God: The Bad Designer.

Originally posted by LiveEquation
reply to post by Olise

 

1. So what you are saying is that if we gave you a neurotoxin to paralyze you, we kill/inactivate your spirit since you cannot move anything in your body?

2. What evidence is there that the body is controlled by spirit and not biological processes? Can the spirit circulate blood like the heart can?

You are not making any sense, don't try to use metaphysical ideas to explain biological processes that we can observe and explain.

Keep your after life thoughts separate from biology. It is because of your line of thinking that our fellow scientists were killed by your faith.

Who knows what medical and technological advancements we could have made if it wasn't for religion.

And today you use science to do everything, even read your bible while you use toilet paper before you flush down crap. You probably even own a car and even watch movies on a big screen TV.

science has given you real tangible stuff and yet you still hold to a grand design idea by a god who doesn't even know who you are.

What has your god given us? The idea of this god has given us nothing except pests who claim they know how unobservable things work and yet cannot prove it. Your bible calls them charlatans.





etrodotoxin that can paralyze you,

edit on 13-6-2011 by LiveEquation because: (no reason given)

Beloved LiveEquation, you are so sold on science that you cannot see beyond your prejudice to it: then again, it is simply because a veil is over your Mind's eye, hence you focus only on that which your primatial eyes can see. Can your heart tell you where to go and how to get there and what to do? The function of the heart is simply to pump blood to the rest of the body, which acts as the hydraulic system of the body. If an equipment has hydraulics, it still has to be controled by an electrical signal for the hydraulics to send pressure to what ever part of that equipment is needing movement: therefore that electrical signal is a signification of the spirit.

You can deactivate the body, but it is impossible to control the spirit. If you have had a death experience, where your body actually dies for a little while before it is restored, and experience the fact that within you, which is the True You, life continues as if nothing happened, then you will understand what I'm trying to explain to you. It does not matter how much research you do and how much time, energy and money you invest in trying to perfect the body, it is simply a transitional vessel; and a vessel is dead without its life force which makes it simulate life.

My thoughts are not afterlife thoughts, like you suggested; my words are living words. I have no use for something that perishes, other than experiencing life through it: I tell it (the body) what to do and when to do it and how to do it: I am Life. All that is creation is for me to experience life, not life itself; even science which you revere, making it a religion to you, was created by the True Mind, of which I AM, and you are, and everyone else IS. And when you come to recognize that, then you will recognize the fact that you are of the Living Father; and that you are simply in a simulator simulating life. You are greater than the body of your identity!

Science gave me what I asked it to give me; science is not self-governing, neither is it self-conceiving; science has no mind: I am its mind. I have no interest in religion; I am only interested in Life. In time everyone shall turn to life, instead of concerning themselves with death.

Peace be with you LiveEquation!!!

reply to post by Olise


I am kinda confused... could you define what you mean by spirit please

You are all over the place with your spirit idea. I would just like you to define what your mean by spirit.

About near death experiences...Yes i had a near 2 death experiences,

1.I drowned when i was 2 years old. I remember everything, well my mind didn't conjure fairy tale images because i hadn't even heard of god or afterlife.

2I got hit by an SUV riding a bike to college.

I didn't see anything. However,time passed by so quickly and i wasn't even aware of it.

It was my experience so i don't see how i should believe in people with over imaginative minds when i went through the same experiences as them.

Its good to have people like me who actually know what they are talking about instead of arguing about things i have no experience in

You obviously do not know anything about molecular biology if you didn't know there is electricity or charge in a cell.

.

reply to post by bogomil

Postulating 'meaningful' suffering is just another guess...

How is that a guess... as i've said its plainly obvious you learn from suffering... if you don't, you'll repeat your mistakes.

This new-age school eventually will have to validate the idea, that 'ultimate reality' is dynamic (as we know dynamics).

which school would you be refering to?

Dynamic as in ever changing? Wouldn't you think that is also obvious?

Rational reasoning starts with real information. Not from speculative pre-determined answers.

lol, you're just being argumentitive my friend...

I'll give you a logical example if you will...

You touch the hot element of the stove... just for fun... You will either...

1. learn not to be a dumb ass and because you'll burn yourself if you touch something red hot.

2. Not learn anything from the experience.... And go for another round of hot element "touchy touchy"...just for fun of course...

Now some will take number two... but most will know not to touch something thats hot. Everyone learns these things when their young through pain, and experiences.

Theres no "postulationing" involved...haha!

As i've said its plainly obvious...

