When I was a child I often wondered where the sun and moon went and why the birds could fly and I couldn't. As an adult I often wonder where the dead go when they (that which is beyond the heavens) die and why do they have to die? Is there something more to the Bible than the words that we read? Is there a spiritual world that we know nothing of? Are there spirits around us, both good and evil? What are your thoughts about the soul, the spirit, the flesh, the mind, the heart. What do you think? Is any of this real or is it merely a dream?
I always explained it to my kids this way:
Cars have drivers. When a car gets old, it breaks down. The driver doesn't stay in the car, he gets out and moves on. Obviously, our souls are the drivers, our bodies are the cars.
I do not believe souls walk the earth when they die. I believe they simply go to sleep (I Thess 4:13-18) and that Christ will call all of the living and the dead to him at one time (and we will all meet him in the air) then on to the judgement. (II Cor 5:10)
On that day we will be asked to give an account for our lives (Rm 14:12). According the the Bible, God will say, "Welcome home, my good and faithful child." Or He will say, "Away from me, I never knew you." (Rev 1:12-18)
As far as the good and evil spirits, I believe those are only angels (Heb 1:14) and demons. (I Tim 4:1)
I believe we feel very connected to this life... the next seems like a dream, but one day, the next life will be a reality and it is this life that will be like a dream. (I Cor 13:12)
What happens to the driver in a head on collision with another car?
Btw, I hope your kids never take a biology class.
What happens to Alzheimer patients? Where the car in fine, but the driver can't remember where he is going or who his children are? After death does he suddenly have all the memories that his brain has forgotten? What about a baby, do they go to heaven without having any concept of who they are?
So you don't believe a soul is possible. That's ok, but Beth isn't so far off track, imo, if souls exist.
If a soul exists and it is a separate part of you....detached, yet interacting; what we could be seeing in cases such as brain injury, Alzheimers, and myriad other disorders is simply the vehicle malfunctioning while the interacting soul is unable to compensate. If you drive a car with a horrible front end alignment coupled with spark plugs misfiring (I'm not mechanically inclined, so please bear with me) and maybe a radiator with little water you may look as if you have trouble driving. You know yourself to be an excellent driver, others remember you were an excellent driver, but the evidence of your ability to drive is now absent.
This is one reason why we believe that even those who have ceased to display the ability to function and/or think in a manner we traditionally label as human are still due care in a manner indicative of their humanity. Somewhere inside we believe it is possible that they are still aware.
I, personally, believe some level of awareness extends beyond death which means there is some part of each of us which cannot be influenced by aging or accidents or genetic flaws. I haven't seen evidence that we have learned enough about existence to negate the idea of such. I suppose most of the assumptions made as to what is entailed in such an existence can be viewed as imagined bs but the core assumption is based on enough circumstantial and anecdotal evidence to warrant continued open mindedness.
What circumstantial and anecdotal evidence?
If you have something that doesn't line up with what science knows I'd sure like to hear it.
Here is what we do know. When the brain is shut down during surgery consciousness goes away. When someone suffers a head injured all kinds of thing may happen that can alter personality and consciousness. Thoughts can be altered using chemicals and electricity. Babies aren't born self aware, they develop it as their brains develop. Brain chemistry affects personality and disorders.
No soul has ever been shown to exist despite the extensive search. The human model of thought works fine without a soul so we can use Occam's razor to eliminate the complications of a soul until it's shown to exist.
Essentially the soul is something we are told we have as young children so we are accustomed to the concept. But if one steps back and looks at the concept critically it starts to look rather silly and it contradicts what now is understood about the brain.
I disagree, of course. Occham's razor would imply (in my mind) that the history of humanity wouldn't by lying about experience. That a short period of study would not negate thousands of years of anecdotal evidence used to accept something as a mystery.
I'm not saying i know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there is anything more. All I'm saying is that we can't currently difinitively rule it out. I can't minimize the experience of others, to that extent. I can view statements made as to the meaning of experience and determine them to be fallacious but that doesn't necessarily imply (in my mind) that there was no experience.
Every study ever done on out of body experiences have come up negative. A few thousand years ago when the idea of a soul was thought up, and it was just that thought up People didn't have any understand of anatomy let alone the functions of the brain. One has to look at what can be studied and the soul is undetectable just as God is, but all of the souls functions can be explained with what we do know about the brain.
No. We can mimic things claimed. We can't say we know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that we are creating the same experience. We will never agree. But, the jury remains out; in my mind.
So people can make any claims they want and you won't question their statements. What happens when someone claims they speak directly to God? You don't question them, but you question anyone who questions them? Because that's what you are doing now. You seem to be saying I'm wrong for questioning anyone who makes a claim. You are questioning the person who's questioning the claim that no evidence supports and all evidence refutes.
I don't see how you think I'm saying you're wrong for questioning a claim. That isn't my intent, nor do i see that in my comment. What i see you doing is adamantly stating there is no way a soul could exist. That claim you are making is what i am commenting on.
I'm stating that no soul have ever been detected or demonstrated. There is only claims.
Well......no soul has been detected by you or anyone you accept as an authority. Which is fine. For you. Aren't any statements on the subject claims? Either way?
We can make all kind of claims, but unless they are backed up with evidence they are meaningless.
Do you insinuate that personal, subjective, unrepeatable observations without recordings are authoritative? Or can be authoritative if the person is the pope or some such?
I think it is important to remember that, through the course of history, many things have been assumed and not found until much after the first assumption. The atom, for example. I read a commencement speech given by an imminent scientist which ticked off the journey of discovery which led us to the discovery. Think of the things we might never have known had we never searched.
The problem is there was evidence for the atom, that's why they looked for it. There is no evidence for a soul, and people have been trying to find it for thousands of years. I believe there is a million dollars in it for the person who finds evidence of the super-natural.
I've actually looked for evidence in the only place where one would think it must be. Prayer.
Prayer has never been shown to statistically work and more than a placebo, although some religious groups have lied about the evidence they have found, nothing has been found.
That is not what I see at all, you seem to be reading into things that aren't there. Perhaps, that is the problem with your arguments, they are based on things you say and not what others say.
Or (just a thought brought on by your stalking me) you have too much time on your hands and should find better things to do than nitpick my conversations with others.
No one is nitpicking your conversations, they are questioning your claims and correcting your responses.
No. You aren't correcting my responses. You are attempting to change them to suit your fancy. I don't make any claims of anything other than my opinion. I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, just voicing an opinion. Sorry if that offends you, but that would be your problem and consistently attempting to imply I've said something I didn't doesn't make me look bad.
To be fare Emile, you do tend to read more information into a conversation than was wrote. We've had many conversations where I've said "where did you get that?". If I say I'm Canadian you assume I live in an Igloo and say "about" funny (aboat) then I spend half the conversation telling you I don't live in an Igloo. It's just strange that ED/ATM and I pick up on that, well it's not strange at all is it?
We're just showing your "opinions" aren't valid in light of facts and evidence. Sorry, if that offends you.
You are not using Occhams Razor correctly because you are adding more levels of confusion and questioning that aren't supported by any evidence.
But, it has reached a stage of open mindedness from those making the claims in which brains have fallen out.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Spirituality and the like have never been my thing, but that doesn't mean that I discount them. Every revelation we (humanity on the whole) have raises a dozen more questions, after all. While I may not leap on the religious wagon, I do believe that there are more mysteries in the world than we will ever be able to comprehend. There have been numerous studies on the concept of the soul, chi, and other "life-force" concepts, everything from weighing a man at the instant of his death to thermal and electromagnetic analysis of Shaolin monks during practice, and I find the results intriguing.
In case you're not already aware, the weighing the dead man thing did in fact yield a reduction in weight though the methodology of the experiment has been questioned and criticized ever since, and those monks do in fact show visible and noticeable changes in the areas that their practice targets. I'll spare everyone the details, though.
That sounds like an interesting read. Do you have a link?
