It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus paid for It

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




William Lane Craig? He uses this argument for a particular God, and I don't think that works. It does however work for a transcendent consciousness that is the essence of good


So, you are familiar with his type of argument and reasoning. You have a different god than Craig?



I am sorry just not seeing any relation between the way Christ came into the world and the way we come into the world.


That's because you're taking the story too literally. The soul is something that IS transcendent, in that it is THE thing that is conscious and animates matter, in my opinion.



Again you can claim this all day, and you can even believe it, but its incoherent with the idea that the natural world is all there is. From an atheistic perspective applying a soul to a group of chemical reactions is completely incoherent. What natural expression could possibly account for an abstract entity?


The soul is not a result of chemical reactions. The body is though.

You're applying way to broad of a definition to the word "atheist". The ONLY meaning that can be applied to the word "atheist", is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

I see everything that you see. I just don't say that it is a result of the work of a god(s). There are countless dimensions that exist along side our own. As a matter of fact I would go far as to say that we actually co-exist in several dimensions simultaneously. As we sit in bathroom having our morning constitution, our mind is putting out complex thoughts into another sort of space/dimension, as we plan for our day, projecting our thoughts into the future.

If I have to define god, in order to have lofty and heady conversations with people such as yourself, then I will say that everything that is, was and will be, as well as everything that wasn't, isn't and won't be, constitute what "god" is. I see "god" as a natural thing that rises out of the universe and is composed of the universe and all of its multiple dimensions. I don't believe in a conscious entity that created our universe that doesn't exist within everything that is.

IF there is a conscious creative force that caused our universe to come into existence, then it arose naturally from a parallel universe.


edit on 22-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




So, you are familiar with his type of argument and reasoning. You have a different god than Craig?


Thats not his argument. He just tries to present it in a clear fashion. The Moral Argument has been around for hundreds of years. I would say Craig is a brother in Christ, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with him lol.




That's because you're taking the story too literally.


I don't think your reading objectively. Nothing about the birth of Jesus hints at metaphor. My issue is Jesus is an eternal being that came to earth in the flesh. Biblically speaking, the soul is created inside the womb. Jesus wasn't created. We were. Your comparing the created with the Creator. It just doesn't seem to fit to me.




The soul is something that IS transcendent, in that it is THE thing that is conscious and animates matter, in my opinion.


There is no scientific reason to believe that their is a soul. From a Scientific and philosophical standpoint their are chemical reactions that occur in the brain and these reactions are the cause of your behavior, the effect. You just assume a soul without any coherent explanation of how such a thing could be. You say there is a transcendent entity that animates matter. Whats your reason for believing that? I know why I believe that, but I can't understand why you would believe that.




The soul is not a result of chemical reactions. The body is though.


Again I don't see how you can say this from a naturalistic standpoint.




You're applying way to broad of a definition to the word "atheist". The ONLY meaning that can be applied to the word "atheist", is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."


I don't think I am doing such a thing at all, but from my current knowledge of the body and mind and good logic I don't see how you can be an atheist and not have a naturalistic world view. If you have a different view please let me hear it.




I see everything that you see. I just don't say that it is a result of the work of a god(s). There are countless dimensions that exist along side our own. As a matter of fact I would go far as to say that we actually co-exist in several dimensions simultaneously. As we sit in bathroom having our morning constitution, our mind is putting out complex thoughts into another sort of space/dimension, as we plan for our day, projecting our thoughts into the future.


Your mind is putting thoughts into another dimension? How can this be shown? As Arthur Schopenhauer said "Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.” Or John Galsworthy, "Life calls the tune, we dance.”

One could simply say what you experience as thought is merely the chemical reaction being parsed. I still am confused on the reasons you believe the these things.




If I have to define god, in order to have lofty and heady conversations with people such as yourself, then I will say that everything that is, was and will be, as well as everything that wasn't, isn't and won't be, constitute what "god" is.


Not being rude, but if that is your idea of God, then your idea of God is internally incoherent. Something cannot be both everything and nothing. Its a logical contradiction.




I see "god" as a natural thing that rises out of the universe and is composed of the universe and all of its multiple dimensions.