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Postulating 'meaningful' suffering is just another guess...

How is that a guess... as i've said its plainly obvious you learn from suffering... if you don't, you'll repeat your mistakes.

This new-age school eventually will have to validate the idea, that 'ultimate reality' is dynamic (as we know dynamics).

which school would you be refering to?

Dynamic as in ever changing? Wouldn't you think that is also obvious?

Rational reasoning starts with real information. Not from speculative pre-determined answers.

lol, you're just being argumentitive my friend...

I'll give you a logical example if you will...

You touch the hot element of the stove... just for fun... You will either...

1. learn not to be a dumb ass and because you'll burn yourself if you touch something red hot.

2. Not learn anything from the experience.... And go for another round of hot element "touchy touchy"...just for fun of course...

Now some will take number two... but most will know not to touch something thats hot. Everyone learns these things when their young through pain, and experiences.

Theres no "postulationing" involved...haha!

As i've said its plainly obvious...

Can we stay on the subject of MEANINGFUL suffering, .....it's ulterior purpose, .....without taking excursions into mundane causality (which I'm not questioning).

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by bogomil

 

Postulating 'meaningful' suffering is just another guess...

How is that a guess... as i've said its plainly obvious you learn from suffering... if you don't, you'll repeat your mistakes.

This new-age school eventually will have to validate the idea, that 'ultimate reality' is dynamic (as we know dynamics).

which school would you be refering to?

Dynamic as in ever changing? Wouldn't you think that is also obvious?

Rational reasoning starts with real information. Not from speculative pre-determined answers.

lol, you're just being argumentitive my friend...

I'll give you a logical example if you will...

You touch the hot element of the stove... just for fun... You will either...

1. learn not to be a dumb ass and because you'll burn yourself if you touch something red hot.

2. Not learn anything from the experience.... And go for another round of hot element "touchy touchy"...just for fun of course...

Now some will take number two... but most will know not to touch something thats hot. Everyone learns these things when their young through pain, and experiences.

Theres no "postulationing" involved...haha!

As i've said its plainly obvious...

Can we stay on the subject of MEANINGFUL suffering, .....it's ulterior purpose, .....without taking excursions into mundane causality (which I'm not questioning).

hm... i thought it was completely on topic...

Alright... Think of a student that sacrifices his time to work towards his career. He may not enjoy the studying but he knows its for his future. He suffers along through his schooling, and through his failures he eventually attains his goal, or learns he either can't achieve what he was aiming for and tries something different.

Is that "meaningful" enough for you?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["hm... i thought it was completely on topic...

Alright... Think of a student that sacrifices his time to work towards his career. He may not enjoy the studying but he knows its for his future. He suffers along through his schooling, and through his failures he eventually attains his goal, or learns he either can't achieve what he was aiming for and tries something different.

Is that "meaningful" enough for you?"]

Sorry, I'm busy building a house now, so I haven't got much time.

So for the last time: You initially postulated cosmic existence as a place for learning (sometimes through suffering), that is what I refer to. You are in other words presenting one of the many theist absolutes on ulterior principles, originating from 'beyond'.

Mundane causality is only an expression of cosmic dynamics, and can't be regressed back to the supernatural.

And in any case, IF there is a pupose in creation, it could have been arranged much better for e.g. a teaching process.

reply to post by LiveEquation

About near death experiences...Yes i had a near 2 death experiences,

1.I drowned when i was 2 years old. I remember everything, well my mind didn't conjure fairy tale images because i hadn't even heard of god or afterlife.

2I got hit by an SUV riding a bike to college.

I didn't see anything. However,time passed by so quickly and i wasn't even aware of it.

It was my experience so i don't see how i should believe in people with over imaginative minds when i went through the same experiences as them.

Its good to have people like me who actually know what they are talking about instead of arguing about things i have no experience in

Consider the possibility you just don't remember what you experienced if you were technically dead. Like a dream... Its factually proven you dream every single night, though you don't always remember the dream. Sometimes you even believe you didn't have a dream though you did...

also similar to past lives... Not everyone remembers their past lives, some do...

reply to post by bogomil

Sorry, I'm busy building a house now, so I haven't got much time.

thats awesome... its all good man, im very patient

So for the last time: You initially postulated cosmic existence as a place for learning (sometimes through suffering), that is what I refer to. You are in other words presenting one of the many theist absolutes on ulterior principles, originating from 'beyond'.

i don't see a problem with that... I agree with some thiest idea's. i also agree with some christian, hindu, buddhist ideas as well... each have their own logical theories here and there.