I'd have to track something down, I saw both experiments in respective documentaries. Duncan McDougal was the physician who conducted the experiment on the soul back in 1907, as for the Shaolin thing, they took thermal and electromagnetic data on the limbs that the monks were supposed to be channeling their chi into and saw appreciable spikes in the targeted areas.
The mind is a powerful thing, especially in how it affects our body.
Undoubtedly. The results are pretty undeniable, and the Shaolin monks are among my favorite examples. Supernatural or not, through training and discipline they are able to do absolutely astonishing things that common knowledge dictates should be completely impossible without severe injury or death. Once you've watched a man bend a pair of spears by walking against the points with his throat without so much as a scratch, you can't help but wonder if there isn't something to the whole "chi" thing.
The only results I've ever seen from weighing a dying person were all negative - there was no change detectable before/after death.
The Shaolin priests do sound very interesting, but nothing to do with the supernatural. By definition, if results of their meditation can be measured it is not supernatural. Just as you say, the mind is a very powerful instrument and can exert control over our bodies far beyond what most people are aware of.
I'm rather sure that McDougal did measure a reduction in weight, but I could be wrong. I know there was a lot of talk about his method being flawed, perhaps they came across something he screwed up that I'm not aware of.
I bring up the Shaolin monks because while the scientific analysis may not be spiritual, the practice itself as they see it certainly is. Seeing those appreciable scientific results doesn't change that, it just validates that yes, there is something going on. I never said anything about supernatural.
A matter of interpretation or semantics.
Supernatural = spiritual = not of this universe. Things or actions taking place outside our "natural" universe - defined as undetectable because we cannot leave the universe until death.
Supernatural - Unexplainable by natural law, beyond what is natural.
Spiritual - Pertaining or related to the spirit.
If the idea of the soul, chi, or what have you is, in fact, a real thing (which is the question originally posed), then it would not qualify as supernatural because it would be a valid part of natural law. It would, however, still be spiritual.
That's all I'm saying on the subject. The poster had a point in bringing up this subject, and I'm fairly certain it wasn't squabbling over semantics.
No, it wasn't squabbling over semantics that the OP had in mind. And we do, after all, have basically the same thing to say, just use different terms.
I only brought it up as an explanation of my meaning, an effort to promote understanding rather than a shutdown of "You're wrong!". And along those lines, I've come to understand (or think I do) that most people view spiritual things as unnatural, not of this world or nature. As arising from somewhere else and not following natural laws. Whether the Shaolin have this view I don't know - from what you say they do not.
I misinterpreted then, and I apologize if I came off confrontational on the subject.
The Shaolin and other philosophies that embrace the idea of chi, qi, etc. do accept is as incorporeal, they believe that it an integral part of all life. So, from that perspective you can see how there would be a differentiation between spiritual and supernatural. It seems to be an east vs. west thing.
I don't always agree with you, but I just want to say that I really, really like your style in conversational debate. I hope mine is similar.
Weight is a product of gravity, without gravity, we only have mass. In space, for example we are weightless. If there is indeed a reduction in weight, there would have to be a mass and gravity would have an effect on that mass, which means scientists would be able to detect the mass.
Have scientists ever detected such a mass of soul or spirit?
The only time I know of that being performed is the aforementioned McDougal study in 1907. Wilderness has only come upon negative results, I've seen that McDougal himself got positive results but that his test methods were questioned and as a result the experiment was largely invalidated.
The odd thing is that as far as I know, gravity (measured as weight) is the effect of attraction between two physical masses. Not a mass and energy or anything else. Just two masses.
So why weigh anything? If the soul is a physical mass, we could see it leave, we could seal the room before death and it would remain in the room. We can SEE mass - no need for great machinations or imaginative constructions for the "soul". If a little one inch cube detaches at death and scurries across the floor or floats up into the sky, we can see it go.
Gravity does indeed have an effect on energy and mass, because mass and energy are equivalent: e=mc^2.
Exactly, not only that, but if gravity has an effect on souls or spirits, they would not be able to float, they would be bound to the earth like everything else in a gravitational field. They would be made up of particles and could easily be detected by any number of methods.
Um, you're right - gravity not only bends and warps time but light as well. But light is not energy in the supernatural sense, and photons (light) DO have mass. At least in the resting stage - maybe that's the portion of such energy that is affected by gravity. Whatever it is that causes light to have mass.
From another thread,
it seems that heaven is the ball of spinning, molten ball of iron at the core of the earth. Material souls can then sink to the core, taking billions of years to do so through the mechanism of plate tectonics. Just toss them on the ground and they'll end up deep underground, just as all those animal corpses did that now make up our oil fields.
Photons are never at rest and don't have a mass. If and when a photon becomes "at rest" it disappears altogether and it's energy is absorbed into a mass.
Gravity warps the space in and around objects, that is why we don't feel any forces acting upon us when we are in free fall in a gravitational field, the same goes with light, which instead begins to gain energy moving towards a gravitational "well" and loses energy moving away from it. This can be observed when that light moves towards the blue spectrum and red spectrum.
What is the velocity of a photon at the point of impact right angles to a mirror?
Photons always travel a c (speed of light) from the instant they are emitted to the instant they are absorbed by electrons.
How do you make a reversal in direction without stopping? Velocity goes from positive to negative without passing through zero? Are the photons absorbed by the silver in the mirror and instantly re-emitted?
Electrons are at a gauge state, which is the lowest energy state they can occupy. When they absorb a photon, their gauge state increases and they immediately emit the the energy in order to go back to their original gauge state. This all occurs at the Plank level of time and space.
So the electrons in the silver emulsion at the back of a mirror DO absorb the photons and immediately re-emit them.
I confess that I am not up on the latest thought here, but find it a little odd that the photons emitted by randomly selected electrons (within a small area) all travel in the same direction, and at a precise angle relative to the macro surface of that emulsion as determined by the angle of incidence. Wonder how an electron manages to send off the photon in just the right direction? Certainly that electron (in "orbit" around a randomly selected atom in a three dimensional object) is not cognizant of the plane of the mirror, and all other sources seem to emit in all directions at once - all but that surface of a mirror...
Oh no, photons are emitted in ALL directions. That is why you can see the reflection of things in a mirror no matter what angle you observe it. At the Plank level, there are billions of photons being emitted in a small area.
True to a point, but the large majority is emitted in a particular line. It's why you can "bounce" a light beam around a corner and still have a "beam" of light.
And you cannot see reflection of things from all around; only those with the proper incident angle. You cannot, for instance, stand in front of a mirror and see a reflection of something at 2 degrees from the plane of the mirror. Were it not so, the reflection you see would be distorted beyond our ability to resolve it. Like looking through a fisheye camera lens only much worse.
You can see this by using a small makeup mirror; hold it in front of you and tip it until you can see your chin. Now tip it up; you see the ceiling but not your chin. Tip it right and you see the reflection of things over there but nothing to the left and not your face; tip it left and the opposite. The angle of incident light equals the angle of reflected light for the vast majority of photons; there is only a very, very few that are absorbed and re-emitted at random angles. Of course even clear glass will absorb a few, as will the nearly perfectly reflecting surface of silver on the back or the glass. There is also the matter of random dust particles, unseen, changing the direction of specific photons and thus the angle of incidence; those photons will not be at the expected angle.
That would probably be a laser, in which a machine 'directs' the photons into a beam.
Very true, but that doesn't diminish the fact that photons are emitted in all directions considering the electrons don't know which direction the photons absorbed came from and don't know which direction they will go once emitted again.
Bouncing a beam around a corner is also something a flashlight will do. No laser needed.
You're not making sense. Photons are NOT "emitted" in all directions from a mirror, except in very minor amounts, and those can be attributed to diffraction and impurities in the mirror itself. That vast majority are reflected (reflected, not emitted) at the precise angle they impinged on the mirror. We know they are not being absorbed and re-emitted because the electron cannot tell the direction they came from, cannot know the plane of the mirror and would not emit at the proper angle if it DID know those things.
In case you're not already aware, the weighing of the dead thing has never been repeated. We have to just take his word. Further for a soul to have weight it would have to be a body part that leaves when we die. I've unfortunately watch people die and can tell you no body parts fly off.
