What is your belief regarding the existence of "God"?

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
Right. I didn't think he would.

But don't confuse the arrow of time (which is just the question of why we perceive it) with what we know about the nature of time itself. Frankly, the very question of perception is only raised because we now realize that time does not unfold.

But we wrote new books, we took the good and expanded on it and when it's not good we toss it out.

Here, you can't toss it out, the good goes with the bad and vice-versa.

But I can't image a christian accepting anything is bad in the bible. So nothing to be thrown out.

You are definitely touching on a very real point (that Christians belive scripture to be inspired by God, and 'complete'), but I think your conclusions regarding that fact are debatable.

Again, the belief is that everything we need (or rather, needed) to know about God was put in the scriptures, so we could better know him. I mentioned earlier the ... we'll call it a hypothesis ... that the ability for "Adam" to commune with God was the result of an evolutionary development. This genetic marker was carried down through all the major characters in the OT, culminating with the arrival of Christ. I again suspect that this genetic marker had spread to enough of the populace to reach a point where priests and prophets were no longer necessary for communicating with God. This is why the shroud in the priest's temple was torn. It represented the fact that there was no longer a barrier between man and God (on the whole). This is why we don't need new scripture.

With that said, for the parts of the Bible that describe the natural world, as we established earlier, they were never intended to be science books. They described the foundation of creation (or the flood, or whatever) so that they could establish a context for the spiritual lesson. The only reason to re-evaluate/reinterpret them is effectively an intellectual curiosity. For those that have trouble believing anything because their interpretation of these portions of scripture don't align with more recent scientific discoveries, those people have a choice - approach the scriptures with a more open mind and challenge the interpretations of the religious leaders before them (who were also living in a time of relatively limited knowledge), or close their hearts and minds, using the misalignment as an excuse. The problem with that approach is that all these people are really doing is identifying a misalignment between some other guy's interpretation and modern science. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Physics" because Isaac Newton got some stuff wrong.

Lets break it down.

"If god left it to man to interpret it's words then clearly the chance of numerous errors was likely"

So do you accept that it could be riddled with errors ?

No, that the interpretations applied to it by men could be riddled with errors.

"if god did not allow him to interpret it, then it is the word of god."

IE no need for interpretations, in which case since it was written with the language at the time, no need or chance for error. Correct ?

Whoa! Not in the least! Why would God not intend man to interpret? The only way that could even be possible is that man did indeed simply transcribe some voice in his head - and no one I know has ever suggested anything like that.

In this sense it is the literal word. Which would be ludicrous considering the implications. So you are left with only the first option, and I agree that it must have been written by men and thus open to errors.

The next question, since humans wrote it, is what are the errors ?

See above. Surely you understand the difference between the actual words being riddled with errors and our understanding of what those words mean are riddled with errors?

C'mon man. This is everything right here.

The only thing left on your journey, the only thing that even has a chance of being modified or improved upon is your soul, correct ? Since everything else is already pre-determined.

And you have no idea ?

Dude, dude. DUDE ! LOL.

Well then it's a good question.

If I knew, I wouldn't have a journey, there would be no meaning to life.

Good talk. Got to get to work.

Me too!

 

[SolusCado]

If you're comfortable throwing out the parts of the bible that you're uncomfortable with, knock yourself out. It's easy to reconcile your faith if you pick and choose what to believe. :bugeye:

But then who are you to say that I have a barrier to overcome? At least I know what I believe and why.

I haven't thrown anything out. As for you and a barrier, I was kidding. And have I said anything that would suggest I DON'T know what I believe, or why?

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
SolusCado,
Right. I didn't think he would. ”

But don't confuse the arrow of time (which is just the question of why we perceive it) with what we know about the nature of time itself. Frankly, the very question of perception is only raised because we now realize that time does not unfold.

I am not confusing it. I don't accept that our choices have no impact on our future.

The future can not be changed but that our choices do affect what that future will be.

Otherwise we cease to exist and there is no evidence that we are in fact not here. There is no evidence that we don't have freewill. All of the evidence suggests we do.

I mentioned earlier the ... we'll call it a hypothesis ... that the ability for "Adam" to commune with God was the result of an evolutionary development. This genetic marker was carried down through all the major characters in the OT, culminating with the arrival of Christ. I again suspect that this genetic marker had spread to enough of the populace to reach a point where priests and prophets were no longer necessary for communicating with God. This is why the shroud in the priest's temple was torn. It represented the fact that there was no longer a barrier between man and God (on the whole). This is why we don't need new scripture.

Hmm. Ok.