I wouldn't call it an absolute though. Some beings exist just to progress or even develop whatever spirit they have (trees, bacteria, insects? etc etc)

Learning and spiritual development is what life is about...

Mundane causality is only an expression of cosmic dynamics, and can't be regressed back to the supernatural.

Says who?

And in any case, IF there is a pupose in creation, it could have been arranged much better for e.g. a teaching process.

It is a teaching process... People just don't realize that.

Everything you experience teaches you in one way or the other. And it continues til the day you die...

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

"Learning and spiritual development is what life is about... "]

As I said...an absolute. How do you know, what life is about?

Quote about my claim, that cosmic causality can't be regressed to the beyond:

["Says who?"]

Obviously I do. And considering, that we're starting from the mundane end of the regression-chain, I would like you to start from there and go as far as you can towards your postulated absolute.

Quote: ["It is a teaching process... People just don't realize that."]

Maybe because it isn't so, and that those who believe it just have invented a new theist fantasy.

Quote: ["Everything you experience teaches you in one way or the other."]

Cosmic causality, beyond that it's your claim: Validate it.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


So can I gather from that that you're not grateful for your own design and that of the sphere of life within which you are immersed..?

reply to post by bogomil

As I said...an absolute. How do you know, what life is about?

Its logical...

considering you learn from every experience you go through in your life... its not only logical, its obvious.

Obviously I do. And considering, that we're starting from the mundane end of the regression-chain, I would like you to start from there and go as far as you can towards your postulated absolute.

Alright...

You learn from every single incident in your life, every happening no matter how small you may think it might be... From something as simple as banging your head on a kitchen door, you may learn not to rush through the kitchen, or close the cupboard door which would prevent the issue in the first place. Or you learn nothing and will probably crack your head again eventually. In a more extreme circumstance... a car accident for example. You may learn to ware your seat belt, not to drive so fast. You might lose your driving privilages... You might end up in jail... etc etc etc etc.....

Maybe because it isn't so, and that those who believe it just have invented a new theist fantasy.

Ya, but it is true... not everything requires belief to be true.

If one doesn't believe in the wind, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Well you can't see the wind, so logically it can't exist....right?

Cosmic causality, beyond that it's your claim: Validate it.

Causality is about as loosely defined as God himself honestly...

Im not going to give you a million examples of how life is a lesson just to Validate something i already know my friend.

You can either believe life has no meaning, and we just got here by coinsidence. (which actually makes me laugh) Or you can believe that life has a meaning in which case one must ask themselves, what is the meaning.

Its simple though... You're born, you experience life, you die... In that order... That is an absolute, no one can avoid it. From the minute you're born you start learning, which continues til the moment you die.

How does this learning affect the spirit?

Well...

Positive vibrations develop or progress the spirit, through these vibrations one becomes more aware of ones self and his suroundings. And of course you also become more aware of your true self which is not physical. On the other hand Negitive vibrations have the opposite effect on the spirit, slowing the vibrations of the body makes one more attached to the physical, and more inclined to not show love which of course is the strongest vibration possible. So there is a element of Causality of course...

Whatever the next stage of this spiritual progression is, i do not know...

Though i wish i did...

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote (why the ulterior, transmundane, purpose of life being is learning process):

["Its logical...

considering you learn from every experience you go through in your life... its not only logical, its obvious."]

Because there's mundane causality, there must also be a similar trans-mundane causality? You're not answering, just repating your postulate.

Quote: [" You learn from every single incident in your life, every happening no matter how small you may think it might be... From something as simple as banging your head on a kitchen door, you may learn not to rush through the kitchen, or close the cupboard door which would prevent the issue in the first place. Or you learn nothing and will probably crack your head again eventually. In a more extreme circumstance... a car accident for example. You may learn to ware your seat belt, not to drive so fast. You might lose your driving privilages... You might end up in jail... etc etc etc etc..... "]

You're still talking about mundane causality.

Quote: ["Ya, but it is true... not everything requires belief to be true."]

'Truth' is determined by control-criteria, which must be met. Nothing is 'true, because it's true'. 'Except' for the thousands of different and self-contradictory theist-fantasies, which are self-proclaimed as 'truth'.

Quote: ["If one doesn't believe in the wind, does that mean it doesn't exist?"]

If one doen't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, does that mean he doesn't exist?

You seem to have discarded logic in your reasoning-chain. The existence of wind can be verified; motives from trans-mundane existence can't.