Don't believe everything you see on TV. David Blain doesn't really float, although he has editors that make him look like he does.
I do believe we are both physical and spiritual beings, one thing I know for sure is that the conciseness can and does function separate from the body and that this non-physical part of us separates at death and must go to its proper dwelling place. This is confirmed by the apostle Paul who said “to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ’” Paul says that when one belongs to Christ he goes to be with the Lord at the moment of death.
The body goes to its proper place which is back to which it came, back to dust. The spirit being that once lived in the house we call the body cannot go to dust because it and is not made of dust. So the physical body returns to the physical elements of the earth from which it came [the earth] so must the spirit part of man return to the elements from which it came.
According to scripture, when a man dies, his body returns to the earth, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.
Even though the two bodies separate at death they must be reunited again, now the bible doesn’t states that all the spirits that returns to God will dwell in the presence of God. All return to God for judgment [the word all wrong doers hate] JUDGEMENT!
All spirits returns to God for judgment!
Wrong doers? Like lying about what one knows for sure?
So you’re your first respond is to call me a liar, how do you know I’m lying? Because you are not experiencing something does not mean it’s not happening. Many people have seen their spirit leave their body.
I have practice in the pass, the satanic art of Astral Projection, and know that this game is for real. What I would like from you is for you to show from your great wisdom where I’m lying and your evidence to convince that I’m lying.
Hmmm, reading comprehension problems as well? Sorry, if you will read it again you will see I didn't call you a liar.
You are making the claim so you need to supply the evidence and your word is not evidence. All experiments on out of body experiences have come up empty. Simply because you experience something doesn't mean the experience is authentic. I experience dreams every night, but I know they are only dreams. I have has an out of body experiences, but I understand it was simply an experience.
I'll wait for your evidence.
“Wrongdoers? Like lying about what one knows for sure?”
It is clearely stated what you meant; it is you who have a problem understanding your own writing.
If you can stand in the corner of your bedroom and look at your sleeping body across the room on the bed snoring and take the test that prove you are not dreaming than you know you are not dreaming, there are simple test one make to prove to themselves they are not dreaming.
The fact that you don’t even know that this state exist, proves you are working from a state of ignorance, at least on this point. It’s common knowledge now that people do leave their bodies and it’s not a dream, even science admits as much now, they can’t explain it, but they know it’s happening.
If you think what happened to you was a dream than you didn’t have an outer-body experience, you just had a dream of being out of your body. There is no confusing the true out of body experience with a dream.
Since it is obvious that you have no idea about what you are saying allow me to explain the process of the true outer-body experience:
First of all the true outer-body experience start from the awake state and the person is fully aware that they are about to leave their body. The first thing to happen is that the person gets a ringing in their ears or it can be a swooshing sound in their ears. As this ringing sound get louder and louder the person is fully aware of what’s taking place and is wide awake, they began to experience paralysis.
You sit there wide awake, struggling to move but you can’t move because the spirit being that animates the body exits the body. They are now entering the spirit realm and have forced themselves into a place that they do not belong. I was offered money from a major Bio-feedback company just to study me and the world of the occult.
I proved to them that I could do it, as many others have; bio-feedback is an occult practice that can produce the outer body experience. Go on and laugh and make jokes, but while you laugh at me the people at many of these bio-feedback companies are laughing at how gullible the general public really is.
Even the military is trying to perfect this outer-body experience to be used as a weapon. If they could control this power they would be able to send this disincarnated being into enemy headquarters and know all their plans, even the military is laughing at you and the public for being so easy to deceive.
In fact the great religion of our day is one of spirits entering and exiting of these houses we call our bodies.
That is false, science does not acknowledge out of body experiences and it is not common knowledge.
That company would have published those results and we would all know about it, yet nothing has ever been published by any company that has shown to be valid.
No, it isn't.
stop and think, do you actually believe that this company if they are into something as questionable as dabbling into the occult for military purposes would tell you what they are doing.
do you believe that everything that's published is true. just because a company publishes something its true, if so you'll in a lot of trouble!
But, they told you, right?
I don't believe what you claim, I haven't seen any of those company publications, but you can show them to us, if you want.
I never brought up anything about publications because I know if they did it wouldn't contain the truth. you brought up publications as if that's the proof of everything!
They did not tell me anything, they were seeking answers from me, wither or not you believe me is of no important to me, GOD knows what I'm telling you is true.
I said "one" not you. Reading comprehension problems.
I'm still waiting for that evidence. My out of body experience was exactly as you described, however I understand that it wasn't real. For one, you need eyes to see and two all studies that have been done one people who claim to have experience them never ever supply evidence even when the evidence has been hidden. You can make all the ridiculous claims you like and you may in fact fool some of the very gullible, but not me.
Correction, that is what they believe, that may not be what actually occurred.
Astral Projection has never been shown to be real, by anyone. You would be the first and there is a million dollar prize waiting for you with James Randi as well as a Nobel Prize for discovering something no one else has discovered.
The consciousness is part of the brain, so it isn't spiritual, non-physical nor separate from the body, it is indeed part of us and dies along with the body at death.
Obviously, Paul knew nothing about biology.
Does that mean you know what "spirits" are made of? Please enlighten us.
That's a nice idea, but it lacks evidence, and we certainly can't take your word or Paul's.
Correction, it’s been proven that something leaves the person and can gather information from sources across the ocean which is impossible to explain. Because something can’t be proven to all people to exist does not mean that it does not exist. You haven prove that it doesn’t exist. So astral projection never been proven to be real, it also has not been proven to be not real.
Where is your proof that’s it’s not real?
How can you prove that conciseness is just part of the brain, you can’t, but yet you expect me to prove every word that I utter! Where is the proof that everything dies when the body dies? Maybe Paul knew nothing about biology, but you show that you know nothing about spiritual matters.
The whole world believe in evolution and there’s no evidence of it anywhere, where’s the proof. Where it the proof of anything you are saying. They tell you they’ve found a planet billions of light-years away and most of the world believes this without any evidence of this, where’s the proof.
Whenever the things of God come up everybody wants proof of his existence, yet they need no proof when it comes to believing the wild claims of science.
You ARE aware that simply claiming proof exists is not the same as producing it? And that such claims are a dime a dozen and not worth the paper they're written on?
The claim is that there is proof of out of body experience - link, please?
what's all this talk of proving something that will never be convincing all people of anything? you prove to me that I'm wrong!
No, that hasn't been proven, sorry.
Yes, that is exactly what it means, all people would know.
The onus is on the ones making the positive claim to produce evidence, none has ever been produced.
Are you talking about consciousness or conciseness?
Consciousness is the brain, it's how the brain works. This is common knowledge.
You don't know anything about spiritual matters, either, no one does.
There are mountains of evidence for evolution. It's very easy to find.
No, you go and get your proof of evolution since you are so bent on proving everything! you made the claim, now prove it!
I told you there is a lot of information about evolution and provided some for you.
you did not provide me with information, you provided a link which is actually against the rules of Hubpages. I've seen writers kicked off Hubpages for placing links in forums so I will not click on any link I find in forums and would advise you to be careful about putting links in forums.
It seems to me to be a case of mental laziness to expect someone else to do your research for you to prove your point. I'm not trying to prove evolution because I know its a bunch of crape! I gave you my evidence for what I believe you rejected it as lies, but still I presented my case.
all I'm asking of you is to do likewise, prove evolution!
There are no such rules.
Evolution is a fact. You can read about it in the links I provided.
You made extraordinary claims and provided nothing to support them. I provided links to information you can read yourself.
why is it so hard for you to just read your own evolutionary evidence and than present it in your own words? what is so hard about this? I've seen this before, it just seems strange that one would get into a conversation about proving everything and be afraid to prove something they believe to be true, their religion, and evolution is a religion!
you and many others seem to believe that if its on the inter-net it must true. the problem is that the inter-net is full of all kind of lies, just because a link says something is so doesn't mean its true, that's why I want you to present it in your own words so I can try to understand your thinking on the matter. Com-on now this is not too much to ask, is it?