For those that have trouble believing anything because their interpretation of these portions of scripture don't align with more recent scientific discoveries, those people have a choice - approach the scriptures with a more open mind and challenge the interpretations of the religious leaders before them (who were also living in a time of relatively limited knowledge), or close their hearts and minds, using the misalignment as an excuse. The problem with that approach is that all these people are really doing is identifying a misalignment between some other guy's interpretation and modern science. It's kind of like saying "I don't believe in Physics" because Isaac Newton got some stuff wrong.

Or they see the misalignment as error in which case it would be wise to avoid it. Why study a source of information that is flawed.

However, I agree that if you are a believer then it is best to take your approach. Your beef is not going to be with atheists, it's with those who claim to know that they understand the texts and it's meanings. IOW they have interpreted it correctly.

Good luck with that.

Lets break it down.

"If god left it to man to interpret it's words then clearly the chance of numerous errors was likely"

So do you accept that it could be riddled with errors ? ”

No, that the interpretations applied to it by men could be riddled with errors.

Ok, so the texts are completely accurate in their current form, no errors. Only our interpretation of the texts is in error.

Is that your position ?

Whoa! Not in the least! Why would God not intend man to interpret? The only way that could even be possible is that man did indeed simply transcribe some voice in his head - and no one I know has ever suggested anything like that.

Which I pointed out after I raised the possibility.

However, considering that god intended man to interpret the texts, which one could also ask, why would he let us interpret them and that would be just as valid.

Considering that god does not make mistakes.

I mean it could be considered a mistake by god to let us interpret the texts.

See above. Surely you understand the difference between the actual words being riddled with errors and our understanding of what those words mean are riddled with errors?

Yep. So we will assume the texts are correct the interpretation is at times not.

So what in your opinion are the errors in the interpretations.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
C'mon man. This is everything right here.

The only thing left on your journey, the only thing that even has a chance of being modified or improved upon is your soul, correct ? Since everything else is already pre-determined.

And you have no idea ?

Dude, dude. DUDE ! LOL.

Well then it's a good question. ”

If I knew, I wouldn't have a journey, there would be no meaning to life.

But you must have some thoughts. I can't imagine that you haven't gone down this road.

Here you go, for when you have a few decades to kill.

So why would god create souls ? What is the purpose.

If the god is omnipotent etc etc what does it need us for ?

Why play the game with our souls ? ”

Another question I have is:

If the soul has to use the body for physical function. What happens to your memories etc and all that is essentially you when the soul leaves the body ?

Assuming it doesn't take the brain with it.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
I am not confusing it. I don't accept that our choices have no impact on our future.

The future can not be changed but that our choices do affect what that future will be.

Otherwise we cease to exist and there is no evidence that we are in fact not here. There is no evidence that we don't have freewill. All of the evidence suggests we do.

I disagree emphatically, and refer you back to those links.

Or they see the misalignment as error in which case it would be wise to avoid it. Why study a source of information that is flawed.

That's just it; if there are interpretations that eliminate the flaws, then refusing to accept the new interpretations is a choice to close one's mind.

However, I agree that if you are a believer then it is best to take your approach. Your beef is not going to be with atheists, it's with those who claim to know that they understand the texts and it's meanings. IOW they have interpreted it correctly.

Good luck with that.

I know. And thanks.

Ok, so the texts are completely accurate in their current form, no errors. Only our interpretation of the texts is in error.

Is that your position ?

Yes, and frankly - if I was presented with texts for which I had no interpretation that eliminated errors I would consider the texts suspect. For me, this actually applies to the entire NT, for it was in the NT that (I believe it was Paul) wrote that the Scriptures were complete, and there was nothing to be added. At the time of this writing, "the Scriptures" applied to what we now know as the OT. I see no justification for canonizing the NT.

Which I pointed out after I raised the possibility.

OK; well I certainly don't believe that to be the case.

However, considering that god intended man to interpret the texts, which one could also ask, why would he let us interpret them and that would be just as valid.

Considering that god does not make mistakes.

I mean it could be considered a mistake by god to let us interpret the texts.

To claim anything is a mistake on God's part is to claim to know better than Him. I don't believe it was God's plan that all men achieve salvation (at least during their time here on Earth), and while I make no claims as to complete knowledge of His plans (The Bible DOES say "the Lord works in mysterious ways"), I DO have faith that He does have a plan and He makes no mistakes. That is as much a proclamation of my definition of God as it is my faith in Him. (Which is to say, if He did make mistakes, He wouldn't be God.)

So what in your opinion are the errors in the interpretations.