Maybe you need to tell me how you are using the word natural. I define it as that exist in or something that is caused by nature, and nature is "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." So again if the soul is transcendent it by definition cannot be natural. If these other dimensions transcend this world then they to by definition could not be natural. It seems like you are pulling up towards the whole the universe is conscious and we are just part of the whole type of thing.




IF there is a conscious creative force that caused our universe to come into existence, then it arose naturally from a parallel universe.



Again something that is not part of this world is not natural. You make a lot of assumptions without explaining how your logically arriving at these conclusions.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Nothing about the birth of Jesus hints at metaphor.


The virgin birth is allegory.



My issue is Jesus is an eternal being that came to earth in the flesh.


We are ALL eternal beings that came to Earth in the flesh.



Biblically speaking, the soul is created inside the womb.


Wrong. Biblically speaking, the soul is the breath of God.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.




Your comparing the created with the Creator.


There is no "Creator" God.



There is no scientific reason to believe that their is a soul.


That's not really the point. Besides, there are scientists studying that very thing. Science is a method, not an entity.



You just assume a soul without any coherent explanation of how such a thing could be.


Consciousness and energy are how I define the soul. DNA creates certain vehicles, on this planet, for the "soul" to enter and express "life".



You say there is a transcendent entity that animates matter.


We ARE that entity.



Whats your reason for believing that?


My existence.



I don't see how you can be an atheist and not have a naturalistic world view.


You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. The soul is a natural facet of the universe. It isn't, however, born out of sexual intercourse.




Your mind is putting thoughts into another dimension? How can this be shown?


Thoughts don't exist in the physical realm. They must be represented by words and symbols.



One could simply say what you experience as thought is merely the chemical reaction being parsed.


Thoughts are not a result of a chemical reaction. The vehicle in which they can be expressed are.




If I have to define god, in order to have lofty and heady conversations with people such as yourself, then I will say that everything that is, was and will be, as well as everything that wasn't, isn't and won't be, constitute what "god" is.


Not being rude, but if that is your idea of God, then your idea of God is internally incoherent. Something cannot be both everything and nothing. Its a logical contradiction.


You are rude and hypocritical to boot! You have no coherent or logical argument for your god.

An abortion is something that results in something that will never be. Turning down a job offer or a marriage proposal is an expression of something that will never be.



Maybe you need to tell me how you are using the word natural. I define it as that exist in or something that is caused by nature, and nature is "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." So again if the soul is transcendent it by definition cannot be natural.


The universe is a big place. There are more things in it than plants and animals. Light, for example is not a result of a chemical reaction, but it is a natural phenomena. Consciousness is a real phenomena. Consciousness transcends the physical by planning for the future, for example, even well past the life of the vehicle/body doing the actual work by putting ideas and thoughts into the physical realm. Such is civilization. One could postulate that DNA itself is a vehicle created by a consciousness that exists on multiple dimensions.



Again something that is not part of this world is not natural.


Every single thing that exists is natural.


edit on 22-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




The virgin birth is allegory.


The virgin birth is mentioned in the Gospels...the Gospels are Greco-Roman Biographies..there is no deeper meaning behind the virgin birth other than it circumvents the blood curse put on the royal line of the Messiah in Jeremiah. Like I said earlier, I think you should read a bit more objectively. Why do you think its an allegory?




We are ALL eternal beings that came to Earth in the flesh.


An atheist that believes in premortal existence I'd love to see how you think thats a rational idea.




Wrong. Biblically speaking, the soul is the breath of God.


You are so eager to argue that your not even responding to what I've said...we were talking about when the soul is formed not what the soul is...In Jeremiah 1:5 God is speaking to Jeremiah and he says "Before I formed you IN THE WOMB, I knew you." In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says "But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual." So according to scripture, we are formed as souls in the womb not before.




There is no "Creator" God.


Again so eager to argue...We were discussing your Christ analogy. Biblically speaking there is a Creator God and so the analogy your using just isn't portraying whatever point your trying to get across..




That's not really the point. Besides, there are scientists studying that very thing. Science is a method, not an entity.



That most definitely is the point. You are just inserting something into your worldview without any logical reason to believe its there. All I said was that there is no scientific reason to assume that there is such a thing as a soul. This statement in no way implies that Science is an entity.




Consciousness and energy are how I define the soul. DNA creates certain vehicles, on this planet, for the "soul" to enter and express "life".