Moving the goal posts. We were discussing your lack of evidence for an out of body experience. If you need a lesson on evolution read a book.
No, that is not what I believe.
That is true, like the ones about out of body experiences.
But, by not reading what is there, you'll never know.
Are you unable to read those links? What is so hard about that?
lets wrap this up, you can't even articulate, what your religion is all about, and yet you tried to show that I have a problem reading and understanding what I'm reading. if you asked me why I believe what I believe, believe me, I wouldn't have to send you to some other web-site, I got it all in my heart and mind what to say about why I believe what I believe.
it just goes to show that you really don't know what you believe and why, that's why you start out trying to talk down to me in your post. you are actually guilty of what you are trying to charge me with, it is obvious you are the one having problems with understanding what you read. that's why you can't read your own evolutionary crape and present in an intelligent way.
obviously you have a problem understanding what you read, this has been a trip.
We were waiting for you evidence to be presented to back up your claim that your mind can exist outside your body and without eyes can see your body. I personally would be glad to explain evolution to you but it has nothing to do with a belief system that I don't have.
Kindly provide us with a link that shows your stories about validation of your out of body experiences.
I'm quite capable of reading the material in those links, along with books and other materials supporting evolution, which is why I have a good foundation of understanding it.
Evolution, in it's simplest from requires two things, diversity of species and natural selection.
But, you wanted evidence, which I also provided.
I'm happy that you base all your understanding on your heart and mind, but that doesn't actually answer any questions or provides explanations to anything, other than what you want to believe. That's fine, too, but to trot out nonsensical claims and outright denials based on your mind and heart doesn't really show any kind of understanding of the world around you.
Tell me more about the diversity of species and natural selection. explain what it means and what it has to do with me being alive today.
Why don't you instead supply the evidence you said you had that supports your claim. Evolution can be discussed once the topic at hand is taken care of.
Diversity of species allows for a wide variety of genes to mix together and produce offspring with various traits that can be tested in the field, which is where natural selection comes along, where nature selects the offspring that give it the best chances of surviving and passing on those genes.
I've already presented my case, you rejected it as lies, but still I presented something. No matter what I say you will see it as lies, that can become a bit redundant. At lease I did present something, you present nothing and wants everything.
if we can't get any further than this I think its time for me to move on when you can't explain why you believe what you believe. so unless you come back with an explanation why you believe what you believe this conversation is over. I don't have anymore time to waste going around in this circle.
either explain what you believe and why you believe this [a reasonable request in a discussion it all a waste of time.
Oh, well when you said this
I just assumed you were going to supply the necessary information to back up your claim. Company name, evidence of the study and findings. You supplied your word. I'll take you you've go no evidence.
But you haven't presented any evidence. You just made a claim and asserted that it was true. No links, no journals, no peer review. Just an empty assertion.
lets stop the game playing, you and I both know that no matter what I produce it will not convince you, so we would go on and in this circle non-productive. Its not about what we can prove but what we believe to be true, but you really don't want a discussion, your adjective is to trash God and the bible, but I'm not going to play this game where we stay on what I believe while you are afraid to discuss your religion.
this is an old trick that's been used by non-believers to trash God and his Word. I stood up for what I believe to be true of my religion, I have been more than fair in trying to keep this discussion open to both points of view of religion, but only one side is actually presenting anything. all I'm hearing from the other side is the same thing over and over.
there is no link to prove my experience with Bio-feedback and what happened there. this may mean nothing to you, but I stand before God and the universe of angels as a witness that what I said happened is true, every word of it.
I don't expect you to believe it, but its true. The problem is that you actually believe that they would put this information in a journal and publish it to the world. This world is addicted to the occult and the power one can gain from it, but it comes at a very high cost. what you calls an empty assertion I believe I would have to give an account of if I'm miss leading anyone and I truly believe this. Its not what we can prove, but what we believe to be true.
the one thing I found to be true is that the non-believer does not want an honest discussion but to spew out venom against the Kingdom of Christ and I will not play this game.
Many people who have lived the occult life as I did and come out from under this powerful drug is trying to warned people of this danger to their souls. I'm not during this [writing all these articles on my life in the occult] to profit from it. I gets paid nothing for spending my time trying to warn others of this satanic game. I care nothing about popularity, all I really want is for at lease one person wake up and come to their senses and is saved from this satanic game I would think it was all worthwhile and many hours of putting it all together was worth it.
I was born into the occult, raised in it, lived it, know the inner-workings of it and know its demonic. its very frustrating at time to watch people being dragged down by it and watch as their hatred for their creator grows.
all I wanted was to discuss a few things and try to reason together, but anytime I post I'm called all kinds of names. its like all they want to do is hatch snake egg or just spew venom.
I personally am completely open for discussion and am trying to keep you on topic. I personally would rather find out that a loving God exists and offers eternal lfe. We've asked for evidence that you now say doesn't exist, which is really to bad. I'm sure if someone had evidence it would be produced. There is no reason anyone would hid it. You've made claims about something that you can't back up. Now that you've admitted that we can move on.
Do you have a question pertaining to reality?
How do you decide what you will accept or reject as being reality?
I suppose Websters is as good as any. They say:
: the true situation that exists : the real situation
: something that actually exists or happens : a real event, occurrence, situation, etc.
: the quality or state of being real
a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality>
b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
: television programming that features videos of actual occurrences (as a police chase, stunt, or natural disaster) —often used attributively <reality TV>
— in reality
: in actual fact
so how do you therefore go about proving that something is real? Demonstrable. How do you prove a feeling, or a thought or a belief and distinguish it as "real"
Forgive me for not allowing the turning of the tables at this point, Julie. My initial response was to Rad offering to answer questions about reality. It has already been made abundantly clear on multiple occasions and in many forums that the vocal atheists here consider my views, or in many cases me, delusional. I accept that is your/their view. I am interested in learning how the accusers ascertain their firm grip on reality and avoid these pitfalls of delusion. So then, my original question stands: How do you decide what you will accept or reject as being reality?
Perhaps this would be better as it's own thread, although I am always reluctant to start one, not having time to keep up with responses to everyone, and not wanting to appear inattentive or rude for not doing so.
I'm not trying to turn the tables on you or anyone else. And I don't think that I have ever accused you of being delusional. I'm trying to determine how you determine something is real.
Yes, I both understand and appreciate your inquiry regarding my process. Considering the sentiment expressed by some, that my grasp of reality is dubious, I feel it prudent to first explore the processes employed by those who purport to understand and embrace "reality". How do they establish what "reality" is, and then come to the conclusion about themselves, that their view of it is the correct one?
I'm not a person who runs around asserting that each person has their own reality. I think there is only one. I've seen apologists spin reality and say that if god isn't real, then nothing's really real. That's not true. I can hold my coffee cup. I can experience emotion. I can investigate, study and examine scientific principles. I can watch them happen in a lab. I can use my senses. these things to me are real. I do not dare say that my beliefs are real unless I can demonstrate them. Feelings about things are not facts.
Excellent. A point of agreement. There is, and can only be, one true reality.* Since it seems no two people agree on everything, does anyone comprehend the true reality, or is it beyond our scope to do so?
*Can we also agree then, that synonymously, there is just one truth? Not trying to digress, it is just a natural point to establish that for later consideration.
I gotta ask.. What's the difference between a feeling and an emotion?
Reality: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
Things that can be demonstrated to be real. Your emotions are real, your thoughts are real, this chair is real. Are abstract concepts real? Is Santa real? His pictures are in fact real illustrations, his movies are real movies. Does that make a real Santa? Can we demonstrate that Santa exists? God does in fact exist in many minds, but can it be demonstrated that he exists? Can he be measured in any way? Does prayer work any better than a placebo?
Sub-atonic particles while they can't be seen with the naked eye can be measure and demonstrated and seen. God can not be measured or detected in any way. We do have people like r-o-y come in from time to time and make a bunch of miraculous claims that he can not back up.
Your thoughts and emotions are real? Only you experience them. I have to take your word for what they are, as you can't prove them.