I couldn't begin to list them all here, but I already described what I think is a better interpretation of the "men" in Genesis, the timeframes, etc. I am actually working on a book that I hope to publish that will include most if not all. Sites like this are actually excellent research, as they provide an opportunity to run the ideas through the fire, so to speak.

But you must have some thoughts. I can't imagine that you haven't gone down this road.

Here you go, for when you have a few decades to kill.

So why would god create souls ? What is the purpose.

If the god is omnipotent etc etc what does it need us for ?

Why play the game with our souls ? ”

Well, I don't see any reason as to why God "needs" us. I suspect it is much like a person who gets a pet. It is there for companionship, and a target of love. I don't see it as a game with our souls. I see it as a dynamic system that is more beautiful and impressive because of its pitfalls, not in spite of them. People are given a choice, and it is their own 'damned' fault if they choose wrong.

Another question I have is:

If the soul has to use the body for physical function. What happens to your memories etc and all that is essentially you when the soul leaves the body ?

Assuming it doesn't take the brain with it.

Damn good question. And there is no reason to think we are guaranteed to keep the memories. Perhaps the soul goes through the ringer over and over again, i.e. reincarnation, until it finally grows to a point where in can commune with God. Perhaps it is a lot like "The Ancients" in Stargate. I don't know, and the ideas are titillating.

 

[Lori_7]

Religion was invented to control the behavior of stupid people.


Lori Lori Hallelujah! You

And also...

Spoiler

haha. i used to sing it that way when i was little.

also, in regards to the spoiler, i keep reiterating this over and over. i HAVE my proof, but that can't be proof to anyone else. you have to get your own. it comes from god, and is presently to you directly.

 

[spidergoat]

I think religion was invented for several possible reasons; to unify a community of people, to placate children's questions, to entertain, or for the purposes of warfare. The last reason is quite compelling, since people might be more willing to overcome the instinct for self-preservation if they think that death is not the end, and this would benefit a community (as long as not every warrior died).

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

SolusCado,
I am not confusing it. I don't accept that our choices have no impact on our future.

The future can not be changed but that our choices do affect what that future will be.

Otherwise we cease to exist and there is no evidence that we are in fact not here. There is no evidence that we don't have freewill. All of the evidence suggests we do. ”

I disagree emphatically, and refer you back to those links

There is nothing in there that disqualifies my comment.

It doesn't matter whether time unfolds or not.

What you are not seeing or accepting is that the future exists and the future can not be changed, but that future is the result of all the changes made up until that very point.

That future whatever that may be is being created by our decisions. There is nothing in spacetime thinking that excludes or includes that.

In fact, as you point out below, without our ability to make our own decisions and have freewill then it's all a mute point including god.

So tell me why even with the future in place, why we can not have freewill, not the illusion of freewill, but nothing but freewill.

Remember that obviously our actions and choices can really only affect our lives and society etc. But that is undeniable.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Or they see the misalignment as error in which case it would be wise to avoid it. Why study a source of information that is flawed. ”

That's just it; if there are interpretations that eliminate the flaws, then refusing to accept the new interpretations is a choice to close one's mind.

Yes you will have to take that up with the fundies. To the rest of us, it's just a change in the storyline. That is something that I don't think you will get beyond with a non-believer. Because they would need to believe in the story in the first place.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
But you must have some thoughts. I can't imagine that you haven't gone down this road.

Here you go, for when you have a few decades to kill.

So why would god create souls ? What is the purpose.

If the god is omnipotent etc etc what does it need us for ?

Why play the game with our souls ? ” ”

Well, I don't see any reason as to why God "needs" us. I suspect it is much like a person who gets a pet. It is there for companionship, and a target of love. I don't see it as a game with our souls. I see it as a dynamic system that is more beautiful and impressive because of its pitfalls, not in spite of them. People are given a choice, and it is their own 'damned' fault if they choose wrong.

People are given a choice ?

But according to you they only have the illusion of choice.

Can you please explain then, how we really have a choice ?

Why would god need humans as companions ?

What pitfalls can occur for humans by a god that makes no mistakes ?

Or that doesn't offer us freewill ?

Or in a static universe where the future can not be changed even by our own decisions in the present ?

It's not adding up.

I think on this issue, not giving humans freewill is a non-starter. It's a mute point and I see no value or reason for god after the intial creation.

I also think there is no reason in your model that we can not have freewill, and that the only way it works or makes sense is if we have freewill.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Another question I have is:

If the soul has to use the body for physical function. What happens to your memories etc and all that is essentially you when the soul leaves the body ?