Your definition of soul doesn't make any sense. Energy exist in plenty of places without consciousness so I don't see why it would have anything to do with the soul. Consciousness could just be an illusion caused by chemicals in our brain.





We ARE that entity.


Just saying we are a transcendent entity that animates matter doesn't make it so. The default position would be that we are simply dancing to our DNA. What makes you think we dictate our decisions rather than our biology? Just because your biology exist doesn't mean there is some transcendent entity behind that biology.




You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. The soul is a natural facet of the universe. It isn't, however, born out of sexual intercourse.


If thats the case then you cannot call the soul transcendent. The word transcendent means something is set apart from or not dependent on something else. In your case, the soul would be dependent upon the physical world(energy). Consciousness is something unique to brains. So from a naturalistic perspective you cannot just assume that consciousness exist outside of the brain. If you call the soul transcendent and then claim it enters our system(the universe) then your breaking the law of conservation of energy by adding energy to the system which physically speaking can't be done.




Thoughts don't exist in the physical realm. They must be represented by words and symbols.


This is not a dimension... a dimension is a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height. Thoughts are simply electrical or chemical signals fired from a synapse. They don't transcend this world just because we can't see under the hood of the car.




Thoughts are not a result of a chemical reaction. The vehicle in which they can be expressed are.


Thats simply untrue form a naturalistic perspective. One needs a brain neurons and synapses in order to produce thought. Thoughts are the effect from the perspective of a naturalist not the cause.




You are rude and hypocritical to boot! You have no coherent or logical argument for your god.


First I have plenty of logical arguments for my God, Jesus Christ. I never said your argument for God was illogical. I said your definition of God is illogical because it is internally incoherent. My definition of God is a transcendent, yet imminent entity that created all things and the platonic form The Good is housed in its essence. There is not an internal contradiction within my definition of God.




The universe is a big place. There are more things in it than plants and animals. Light, for example is not a result of a chemical reaction, but it is a natural phenomena.


I never said there were only plants and animals..I said nature was the physical world collectively. That would include plants animals, the chemicals that fire when we think, the asteroid floating through space, and so on. Light is electromagnetic radiation. Its created when electrons move back and forth between energy states. Now what is consciousness and when and how is it created from your world view?




One could postulate that DNA itself is a vehicle created by a consciousness that exists on multiple dimensions.


Oh my and how are you gonna argue this? DNA came before any conscious creature so please explain how the effect can cause the cause...




Every single thing that exists is natural.


Oh my...everything that exist in the material world is natural..if everything is natural then the soul is natural and therefore the soul is not transcendent...
edit on 23-6-2015 by ServantOfTheLamb because: typo



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




An atheist that believes in premortal existence I'd love to see how you think thats a rational idea.


I've explained this to you already. I can only assume that you're being deliberately obtuse.



The virgin birth is mentioned in the Gospels...the Gospels are Greco-Roman Biographies


The Gospels are no more biographical than Homer's Odyssey. It's mythology not history.



Why do you think its an allegory?


I've explained this to you already. "The soul is the conscious transcendental being that willingly makes the sacrifice to descend from blissful perfection/source into the mundane material world of flesh and blood, destined to suffer and die and to experience death, just like "Christ". We are all "Christ".

Please go back and read my posts.



we were talking about when the soul is formed not what the soul is.


Jewish tradition teaches no such thing! Biblically speaking, the soul/spirit is NOT created through sexual intercourse.


The Book of Jubilees
For on the first day He created the heavens which are above and the earth and the waters and all the spirits which serve before him -the angels of the presence, and the angels of sanctification, and the angels [of the spirit of fire and the angels] of the spirit of the winds, and the angels of the spirit of the clouds, and of darkness, and of snow and of hail and of hoar frost, and the angels of the voices and of the thunder and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and of heat, and of winter and of spring and of autumn and of summer and of all the spirits of his creatures which are in the heavens and on the earth, (He created) the abysses and the darkness, eventide , and the light, dawn and day, which He hath prepared in the knowledge of his heart.
www.pseudepigrapha.com...


Now, before you dismiss this scripture as Apocrypha, The Book of Jubilees was cited in the New Testament and was found with the Dead Dead Scrolls. It's an accurate description of Jewish tradition.



