derivative of the cosmic mind. I was thinking you would draw the conclusion on your own that you didn't need to ask a scientist or make material observations first about a movie to determine weather or not it was a true story.


As an aside, I've always intuitively sensed that certain narrations of the Bible were not true, weather it was the story or various representations of God the Father.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's a peculiar deflection

It's not a deflection. It's a critical epistemological point.

I asked you how you determined that The Lord of the Rings isn't true.

I have no good reason to think that it is true. It appears to be just some fictional story from someone's imagination.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. I'm not omniscient, so I can't just tell you through Awesome God Power that Middle-earth does not exist anywhere or anywhen.

You created a hypothetical person who is defending the case and I would need to go talk to them?

Yes, you would need to consider what the best case for the reality of Lord of the Rings is, and see if the argument is successful. If it fails, that claim may be discarded.

For me I intuitively knew "Lord of the Rings" was a fictional movie.

Only intuitively? It isn't through intuition that I know what fiction is. I have direct experience with novels and authors. J.R.R. Tolkien certainly never claimed to be giving divine revelation. It is possible to look through his notes, as passed on by his son Christopher, to see earlier versions of some chapters of the novel, suggesting an evolution of creative effort.

While intuition can sometimes be correct, I don't see it as a magical power, like clairvoyance. It's just another mental power we have, similar to reason, but working more at an unconscious level.

This intuition is part of the inherent "reality response" of mind. This ability of mind is an endowment or derivative of the cosmic mind.

Honestly, what you write above doesn't make any sense to me.

I was thinking you would draw the conclusion on your own that you didn't need to ask a scientist or make material observations first about a movie to determine weather or not it was a true story.

True, I don't. I am not scientistic. However, that doesn't mean that anything goes epistemologically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

It's not a deflection. It's a critical epistemological point.



I have no good reason to think that it is true. It appears to be just some fictional story from someone's imagination.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. I'm not omniscient, so I can't just tell you through Awesome God Power that Middle-earth does not exist anywhere or anywhen.



Yes, you would need to consider what the best case for the reality of Lord of the Rings is, and see if the argument is successful. If it fails, that claim may be discarded.



Only intuitively? It isn't through intuition that I know what fiction is. I have direct experience with novels and authors. J.R.R. Tolkien certainly never claimed to be giving divine revelation. It is possible to look through his notes, as passed on by his son Christopher, to see earlier versions of some chapters of the novel, suggesting an evolution of creative effort.

While intuition can sometimes be correct, I don't see it as a magical power, like clairvoyance. It's just another mental power we have, similar to reason, but working more at an unconscious level.



Honestly, what you write above doesn't make any sense to me.



True, I don't. I am not scientistic. However, that doesn't mean that anything goes epistemologically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Explanation of the "reality response" to the cosmic mind. The origin and development of the three cosmic intuitions.




Paper 16 - The Seven Master Spirits | Urantia Book | Urantia Foundation

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Wow. The Urantia Book has the answer to everything! I'm going to throw out all my textbooks and papers now.

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm not sure what you are looking for here. I'm not omniscient, so I can't just tell you through Awesome God Power that Middle-earth does not exist anywhere or anywhen.

How do you know that you're not omniscient?

 

[Colter]

"The Father is not in spiritual hiding, but so many of his creatures have hidden themselves away in the mists of their own willful decisions and for the time being have separated themselves from the communion of his spirit and the spirit of his Son by the choosing of their own perverse ways and by the indulgence of the self-assertiveness of their intolerant minds and unspiritual natures.

Mortal man may draw near God and may repeatedly forsake the divine will so long as the power of choice remains. Man’s final doom is not sealed until he has lost the power to choose the Father’s will. There is never a closure of the Father’s heart to the need and the petition of his children. Only do his offspring close their hearts forever to the Father’s drawing power when they finally and forever lose the desire to do his divine will — to know him and to be like him. Likewise is man’s eternal destiny assured when Adjuster fusion proclaims to the universe that such an ascender has made the final and irrevocable choice to live the Father’s will." UB 1955​

 

[PsychoSarah]

You keep missing the point Sarah, there is only One God, but many finite conceptualizations of him among evolutionary man. Its not possible for any man to completely comprehend the I AM. Only the I AM is absolute, all others relations are relative to the I AM, divine Sons or the finite mortal.

Then why even bother trying to worship it, given it is impossible to know what it wants from you? Note: worship and belief are not the same