Assuming it doesn't take the brain with it. ”

Damn good question. And there is no reason to think we are guaranteed to keep the memories. Perhaps the soul goes through the ringer over and over again, i.e. reincarnation, until it finally grows to a point where in can commune with God. Perhaps it is a lot like "The Ancients" in Stargate. I don't know, and the ideas are titillating.

This is an issue I had with another poster on here.

If we don't keep our memories what is the point in a soul ?

You've essentially erased everything that mattered to it.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
There is nothing in there that disqualifies my comment.

It doesn't matter whether time unfolds or not.

What you are not seeing or accepting is that the future exists and the future can not be changed, but that future is the result of all the changes made up until that very point.

That future whatever that may be is being created by our decisions. There is nothing in spacetime thinking that excludes or includes that.

Sigh... I understand fully what you are saying. It's just not correct. The future already exists. That is the fundamental truth that you are not seeing or accepting.

Yes you will have to take that up with the fundies. To the rest of us, it's just a change in the storyline. That is something that I don't think you will get beyond with a non-believer. Because they would need to believe in the story in the first place.

I can accept that. What I cannot accept is a non-believer who claims a flawed text as their source of disbelief, but then refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of an interpretation that eliminates said flaws. It's much like a scientist who refuses to accept a theory that has been modified to account for the latest experimentation. At that point, the scientist is driven by personal emotions, not logic.

People are given a choice ?

But according to you they only have the illusion of choice.

Can you please explain then, how we really have a choice ?

Someone earlier (possibly in a different thread) made an excellent statement. Illusion does not eliminate reality. An optical illusion IS in fact something. Your choices are created as part of the complete system, something of which only the creator is aware. BECAUSE you are unaware of your choices, you have complete freedom in making them.

Why would god need humans as companions ?

There is really no reason to ask me why god 'anything'. I am not god and do not purport to know his mind. I also couldn't tell you why some humans like cats and dogs as companions. I'm sure they have a reason - they clearly like them, but I don't get it.

What pitfalls can occur for humans by a god that makes no mistakes ?

Or that doesn't offer us freewill ?

Or in a static universe where the future can not be changed even by our own decisions in the present ?

Again, see above - we DO have free will BECAUSE we don't know our future.

I think on this issue, not giving humans freewill is a non-starter. It's a mute point and I see no value or reason for god after the intial creation.

I also think there is no reason in your model that we can not have freewill, and that the only way it works or makes sense is if we have freewill.

It isn't MY model. It is the logical and mathematical conclusion of special relativity. Did you read those links I posted? I can try to describe it in my own words here, but I think I already did in another thread... Did you ever hear my analogy regarding getting into a car accident with someone born at the exact same time as me?

This is an issue I had with another poster on here.

If we don't keep our memories what is the point in a soul ?

You've essentially erased everything that mattered to it.

You only say that because for you, everything about who you are IS in your memories. But that is a fundamental aspect of our current incarnation. Think of an ant farm. The tunnels and storerooms are created by the colony. They are as much part of the ant farm as the ant colony itself. But if you remove the colony, there is still a structure left behind. Perhaps this is the case with the human soul. The memories and experiences on Earth (like the ants), serve to mold the soul (like the sand structure) in such a way that prepares it to be filled with something else (like a spiritual life). Again, I don't know on this stuff; I am just speculating.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Sigh... I understand fully what you are saying. It's just not correct. The future already exists. That is the fundamental truth that you are not seeing or accepting.

First of all that ship has not sailed, otherwise you're claiming that our current knowledge is adequate.

Secondly, you are not listening to what I am saying.

I am suggesting that the future can already exist, but for it to exist it had to have a past and present. No matter what the future is, it is what it is because of the past. Which represents us here and now. Likewise we can not know the future because of this.

I can accept that. What I cannot accept is a non-believer who claims a flawed text as their source of disbelief, but then refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of an interpretation that eliminates said flaws. It's much like a scientist who refuses to accept a theory that has been modified to account for the latest experimentation. At that point, the scientist is driven by personal emotions, not logic

Well we have been down this road before and I don't agree on one aspect of it. The difference being again that you can't change the words only the interpretation of the words.

But yes some scientists do allow their emotions etc to get in the way of the better information, happens all the time, they are human. The difference is that everyone else can see the better information so the scientist who didn't want to change his position is forced to or become irrellevant. Because everyone else can see he is being a stubborn fool.

Originally Posted by jpappl
People are given a choice ?

But according to you they only have the illusion of choice.