Have you ever had an experience with an influential person or event happen which was pivotal in determining your views, goals, career trajectory, or any other major facet of your life? Can you prove every aspect of that? If not, was/is it still real? Perhaps your life in many ways reflects that crucial moment, interaction or event, but can you prove it?
I can prove that humans have emotions. They can be detected from both medical professionals and the receivers of those emotions. They can even be measured.
Sure, I had a few meetings a while back that has brought me plenty of work and I can retrieve the emails and the sign in sheets at those offices to prove I was there. Would you like to see my portfolio and my list of customers with a list of contacts that can verify that I do work for them?
All part of Reality. Measurable, detectable reality.
I do like this conversation, please continue.
You can measure physical responses and reactions associated with emotions, but not the actual emotion...just it's manifestation. People can fake at least some of that, if not all. Actors do it for a living. Also, in referring to a past event, which was not recorded or monitored, we have no proof.
Joe told his wife he was overcome with joy when he heard that his in-laws accepted the offer to stay with them for the summer. Was he? If so, he can't prove it, but does that mean the event and feeling were not real? She suspects he was angry, but can't prove that either. He was alone when he got the news. Where is the reality here? What is true, and does lack of evidence either way negate that there is a truth?
Joe promised his wife he would not go climbing alone anymore. That is all he could think about while laying at the bottom of the rock face he fell from. She would kill him if he survived. Was anything broken? Would he be found? He had a lot of time to think while recovering from what luckily turned out to be just having the wind knocked out of him and some disorientation due to a small bump on the head. His hair hid the wound, so if he could hide a few bruises nobody would ever know. He made some decisions though in response to the scare. Greater appreciation of things, in fact a changed outlook on life. His wife wondered what had happened. He didn't even seem to mind hearing that her folks would be staying there for 3 months.
Nobody saw this happen, and Joe isn't going to admit he went climbing alone and could have died. Is it reality? Did it happen? The wounds have long since healed, can he prove it happened? He based a change in his life and perspective on this. Is/was the whole thing not real because it can't be proven?
Me too. We don't have the best track record. Shall we consider this a challenge for both of us and see where it goes?
It's real, he's both dishonest and stupid for rock climbing on his own. He knows it happened, but can he prove it did happen? If he wanted to prove it did happen he could have taken pictures and supplied the gas and restaurant receipts. Can he prove it didn't happen, well he's lying about that isn't he.
I'll do my best.
So, can we agree, that in the illustration given, even though at this point Joe couldn't prove anything either way, a real event happened regarding which Joe alone knows the truth?
Does then Joe know if he dreamt it or not?
Over time we start to believe our own lies.
I suspect if investigated evidence could be found as to where he was. However when alone, events happen that can't be substantiated, they also can't be proven. People make all kinds of claims.
I get where you are going. You're going to tell me something happened to you that convinced you that there is a God. I don't disputet that you think something happened to you, but I can't just take your word that something did happen to you. Just like we can't take Joe's word that he either fell or didn't fall because he either could be lying or the bump on the head caused him to hallucinate. If you were to tell me Joe says he flew like a bird down from the rock and landed safely, we would most certainly look at the bump on his head and have him checked out. Would any of us really trust that he flew like a bird 25 feet and landed safely on the ground with a bump on the back of his head?
Baby steps here, building on what we can agree on. Can we agree that an inability to prove something doesn't negate the reality of it? Only Joe will ever know the truth in our illustration, because he can't prove it, but is there not still a truth regardless of that fact?
All of reality can be demonstrated or tested or measured. Somethings however can't be proven in a court of law because of a lack of evidence or because someone lied. The fact remains that if Joe wanted to prove he was there he could have, I'm sure if a forensic team visited the site they would find DNA, foot prints and car tread marks. There is always evidence if one looks. Joe may fool his wife, but he wouldn't fool anyone wanted to find out the truth.
There is still a truth regardless of the fact that Joe lied.
Is there any event in your life, (no need to share personal details), but something that happened that was important to you but you could in no way prove? A conversation between you and a passed love one perhaps? Many landmarks which were the stage of my youth have since been demolished in the name of progress, and although I have countless stories which forged my identity, I could substantiate few beyond doubt. Is this true for you as well?
As you said, you have an idea where I am going, but not as directly as you think. I want to well establish and come to agreement at each step, so can we agree that an inability to prove something doesn't negate the reality of it? If not I will continue with variations, and examples until we find agreement. Then we can move forward.
There are private conversations and or events I've had with people who are no longer with us that I can't prove.
but I'm imagining that you're not trying to pass off these unprovable conversations as universally true - or that they should be universally accepted as such, either.
No, I just want to see where he is going. It's our third attempt. (well we know where he is going, but he said he would take another route and in the interest of having a good conversation this time, I thought we'd get to the next level). There is of course no way to know for sure my memories are accurate. As a child I had a nightmare that turned out to be the episode of the twilight zone where the earwig dug through the guys brain and laid eggs. I thought for sure it was a dream until it came on again.
But I'll bite.
I imagine that his belief in the reality of those personal conversations is not contingent either on being able to prove them, or on another's acceptance that they transpired.
Your contention here is way ahead of our current discussion. I just want to methodically build until we find a point on which we cannot reach agreement. Should be interesting to see where that is.
Please be patient, Julie. As a youth, (and perhaps still), did (do) you tear wrapping from gifts or carefully unwrap them? Just curious.
As a youth, I didn't receive enough gifts to know for certain, and when I did they weren't wrapped. Usually (no joke) they were kind of given to me as an afterthought - or thrown at me.
To this day, every time someone gives me a present, I have a moment where I wonder if it's going to be snatched away again, or if it's just a cruel joke, even though i know better.
Sorry, mine would sometimes still be in the K-mart bag so I understand.
I had older sisters, for whom wrapping was important. I was very competitive, so if this was the only vehicle to exercise that with, I was determined to out-wrap them. Some fine looking packages resulted. They may not have been expensive gifts, but the presentation was spot on.
My apologies then Julie, as I had no idea what was intended as a lighthearted query could turn into an apparent insensitivity. I truly am sorry to hear this, for although we had little, we did have enough for me to open a package. Let me regroup then and say I believe it takes far more than three licks to get to the center of a tootsie pop, and am attempting to find out fairly.
Thank you. I will take that as agreement that an inability to prove something doesn't negate the reality of it, and that one can hold a truth that can't be proven. One may say except to the holder, this renders that truth useless, but that bridge is not yet before us. Am I presumptuous, or are we in agreement on those points?
Sure, but keep in mind those memories are only real to me. Just as was the TV show that I thought was a dream. Fare?
Perhaps that is another portion of the discussion. Is reality personal?
If two personal realities conflict they cannot both retain the status as reality. If someone's personal reality involved insisting yours was not true, would they be right?
I realize it cannot be decided, if unprovable, but would you concede your wrong about it because it was questioned by or conflicted with someone else?
Even if you did, wouldn't the truth of the matter remain the same regardless of your willingness to abandon it?
I'm not sure that I buy into the idea of a "personal reality". Something is either real or it's not. Something is either true, or it's false. We don't all make up our own realities. Some people can lie and craft entire worlds for themselves, but it doesn't make those worlds real or true - although they may believe that they are.
If I was a good liar (and I'm not) and I told you with absolute certainty that instead of going to my accounting job every day, I frolicked in fields with unicorns and fairies - I may believe it if I'm good enough at lying to myself, but that doesn't make it true or actually real. Believing something does not make it true, no matter how hard we may wish to delude ourselves.
Again, we agree. There is only one reality. Where "personal reality" comes into play is that nobody has a full grasp on reality. It is beyond our scope, so whatever portion each person does possess, is in effect their "personal reality". Perhaps getting enough of those together will give a better view of the big picture, (overused but appropriate here).
Let's take the example of my twilight zone episode dream. If I had gone to school and told another kid about my dream and they said that I was delusional because that was last nights twilight zone episode. I'd ask around to see if anyone else saw it and look in the TV guide. If your young those were books that… kidding. If other tell me that saw the same episode of TV, I'd be forced to concede I was wrong, just as I did when I saw my dream on TV. Believe it or not I say sorry often in life. I admit I'm wrong often because I'm often wrong.