You are just inserting something into your worldview without any logical reason to believe its there. All I said was that there is no scientific reason to assume that there is such a thing as a soul. This statement in no way implies that Science is an entity.


I'm an atheist, not a scientist. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Plenty of atheists believe in ghosts, aliens, time travel, reincarnation, ESP, etc. The only thing that describes an atheist is their lack of belief in a god or gods.



Your definition of soul doesn't make any sense.


And your definition does?



Energy exist in plenty of places without consciousness so I don't see why it would have anything to do with the soul. Consciousness could just be an illusion caused by chemicals in our brain.


How do you know that energy exists in places where there is no consciousness? I don't believe that. Energy IS consciousness, in my opinion.



Again so eager to argue...We were discussing your Christ analogy. Biblically speaking there is a Creator God and so the analogy your using just isn't portraying whatever point your trying to get across..


Yes it does. You just refuse to acknowledge my point of view. This thread is called JESUS PAID FOR IT.

We all pay for it! I contend that the mythical sacrifice of biblical Jesus is allegorical for everyone of us. We all are divine beings that chose to enter into the carnal world, to experience love and life but also to suffer and die. Jesus can't live and love for us, nor can he suffer and die for us. We all resurrect to eternal life because that's the stuff that we're made of.



Just saying we are a transcendent entity that animates matter doesn't make it so.


So? Do you think that you're saying that your "God" animates matter DOES make it so? Something animates matter and we seem to be aware and involved. My deductions are closer to reality, in that we know that we exist, while we don't anything about a supposed supernatural creator god.



What makes you think we dictate our decisions rather than our biology?


That's like saying "What makes you think that you're driving your car, and that the machinery isn't what's actually in control?".



The soul is a natural facet of the universe. It isn't, however, born out of sexual intercourse.

If thats the case then you cannot call the soul transcendent. The word transcendent means something is set apart from or not dependent on something else.


What? Something transcends when it rises above and beyond mundane limitations.


tran·scend·ent

Beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience.
"the search for a transcendent level of knowledge"

Surpassing the ordinary; exceptional.
"the conductor was described as a “transcendent genius.


We seem to disagree on definitions.


In your case, the soul would be dependent upon the physical world(energy).


No! That's exactly the opposite of what I'm saying! The soul exists independently of the physical world and uses the physical world as a vehicle that it can enter and exit.


Consciousness is something unique to brains.


Nonsense. Where is the brain that operates a bee hive? Where is the brain that operates the ecosystem of planet Earth?


If you call the soul transcendent and then claim it enters our system(the universe) then your breaking the law of conservation of energy by adding energy to the system which physically speaking can't be done.

Nonsense! Where does the energy go when a person dies? Does that violate the Law of Conservation? The soul/spirit is energy that naturally exists and emanates from the universe itself. Since it's part of the system it neither adds to or takes away energy.



This is not a dimension... a dimension is a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.


I disagree. Your "Trinity" is a 3 sided symbol that has no such length, breadth, depth, or height. It can't possible exist in the physical world. Thoughts exist in the same dimension as your "Trinity" but they need "The Word" to become manifest, and they do so in another dimension.




Thoughts are not a result of a chemical reaction. The vehicle in which they can be expressed are.

Thats simply untrue form a naturalistic perspective. One needs a brain neurons and synapses in order to produce thought.


Nope. Where is DNA's brain? Again, here is the brain that created a bee hive? Where is the brain that created the Earth's eco-system?



Light is electromagnetic radiation. Its created when electrons move back and forth between energy states. Now what is consciousness and when and how is it created from your world view?


Light is not a chemical reaction. Chemicals are molecules composed of atoms. Light exists on a quantum level where the laws of physics behave unpredictably. Thought is comparable to light. Its existence can't be pinpointed in space and time, as a particle or a wave.


edit on 23-6-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb




Oh my...everything that exist in the material world is natural..if everything is natural then the soul is natural and therefore the soul is not transcendent...


That's not what I said. You're making up your own definitions, moving the goal post and putting words in my mouth.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Look the conversations not gonna go anywhere on a forum chat because you can't hear my tone of voice which would show you that I am not trying to debate as much as you think I am. I am more trying to get a clearer understanding of why you think certain things are the truth. Maybe we can do a hangout sessions or something oneday.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join