Can you please explain then, how we really have a choice ? ”

Someone earlier (possibly in a different thread) made an excellent statement. Illusion does not eliminate reality. An optical illusion IS in fact something. Your choices are created as part of the complete system, something of which only the creator is aware. BECAUSE you are unaware of your choices, you have complete freedom in making them.

Yes and I answered that comment with this:

Maybe it's not an illusion.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Why would god need humans as companions ? ”

There is really no reason to ask me why god 'anything'. I am not god and do not purport to know his mind. I also couldn't tell you why some humans like cats and dogs as companions. I'm sure they have a reason - they clearly like them, but I don't get it.

No, you should be asking yourself why god everything ?

I am not the one who believes. If I did I would be asking more of these types of questions.

In asking myself these questions over the years, I have come to my conclusions because none of it added up. I didn't just not believe because. I don't believe because I have explored this to where I find no reason to put a god in where one is not needed.

These are the most important questions, as I said before. The ones which create conflict.

Your belief can easily handle that which supports but can it stand the scrutiny of challenging questions.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
What pitfalls can occur for humans by a god that makes no mistakes ?

Or that doesn't offer us freewill ?

Or in a static universe where the future can not be changed even by our own decisions in the present ? ”

Again, see above - we DO have free will BECAUSE we don't know our future.

But it's only an illusion according to your previous statements. I agree that we have freewill but I don't look at it as an illusion.

It isn't MY model. It is the logical and mathematical conclusion of special relativity. Did you read those links I posted? I can try to describe it in my own words here, but I think I already did in another thread... Did you ever hear my analogy regarding getting into a car accident with someone born at the exact same time as me?

Yes I reviewed them. As I said there is nothing in there that eliminates freewill. Not at all.

That is the biggest sticking point I have with your model, by which I mean the scenario that you have laid out where god fits, where we fit etc etc.

Outside of the fact that I don't believe in god. I understand the definition enough to know that a supernatural being can do whatever it wants.

But us not having freewill. That doesn't fit. With no freewill, or only the illusion of it. There is no reason for us to do anything. It's all arranged for us.

I am not sure how you can fit that in and still see it as making sense.

I think that the why questions regarding god will lead you back to us having true freewill that is not an illusion and that our choices matter to us and others and our future state.

You only say that because for you, everything about who you are IS in your memories. But that is a fundamental aspect of our current incarnation. Think of an ant farm. The tunnels and storerooms are created by the colony. They are as much part of the ant farm as the ant colony itself. But if you remove the colony, there is still a structure left behind. Perhaps this is the case with the human soul. The memories and experiences on Earth (like the ants), serve to mold the soul (like the sand structure) in such a way that prepares it to be filled with something else (like a spiritual life). Again, I don't know on this stuff; I am just speculating.

Yes, well I think for it to make sense at all IMO, you need to take them with you. However, we are discussing the spirit world so there is no reason that the soul couldn't take them with it.

Kind of like freewill. It wouldn't make sense for it not to.

Otherwise heaven would be an Alzheimer's ward and nobody would care why they are in hell. They wouldn't even know there were there.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
First of all that ship has not sailed, otherwise you're claiming that our current knowledge is adequate.

Secondly, you are not listening to what I am saying.

I am suggesting that the future can already exist, but for it to exist it had to have a past and present. No matter what the future is, it is what it is because of the past. Which represents us here and now. Likewise we can not know the future because of this.

That is basically just the description of a deterministic universe, which still assumes movement and cause/effect. That is NOT the type of universe described by special relativity.

Yes and I answered that comment with this:

Maybe it's not an illusion.

That statement has no meaning in the type of universe I am describing.

No, you should be asking yourself why god everything ?

What is the point in trying to read the mind of another, particularly if my belief is that their mind is beyond my comprehension?

I am not the one who believes. If I did I would be asking more of these types of questions.

In asking myself these questions over the years, I have come to my conclusions because none of it added up. I didn't just not believe because. I don't believe because I have explored this to where I find no reason to put a god in where one is not needed.

These are the most important questions, as I said before. The ones which create conflict.

I think it is because you personified God too much. If you approach these questions like He is just another person, bound to the same restrictions you are, hell yeah things won't add up.

Your belief can easily handle that which supports but can it stand the scrutiny of challenging questions.

You haven't posed any challenging questions yet. What you've asked so far is the equivalent of asking me what number you're thinking of. I neither know nor care. It has no relevance to my life.

But it's only an illusion according to your previous statements. I agree that we have freewill but I don't look at it as an illusion.

You're still not getting what I am saying. Choice is an illusion. Free will is not. They aren't the same thing.