It doesn't matter in the least what we believe to be true, that doesn't make it true. Only an insane person would follow that notion.
It's not you who has presented anything but extraordinary claims without any substantiation.
So what, no one believes you. It is something you obviously made up.
You can believe it to be true all you want, but it's nothing more than a delusion.
Then, run away and hide if you want, no one is forcing you to do anything.
Most people view your beliefs as delusions, which is why you don't get any support.
I told you that if you did not come back and explain what you believe and why you believe it this discussion was over, I've asked the same question all day long I'm finished with it. you had all day long to say what you wanted to say and you refused, its all there in black and white. I never said that the evidence is not there, I said that no matter what I produce it will not be evidence to you, so it would be foolish to continue down this road. maybe you need to read a little slower.
no one is hiding anything its there for all to see, if you really cared about a loving God.
I'm going to produce something that proves that the apostles, the followers of Christ, God in the flesh proved that He is God. now this is going to be amazing proof of Jesus that he and only He can tell the end from the beginning:
the Lord prophesied that just before His return the world would be at war, and not just any war. this war would destroy all living things on earth if He did not step in to stop it. in other words, at the end of this war all the trees of the earth would be destroyed, all life in the sea would be destroyed, and the earth would be unfit for human life.
now when this prophecy was utter by the Lord over two thousand years ago this was all impossible, how could a war where the combatants are using rocks, knives, slingshots, running around in horse powered chariots produce this kind of chaos and total destruction of the world.
now ask the gods of science who produced these weapons of mass destruction just what is going to happen in the next world war, they are all in agreement, total destruction of this world.
the one who claim to have created this world and left a book [actually His disciples produced It] that's in it says he know exactly how it will end, because that one is Lord of lords and King of kings the only one who know the end from the beginning!
only God have this information and reveals it to whom He pleases. there's proof that Jesus is Lord of all, but to you this is not evidence to even be considered.
There's of a loving God throughout creation enough for any reasonable person to consider, but once the god of this world [and that's only temporary] has captured the minds and heart of his disciple they lose all sense of true reasoning when it comes to the most important issue of their lives, and that to love one that has given so much to so many.
don't you realize that your hatred of your creator is directly tied the hatred the that Lucifer has for his creator, in fact all those who slander the name of the Most High is controlled by Satan. what we are witnessing the world over and especially over the inter-net is not just non-belief, but pure contempt for one who has done no wrong.
this one who is so hated by the world, did nothing but good for people, He healed all who came to Him in belief that He was indeed the only begotten So of God. That's what I meant when I said its about what we believe , not that the evidence is not there , but that the world has rejected her King and for them no evidence is possible.
the world is heading toward total nuclear destruction just as the creator said it would, He knew because He created the world and know how it will end.
the evidence is there, but you have rejected, no evidence is possible for you, that's why I refuse to go any future with you down that same old road with you. No evidence or proof is possible for you!
You do know, do you not, that a nuclear war will not, cannot, destroy all life on earth? Mankind simply does not have that kind of power in his hands, even if we consider the lingering effects of radiation.
Nor can we even come close to total destruction of the earth itself, as you claim. A bare few grams of material is all we can destroy.
While we can certainly destroy civilization and (though a remote possibility) even our species, we simply cannot destroy all life on this planet. If nothing else, bacteria far below the surface will survive, just as it did millions of years ago when the asteroids/comets came.
Your prophesy is a paper tiger, I'm afraid.
You have only given your word, without any evidence.
I do believe that Jesus also said all that destruction would happen during his own generation. That time has come and gone.
This is amazing; we apparently have a nuclear physicist here who has missed the whole point of what I said. The point is how the world will end, not that there will not be bacterial left, but I will take the word of the one who describe the very condition of our world today over two thousand years ago when the means of destructing mankind was impossible.
When one know he has no answers and their argument falls apart they began to bring up distractions.
Now any school kid over ten years old could see through this pitiful attempt at confusing the issue. The prophecy is already being fulfilled, why do you think there is so much talk of making this a world free of nuclear weapons? But since you have a problem with that prophecy, let’s try another one.
In this next prophecy is more evidence that Jesus is Lord, but for you no amount of evidence will ever be enough, but let go through the process anyway.
In scripture, the Lord states that before His return there will be the worst persecution of the followers of Christ this world has ever seen. I’m sure you are aware of a book in the bible called Revelation, in that book of the bible the Lord makes the statement that there will be a powerful world ruler who will be the actually incarnation of Satan. The incarnated Satan is going to set out to do what he has always done behind the seen in the spirit world.
He will set out to destroy all faith in the Lord his enemy Jesus Christ, by this time most of the world be conditioned to accept him as lord except a small band of Christians who refuse to bow down to him. This is not so hard to believe because it has already happened in the pass. Satan through the pope made a test run of it, all buckled at the knee in worship of the pope.
The only problem was there was them dang Christian; he could not stop from rebelling against his ruler- ship so he burned them up, and this was not that long ago.
The Lord prophesied that this beast will kill two of His prophets, their bodies will lie in the streets of Jerusalem and after three days their bodies will return to life and the whole world will witness this resurrection and be amazed. Now try to remember the key point here, dead bodies being resurrect and the whole world will witness this event.
The Christians were beat up by the pagan world for over two thousand years because if it one thing the pagan world knew for sure, it’s that there’s no way that an isolated event in Jerusalem could be witnessed by the whole world. It’s impossible! How could people in America witness an event in Jerusalem, it’s impossible, and it was impossible for this to take place for over two thousand years ago, it all impossible!
Now the first part of that impossible prophecy has already taken place, the impossible is now reality. I can sit in my living room in the good old USA and see clean across the Atlantic Ocean right smack into the middle of Jerusalem, or from anywhere else in the world. With the invention of television and now satellite transmit ion, from my living room I can see any country in the world.
But there will never be enough evidence to convince those who love the darkness and hate the light. Jesus does not lie, if he says those who hate him will destroy themselves I believe him over any nuclear physicist any day.
There will never be enough evidence for those who hates Christ because they are controlled by him who is the original hater of Christ, Lucifer, Satan himself.
How in the world did the impossible become possible two thousand after the prophecy was uttered?
Because the Lord who is king and creator of all the earth and that’s in it says the impossible will become possible.
But for those who are controlled by the original hater of all that’s good no amount of evidence will convince them because they are control by the most evil being in this world. No amount of evidence is going to convince you because you have committed yourself to the power of the beast!
I'm still waiting for that evidence for evolution!
"Is there something more to the Bible than the words that we read?"
Of course there is, but wisdom and understanding comes from the Lord.
"Is there a spiritual world that we know nothing of?"
"Are there spirits around us, both good and evil?"
"What are your thoughts about the soul, the spirit, the flesh, the mind, the heart."
Trust in the Lord and love God with every fiber of your being, and lean not unto your own understanding. (Deuteronomy 6:5 & Proverbs 3:5).
"What do you think? Is any of this real or is it merely a dream?"
This is not a dream, and the closer to death you get, the more you realize there was always more you could have done for the Lord.
Sounds strangely like something someone would say to manipulate you into doing things you know are not right.
If I were to do that I'd never show my children any affection and beat them often. I'd stone my neighbour for working on Sunday and kill my daughter is she wasn't found to not be a virgin on her weeding night.
Why? Why do you claim there are spirits and another, spiritual, world? What tests have you made, what have you seen that leaves you with that opinion? What evidence can you provide others that they might independently come to the same conclusion?
As far as the dream, as we get closer to death we don't realize how much more we could have done for the Lord, we become more and more scared of our own demise. For some reason, we seem to demand that we live forever but at the same time the thought scares us to death. So we go to church, hoping to be stroked and comforted as we look at our upcoming death.
Personal experience. But you would say that I'm crazy without any evidence, just like I testify that these things are true without evidence.