Yes I reviewed them. As I said there is nothing in there that eliminates freewill. Not at all.

That is the biggest sticking point I have with your model, by which I mean the scenario that you have laid out where god fits, where we fit etc etc.

Outside of the fact that I don't believe in god. I understand the definition enough to know that a supernatural being can do whatever it wants.

But us not having freewill. That doesn't fit. With no freewill, or only the illusion of it. There is no reason for us to do anything. It's all arranged for us.

I am not sure how you can fit that in and still see it as making sense.

I think that the why questions regarding god will lead you back to us having true freewill that is not an illusion and that our choices matter to us and others and our future state.

If we cannot agree on the fundamental nature of time in the universe, all these other points aren't going to mesh up either, and pursuing them without the same foundation is a pointless exercise.

Yes, well I think for it to make sense at all IMO, you need to take them with you. However, we are discussing the spirit world so there is no reason that the soul couldn't take them with it.

Kind of like freewill. It wouldn't make sense for it not to.

Otherwise heaven would be an Alzheimer's ward and nobody would care why they are in hell. They wouldn't even know there were there.

Again, you are applying what you know about reality to what you cannot possibly know about a spiritual reality.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

Originally Posted by jpappl
SolusCado,
First of all that ship has not sailed, otherwise you're claiming that our current knowledge is adequate.

Secondly, you are not listening to what I am saying.

I am suggesting that the future can already exist, but for it to exist it had to have a past and present. No matter what the future is, it is what it is because of the past. Which represents us here and now. Likewise we can not know the future because of this. ”

That is basically just the description of a deterministic universe, which still assumes movement and cause/effect. That is NOT the type of universe described by special relativity.

How does humans having freewill describe a deterministic universe ?

Yes and I answered that comment with this:

Maybe it's not an illusion. ”

That statement has no meaning in the type of universe I am describing.

Yet we are here. The only evidence is for freewill. So maybe you need to alter the universe description for that reality.

Asking for a separate reality is unneccesary.

No, you should be asking yourself why god everything ? ”

What is the point in trying to read the mind of another, particularly if my belief is that their mind is beyond my comprehension?

I guess the alternative is to not question. Which is the opposite of your claim of seaching and seeking knowledge about god.

These questions should be at the core of your understanding. If you have no thoughts on the subject I assume you haven't inquired.

I think it is because you personified God too much. If you approach these questions like He is just another person, bound to the same restrictions you are, hell yeah things won't add up

Actually it's the opposite for me. To me a god is an all powerfull supernatural entity. Thus I ask what does it need us for ? Why do we need to appease it or otherwise worship it ? Why does a god need us to worship it ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Your belief can easily handle that which supports but can it stand the scrutiny of challenging questions. ”

You haven't posed any challenging questions yet. What you've asked so far is the equivalent of asking me what number you're thinking of. I neither know nor care. It has no relevance to my life.

Whether I have or not, which I have because you don't have answers to them. But I won't dwell on that.

The point is that you should be asking yourself the challenging questons. Those that potentially conflict with your ideas, positions etc.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
But it's only an illusion according to your previous statements. I agree that we have freewill but I don't look at it as an illusion. ”

You're still not getting what I am saying. Choice is an illusion. Free will is not. They aren't the same thing.

Yes they are. You can't say that we have freewill but that our choices and decisions are an illusion. Because your claim is they are made for us by god. We just don't realize it.

That is not freewill.

One last time to clear it up:

Freewill or not ?

If your choice is yes to freewill then we have it with no illusions, god does not make the decisions for us. This is the definition I want to clear up.

If you answer no. Then either we have the illusion of it, god makes the decisions etc.

If we cannot agree on the fundamental nature of time in the universe, all these other points aren't going to mesh up either, and pursuing them without the same foundation is a pointless exercise.

Well, you have yet to explain why we can't have freewill and still have a future that can not be changed.

As I have stated many times and there is nothing in the theory that excludes this.

The future can not be changed. But the future is what it is becuase of that which happened in the past.

So whether it is static or not, we know this because reality tells us that the past occurs before the present and the future can not be known.

So ANY explanation that tries to remove that reality is not dealing in reality. If that is the basis for the scenario you have created then it is flawed.

Otherwise, reality is not reality. Is that what you are suggesting as well.

Originally Posted by jpappl
Yes, well I think for it to make sense at all IMO, you need to take them with you. However, we are discussing the spirit world so there is no reason that the soul couldn't take them with it.

Kind of like freewill. It wouldn't make sense for it not to.