Because evidence isn't sufficient without belief. You could have evidence that you exist, but I don't have to believe that you exist. For all I know you're just a complex computer program.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Lol if you say so. I have documentation that I exist. I have to verify my identify to get a drivers license, a job or a marriage license. I have a birth certificate and a social security number, and I interact with people face to face daily. Can I prove that I exist? Absolutely. If you don't believe I exist, then who are you talking to? Yourself? If so, do you like taking to yourself? If I don't exist, and you're communicating with yourself, you seem to have schizophrenic, contradictory beliefs.
The response of one who has no evidence for their argument....
I have evidence. I think, therefore I am, and I am evidence.
And that magically doesn't apply to anyone else? I have dna and fingerprints, not just paper. Until you can prove your bible true, there is no reason to accept it as truth. Easy, really.
If I'm just a figment of your imagination, why are you still talking to me in public? Doesn't say a lot about mental stability to have public, written conversations with yourself.
You think I talk to figments of my imagination anyway, so what's so hard about accepting that you're nothing but a figment of my imagination also?
I do? How are you in a position to know what I think? Or are you still on the "I'm a figment of your imagination" kick?
I think, therefore according to your logic, I must exist
If you think I'm really talking to God, then why don't you believe? There are no other choices, either I talk to a figment of imagination, or it's real. Which is it?
False dichotomy. Why are there only two options? If I'm just a figment, who are you arguing with?
Who do you think Muslims are talking to when they pray to Allah?
Are you arrogant enough to inform me that Firstly I don't exist and Secondly what I do or don't think? Dors your mind just have to invent all of these people to argue or agree with?
"False dichotomy. Why are there only two options?"
Because either I'm talking to God, or my own imagination. That's not a false dichotomy.
"If I'm just a figment, who are you arguing with?"
I think you answered your own question.
"Who do you think Muslims are talking to when they pray to Allah?"
"Are you arrogant enough to inform me that Firstly I don't exist and Secondly what I do or don't think?"
It's quite obvious what you think. But if you're arrogant enough to inform me that what I know to be true isn't true, don't get angry when someone tells you something similar.
"Does your mind just have to invent all of these people to argue or agree with?"
That depends: "What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate.
You can read my testimonial hub for yourself.
A) I'm pretty sure I can come up with more than two alternatives, but it's not really worth it to me, so I'll concede the false dichotomy point.
B) I have never told you that what you believe to be true isn't true with absolute certainty, just like you cannot say with absolute certainty that any other religion is wrong. I disagree with your beliefs, but I cannot assert that they're wrong. I do however disagree that you know them to be true. I have no doubt that you believe them to be, but belief does not automatically translate to absolute certainty. If you know your beliefs are true, then you should be able to supply evidence that is demonstrable to back them up.
C) do you think all religions other than yours pray to Satan, or just Islam? By what power and authority is Satan able to answer prayers, and why would he be inclined to? Biblically speaking, the only direct power that Satan had was given and/or authorized by God (as in the story of job, where God explicitly gave him permission). Yet Muslims, Hindus, pagans and believers of all faiths claim to have answered prayers and personal experiences.
D) i think it's a bit silly to assume from a few scattered conversations online what I think or believe, just because I'm an atheist. It's like me saying that all Christians (in all 42,000 denominations) all think, act and believe the exact same thing. If that were true, there would be no need for denominations at all.
E) if you can just asert that I am a figment of your mind, what prevents me from asserting the reverse about you?
B) I know that what I believe is real and absolutely true, but you wouldn't like the proof... It wouldn't be sufficient evidence. It's just a story I made up, or some delusional experience I had, because you're an Atheist and don't believe that sort of thing.
C) How would you know if Satan answers prayers or not? Have you ever prayed to Satan?
D) It's not silly to assume that an Atheist doesn't believe in God. Therefore if you do not believe in God, I am talking to a figment of my imagination. It's just a logical progression of thought.
E) Nothing. And if I am a figment of your imagination, does it really matter? You wouldn't be able to tell what is real anyway, if in fact I am just a figment of your imagination.
So what's the difference between believing that something is true and knowing it is? How Do You make the distinction? Many followers of other religions claim to know with just as much certainty that their beliefs are true, and they would likely tell you that you're wrong? How do you decide which claim is correct?
You didn't answer my point about the personal experiences of believers in other faiths. If they're praying to a god that didn't exist, how are they having these experiences? How are their prayers being answered?
The Bible never says that Satan has the power or the authority or the inclination to answer prayers.
I'm open to Proof. I ask for it all the time. If I'm wrong and a god does exist, I want to change my mind. If a god can be proven, I can no longer lack a belief in it, but I would then have to determine whether or not I will follow or worship it.
How would I not know what is real? We can demonstrate real things. Reality is realty, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. A crazy person can insist that they spend all day riding unicorns, but their belief does not make it reality.
I have a question. Before his fall, Satan was an Angel, right? If so, then I don't remember angels having any power or authority to answer prayers. That was only for God to do. Now if you are saying that Satan has the ability to answer prayers (not implying that you actually said that) because those who pray to a different god have had their prayers answered, then wouldn't that negate the idea that there is only one god?
"So what's the difference between believing that something is true and knowing it is?"
Believing is the hope of something being true, even if you've never actually seen it. Knowing it is true is seeing it for your own eyes. I've seen the throne and He who sits on it before I ever read a bible. I've heard the voice of God in time of great need, and there is no doubt when you hear that voice or feel that presence. I've been saved from absolute and certain death by nothing other than a genuine miracle. I'm not special or anything, but I'm guessing God is allowing these things to happen to me, and having the experience of these things because I'm not shy about talking about them. People already think I'm crazy for talking to my "invisible sky daddy" and other such things, but I don't care, I know I'm not crazy and that is all that matters.
"How Do You make the distinction?"
You just do. You realize it. It either is, or it isn't. Belief isn't knowing, belief is the hope that something is true.
"Many followers of other religions claim to know with just as much certainty that their beliefs are true, and they would likely tell you that you're wrong?"
If a person isn't truly seeking God, then they're just going to be looking for something that suites them. They'll browse religions and pick one like they were shopping. That isn't how it works, and it is a surefire way of being deceived. Part of the problem with this is that people take life too casually, when life could end at any moment for just about any reason. Are you ready to go? Where will you spend eternity? Do you even care?
The other part of the problem, are people that are born into totalitarian religious regimes, like just about any Islamic government. But miracles are happening in the Middle East, and Jesus is personally making an appearance with the descendants of Ishmael.
"How do you decide which claim is correct?"
By comparing what each one says about each other, letting the gods of these religions, their prophets and writings speak for themselves. I don't have to prove the claims, the "gods" do, and YHVH has proven himself through Jesus Christ. How easy is it to be saved, by just believing that Jesus died for my sins and resurrected from the grave? I can't reject that.
I've mentioned this on other forums, and possibly here once or twice, but I believe Ron Wyatt found all the things he said he found. I believe the Ark of the Covenant is real, and has the blood of Jesus on it. That doesn't mean Seventh Day Adventism is true, it just means God used Ron for the purpose of revelation. Sooner or later...
"You didn't answer my point about the personal experiences of believers in other faiths. If they're praying to a god that didn't exist, how are they having these experiences? How are their prayers being answered?"
Fallen angels. Demons. Evil spirits. Whatever you want to call them, they're real. Just as real as the God who said that they exist, and really are out to get you. The closer you get to the truth, the more they attack you, and it's not a joke.
"The Bible never says that Satan has the power or the authority or the inclination to answer prayers."
Yes it does, but it is all a counterfeit system. It's a deception, and God allows it to happen; strong delusion. God will let you have what you want, because if what you want isn't what God has in store for you, then why should God stop you? You didn't want what God had to offer in the first place, and it's not like someone getting a new car or a million dollars is going to stop or change God's plans. No one can stop it.