Otherwise heaven would be an Alzheimer's ward and nobody would care why they are in hell. They wouldn't even know there were there. ”

Again, you are applying what you know about reality to what you cannot possibly know about a spiritual reality.

True. But does it make sense that we lose our memory ?

It's just a question. I don't expect you to have any answer with knowledge.

 

[SolusCado]

SolusCado,
How does humans having freewill describe a deterministic universe ?

Not that humans have free will, but that the future is dependent on the past.

Yet we are here. The only evidence is for freewill. So maybe you need to alter the universe description for that reality.

I would be more open to debate on this subject if it were somehow philosophical. But it isn't. It is experimentally proven that we live in a universe in which the future coexists with the present and the past.

Asking for a separate reality is unneccesary.

I'm not asking; science demands it.

I guess the alternative is to not question. Which is the opposite of your claim of seaching and seeking knowledge about god.

If by definition I can't comprehend, it would be ridiculously stupid of me to try. It would be like trying to lift a car, and not giving up until I do so. How long must I strain before I realize I'm getting nowhere?

These questions should be at the core of your understanding. If you have no thoughts on the subject I assume you haven't inquired.

Not regarding the questions you've posed so far. How about this - ask them again, and this time explain to me the relevance. Otherwise, as I said before, it amounts to trying to guess what number you are thinking of. Why should I care?

Actually it's the opposite for me. To me a god is an all powerfull supernatural entity. Thus I ask what does it need us for ? Why do we need to appease it or otherwise worship it ? Why does a god need us to worship it ?

What makes you think it needs you? Why do you think it needs you to worship it? All of these questions are inapplicable to the God I believe in. In my mind, the Bible outlines the things that I need to do for my own good, not because God will bring down his wrath if I don't, but because God created a universe in which things function a certain way, and it is for my own benefit that I follow its teachings. It's basically the same thing as your parents telling you not to touch the hot stove. If you do so and it burns you, it isn't because your parents are full of wrath that you touched it. It's that that's just the way it works.

Wheter I have or not, which I have because you don't have answers to them. But I won't dwell on that.

The point is that you should be asking yourself the challenging questons. Those that potentially conflict with your ideas, positions etc.

See above. Ask me some questions and tell me why I should be asking myself the same questions. Again, so far... they are completely irrelevant to my worldview. (And of course I suspect it is our differing worldviews that impact the questions I ask, not some supreme enlightenment on the part of either of us.)

Yes they are. You can't say that we have freewill but that our choices and decisions are an illusion. Because your claim is they are made for us by god. We just don't realize it.

That is not freewill.

I disagree, but it would appear that our disagreement is semantic. "Free will" is a component of our consciousness - our mind's ability to be faced with multiple choices and freely choose among them. That freedom is granted BECAUSE our mind doesn't know what choice it will make. It will make a specific choice, and that has already been written, so to speak - but because the consciousness is not aware of the choice, it has freedom to choose. In fact, free will is simply a result of our incomprehensible perception of time flowing (since time doesn't ACTUALLY flow).

One last time to clear it up:

Freewill or not ?

If your choice is yes to freewill then we have it with no illusions, god does not make the decisions for us. This is the definition I want to clear up.

If you answer no. Then either we have the illusion of it, god makes the decisions etc.

I cannot be any clearer than my last comment. Your question/conclusions are predicated on a foundational view that I do not share.

Well, you have yet to explain why we can't have freewill and still have a future that can not be changed.

See above.

As I have stated many times and there is nothing in the theory that excludes this.

Once more, the theory says nothing of free will, but rather the immutability of the future. Again, free will is a component of consciousness, not physics.

The future can not be changed. But the future is what it is becuase of that which happened in the past.

Not according to special relativity.

So whether it is static or not, we know this because reality tells us that the past occurs before the present and the future can not be known.

So ANY explanation that tries to remove that reality is not dealing in reality. If that is the basis for the scenario you have created then it is flawed.

Otherwise, reality is not reality. Is that what you are suggesting as well.

I'm sorry man, I just see time differently than you, and I have physics (and gps satellites) on my side. All the rest of your positions are predicated on your flawed view of time.

True. But does it make sense that we lose our memory ?

It's just a question. I don't expect you to have any answer with knowledge.

There are theological reasons why it would make sense, but to even speculate is really to try to guess about a reality that is so foreign from our own there is no reason whatsoever to expect enough parallels for these questions to even have meaning.

 

[jpappl]

SolusCado,

SolusCado,
How does humans having freewill describe a deterministic universe ? ”

Not that humans have free will, but that the future is dependent on the past.

Even in a time was created all at once scenario. The system has the future dependent on the past, otherwise we could not experience time. But we can.

That is our reality. What I am saying is that you want to remove us from that reality in order to make your model/scenario work.

I don't think it's necessary.

I would be more open to debate on this subject if it were somehow philosophical. But it isn't. It is experimentally proven that we live in a universe in which the future coexists with the present and the past.

So we have time all figured out eh ? Nonsense

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
Asking for a separate reality is unneccesary. ”

I'm not asking; science demands it.

LOL.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
I guess the alternative is to not question. Which is the opposite of your claim of seaching and seeking knowledge about god. ”

If by definition I can't comprehend, it would be ridiculously stupid of me to try. It would be like trying to lift a car, and not giving up until I do so. How long must I strain before I realize I'm getting nowhere?

Huh, I thought you said that you are doing everything you can to have a better understanding about god.

I asked before how you think you can know. I am getting some mixed signals here. At one moment you say we can't know and that is ridiculous to try and at the next moment saying that there are things we can try to learn.

Via the texts etc. So if we can't truly know, then what is the point of going through the texts ?

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
These questions should be at the core of your understanding. If you have no thoughts on the subject I assume you haven't inquired. ”

Not regarding the questions you've posed so far. How about this - ask them again, and this time explain to me the relevance. Otherwise, as I said before, it amounts to trying to guess what number you are thinking of. Why should I care?

Why did god need to create us ?

If the god is omnipotent etc etc what does it need us for ?

Why would god need humans as companions ?

Why would it give us souls without freewill ?

Why would it need to interact if it makes no mistakes ?

Do our souls retain our memories ?

I could go on.

The relevance is that if you can not come up with good answers for these what does that say about the strength of your belief ?

It's not about me because I don't believe.

What makes you think it needs you? Why do you think it needs you to worship it? All of these questions are inapplicable to the God I believe in. In my mind, the Bible outlines the things that I need to do for my own good, not because God will bring down his wrath if I don't, but because God created a universe in which things function a certain way, and it is for my own benefit that I follow its teachings.

That is completely contradictory.

Do you not need to take Jesus as your savior ?

You're telling me that the bible doesn't say to worship god ?

WTF.

If it doesn't need me then why did it create me.

See above. Ask me some questions and tell me why I should be asking myself the same questions. Again, so far... they are completely irrelevant to my worldview. (And of course I suspect it is our differing worldviews that impact the questions I ask, not some supreme enlightenment on the part of either of us.)

Ah, but obviously any question I ask can be deemed irrellevant. So I ask you to ask yourself those challenging questions that are relevant to you and your belief. And of course there is no need to fill me in.

I disagree, but it would appear that our disagreement is semantic. "Free will" is a component of our consciousness - our mind's ability to be faced with multiple choices and freely choose among them. That freedom is granted BECAUSE our mind doesn't know what choice it will make. It will make a specific choice, and that has already been written, so to speak - but because the consciousness is not aware of the choice, it has freedom to choose. In fact, free will is simply a result of our incomprehensible perception of time flowing (since time doesn't ACTUALLY flow).

This is far closer to what I can accept as a definition, but I suspect you still say that god has made the choice.

So we will always come back to that and I will disagree. Simply because I don't believe god is making those decisions for me. There is no evidence for that. So I am not going to put something additional in there that is not needed.

I cannot be any clearer than my last comment. Your question/conclusions are predicated on a foundational view that I do not share.

I understand. But in your view reality is not what it appears to be. So that is something that would have to be reconciled and we don't have the type of knowledge to do so at this time. There is still so much to discover.

Our understanding of time is still in it's infancy.

Again, free will is a component of consciousness, not physics.

It's funny because that is what I have been saying all along.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
The future can not be changed. But the future is what it is becuase of that which happened in the past. ”

Not according to special relativity.

There is nothing in special relativity that eliminates this. Just that we don't understand it all yet. The bottom line is, that we are concious and we are here in time that is unfolding. So there is so much that has not been sorted out by our current knowledge base that we can not say for sure how it works. There is a lot of conflicting information such that we can't make a statement of fact on the subject.

Time will tell

I'm sorry man, I just see time differently than you, and I have physics (and gps satellites) on my side. All the rest of your positions are predicated on your flawed view of time.

My flawed view of time ? That's comedy.

Are you not part of reality. Explain that to yourself one night.

Does physics explain you being here ?

There are theological reasons why it would make sense, but to even speculate is really to try to guess about a reality that is so foreign from our own there is no reason whatsoever to expect enough parallels for these questions to even have meaning.

What does your bible say about souls or our soul ?