"I'm open to Proof. I ask for it all the time. If I'm wrong and a god does exist, I want to change my mind. If a god can be proven, I can no longer lack a belief in it, but I would then have to determine whether or not I will follow or worship it."
http://ceegen.hubpages.com/hub/How-and- … -Christian
If God is real, you don't have a choice. There are no other gods before me, saith the Lord. Who shall stand against Him? Who can bear the punishment? All your base are belong to God, and love God or hate God, those are your only two options.
"How would I not know what is real? We can demonstrate real things. Reality is realty, regardless of what anyone thinks of it. A crazy person can insist that they spend all day riding unicorns, but their belief does not make it reality."
We live in a holographic universe, or haven't you heard? Reality can be bent and twisted, and no one would notice because under what reference point would you use to determine if it had? Only time will tell...
And speaking of time, let's just pretend for a moment that WWIII happened, and after it was over the world was united under a single government. You had to pledge your loyalty to this government, and give up all belief in any religious ideals, or be put to death. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?
Sure it does. there is plenty that can be said regarding mental stability to have conversations with yourself. I do it often and I'm the most mentally stable person you know (FSM help you...lol)
written down in public?
The jury is still out on the second part, btw
You're a "jury"? So you're a collective? Multiple Personalities Disorder?
Worse off than I am, it would seem...
Then what "jury" are you referring to? What is this mythical "jury" that is always "out" everyone keeps talking about?
He got you confused with me. After all, all atheists are identical and all.
Ceegen, It's a figure of speech, and I was joking with a friend. I may find some of your posts funny, but they're not playful jokes, and we're certainly not friends. It really needs no explanation.
A person that is Brain dead...Can't think...But they can be kept alive with machines...so they still exist...so your "I think, therefore I exist" argument is on shaky ground...
Thinking isn't done with the brain, that is merely the user interface of the soul. The real you, your actual thoughts that make you who you are, is what your soul is. But if the user interface is damaged, of course no activity is recorded.
We're more than just flesh and blood. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Hmm...can you prove that?
If what you say is true, then there would not be the need for machines to keep the body alive once the brain is dead...
Can't prove anything beyond this existence using methods that are bound by this existence. There are plenty of people who have NDE testimony available on YouTube, clinically dead for hours up to a full three days, and came back to life. Every one of them describe it, regardless of the actual events in the experience, as being "more real than real". In the case of people who are blind from birth having NDEs, they report having a genuine visual experience. How can that be explained?
And your statement is non sequitur. If the brain dies, as it is the control station of the body, then the body dies. That doesn't mean there isn't a soul.
Science has explained NDE's....
And I never said there was or wasn't a soul...I was saying that one cannot think or live without the brain...The "soul" if there is such a thing...is not what allows thinking...
But, no soul has ever been proven to exist.
The brain and how it allows one to "think" has been...
Science has absolutely not explained NDEs. People who are clinically dead don't just come back to life in the morgue. When there is no brain activity, there is no brain activity, so what were these people experiencing? What do brain dead people in a coma experience? Can you ask them? Is there a way to tell?
Until it happens to you, you will not believe. You'd rather not believe anyway, so what's the point?
Sure, it's called brain trauma, there's lot's of stuff on it.
First I have not stated my beliefs.
I am having a discussion...which in this case is the opposing side to your argument. I don't post my personal beliefs on here...and on the rare occasions that I do post something that is my belief...I state it as such..
And as far as NDE's go...Do some more research...they have been explained...
I remember waking up when I was like 3 or 4 and I felt like an old soul in a child's body. I didn't feel like a child, I felt like an old woman or a grown woman. I believe anything is possible. I believe the dead are behind the veil, like another dimension from us. I don't believe this world is only a dream, I believe in Carl Jung's collective conscious theory. I believe in prophetic dreams which are visions, I believe God speaks to us in dreams. I believe everyone is capable of touching the spiritual world and that the dead are capable of contacting us, but mostly don't wish to until it is our time to cross over. I believe Jesus is real and that there are many paths to him, I believe every religion is valid because they express love as the most important thing although there will always be fringe groups that seek to scare. I believe death is not the end. I have fears like everyone else because I am on my journey to knowledge also. And change can be scary, but I have seen enough that I wonder sometimes why I should be scared. But as my son says, "It's all good."
http://blog.oconnormortuary.com/2013/05 … ice-nurse/
http://allnurses.com/hospice-nursing/ho … 49183.html
Absolutely. Our body is just a shell. When we die our energy/soul (which can never be destroyed) is no longer limited by our body's 5 physical senses and we then get to experience universal consciousness (Heaven/Nirvana).
We are spiritual beings that have entered a human embryo and have incarnated into a human body. After we die we remember nothing. If we do not wish to be of spirit, and want another body, we come back and try it again. Who ever is lucky enough to love God like Elisha/Jesus did, can stay with God in heaven and not come back any more. It depends on desire. The will of the individual has full say. Most people just follow along restlessly and play it by ear. It is best to develop a sense of mastery over oneself and determine what one wants. Take control and get back to God. That is our true path to happiness. According to my Guru.
I am always one for interesting points of view. I respect everyone's view on life and their points of reference. We can all learn much from one another. I thank you for your insights on this subject. The conversations are rewarding and interesting and worth learning more about. There is so much that we don't know and don't understand about the spirit, the soul, the flesh, the mind, etc... Thanks so much and keep the great comments coming. The best learning is when we share our thoughts with each other.
Are there new spirits being born every day because our population keeps going up? How do the spirits keep up with human population? Do they multiply like we do?
We are simply a series of neural impulses shaped by experience and genetics. Your brain is your everything.
Just because we're sentient and self-aware does not mean anything spiritual is going on; it just means our big primate brains are smart enough to realize that we are sentient.
From the Math:
The real world is like the equation = a ^ 10 + b ^ c ^ 9 + 8 ..... j ^ 1 (10 variables)
The World Unseen is like the equation = a ^ x .... b ^ y ..... c ^ d .....
So it's hard to understand the occult. Importantly we believe that the supernatural exists.
We all worry about the unknown.
In my honest opinion there can be good and bad spirits and they are all around us.
Oftentimes I believe a dream has meaning to it. Sometimes I feel its how our loved ones that have passed on connect to us. Everybody has their own opinion on this stuff, it's something we can never be too sure about.
Why? Why do you have the opinion there are spirits all around us?
What tests have you performed, what observations have you made? What knowledge/evidence did you use to formulate that opinion? What logical thought processes did you use to come to that conclusion?
No tests, no scientific evidence.
Just from personal experience. I recently lost a very close friend. Moment before he passed away he looked at me and gave me a thumbs up. Weeks after his passing I thought I saw his face. It became a reoccurring theme in my dreams as well. I can't be too sure if it's just me over thinking things or actually the truth.
OH. OK then.
I was hoping for considerably more - speaking for myself, not being "too sure if it's just me over thinking things or actually the truth" is insufficient reason to formulate an actual opinion, and for someone else to feel that way is absolutely insufficient reason.
Better we say "do not know". I also do not know whether the "body of viruses" are viruses?
by ptosis 3 years ago
The soul, by definition, is meta-physical and is thought that the soul would be connected to the brain, not within the brain.It used to be thought that the soul resided in your heart - but getting a heart transplant doesn't make you into a different person. So - if some time in the future -...
by Cecilia 7 years ago
I think you know you've had a soulmate experience when after all is done, you know what to do in life. You get it. You got it all figured out. It doesn't matter if you ended up together. Soulmate relationships have to be positively transformative.If you're just obsessed, that's not it. That's...
by kirstenblog 7 years ago
There is a forum topic that is current right now about a woman who committed a terrible crime against another human being. The topic discusses the punishment/rehabilitation and what should be done in these cases.It got me thinking about my reactions to these horrific crimes that come into the news....
by yankeeintexas 3 years ago
Can Christians be what other would consider "sensitive" to the spiritual world?I have met many Christians that say they can see things that others don't! Many of them don't know what to call but being sensitive. I personally don't believe in physics, and medium, and these Christians have...
by lovetherain 16 months ago
This is for theists. What makes you believe in God? Or do you have blind faith?
by Candle Hour 7 years ago
What is the meaning of life? Why are we here?
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|