Quote: ["Well you can't see the wind, so logically it can't exist....right?"]

It can be both otherwise percieved and measured.

Quote: ["Causality is about as loosely defined as God himself honestly... "]

No. E.g. gravitational causality is a safe bet for 'truth' in a cosmic context and is not as loosely defined as 'god' and other metaphysical fantasies..

Quote: ["Im not going to give you a million examples of how life is a lesson just to Validate something i already know my friend."]

Just as well. Sofar you've just repeated the same claim 3-4 times, ignoring the real question.

Quote: ["You can either believe life has no meaning, and we just got here by coinsidence. (which actually makes me laugh) Or you can believe that life has a meaning in which case one must ask themselves, what is the meaning."]

Or you can wait with 'answers' until you know, what you're talking about. And if 'until' is an eternity, I prefer to stay agnostic for an eternity, instead of running my life on guesses, postulated absolutes or doctrines.

Quote: ["Its simple though... You're born, you experience life, you die... In that order... That is an absolute, no one can avoid it. From the minute you're born you start learning, which continues til the moment you die."]

You're still talking about mundane existence.

Quote: ["How does this learning affect the spirit?"]

What 'spirit'?

ANOTHER guess piled on top of the former ones. So in the end you have a long elaborate chain of assumptions, supporting each other, but none of them validated by reality-checks.

Quote: [" Positive vibrations develop or progress the spirit, through these vibrations one becomes more aware of ones self and his suroundings."]

If you remember, it was you saying, that we learn from suffering.

Quote: ["And of course you also become more aware of your true self which is not physical."]

'True self'. What is that? Another new-age myth?

Quote: ["On the other hand Negitive vibrations have the opposite effect on the spirit, slowing the vibrations of the body makes one more attached to the physical, and more inclined to not show love which of course is the strongest vibration possible."]

Western bhakti...and why is love the strongest vibration?

Quote: ["Whatever the next stage of this spiritual progression is, i do not know..."]

Maybe to not fill the unknown with wild speculations.

Claims sofar: Trans-cosmic meaning of life, suffering as a teaching tool, spirit, true self, vibrations, and love as the highest vibration.

Where do you get all these things from?

reply to post by bogomil

Because there's mundane causality, there must also be a similar trans-mundane causality? You're not answering, just repating your postulate.

Alright..

What we have is "knowledge" from various sources all through out our history... Every culture has its own beliefs in some spiritual entity, be it Gods or diety's, excluding of course the vary latest belief "atheism" which also has a broad definition of beliefs but as far as i know they believe, once you die theres nothing.

Either way theres a relative concencus that there is something more then the physical world.

I have my own proofs which i won't discuss on these forums, though i have discussed one of them with you in private. I also know you have your own "proof" of something more then the physical world.

You're still talking about mundane causality.

Do you not learn from "mundane causality"?

'Truth' is determined by control-criteria, which must be met. Nothing is 'true, because it's true'. 'Except' for the thousands of different and self-contradictory theist-fantasies, which are self-proclaimed as 'truth'.

This doesn't have to be true to anyone but myself... This is my truth... it can change according to what i learn or what i feel is correct, not according to what others tell me.

If one doen't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, does that mean he doesn't exist?

You seem to have discarded logic in your reasoning-chain. The existence of wind can be verified; motives from trans-mundane existence can't.

I disagree, "trans-mundane" things can be proven. You just can't prove the existence of such things to another person, they must find they're own answers... theres a reason for this.

It can be both otherwise percieved and measured.

As can the spirit, many can feel it... some can see spiritual entities, some comunicate with the spiritual world...

Or you can wait with 'answers' until you know, what you're talking about. And if 'until' is an eternity, I prefer to stay agnostic for an eternity, instead of running my life on guesses, postulated absolutes or doctrines.

Then do so... I know what i know, if im wrong so be it.

You're still talking about mundane existence.

Thats because there is a reason for mundane existence... Life has a purpose... its not a "cosmic accident"

What 'spirit'?

The spirit that is in everyone and everything... the vibrations of existance, and the source that moves them.

ANOTHER guess piled on top of the former ones. So in the end you have a long elaborate chain of assumptions, supporting each other, but none of them validated by reality-checks.

Actually, in the end i will have all the answers, so will everyone...

Reality is that life has a purpose. You can disagree all you want, as i've said before some things don't require belief to be true...

If you remember, it was you saying, that we learn from suffering.

Whats your point?

'True self'. What is that? Another new-age myth?

Your true self is what is inside you... We all have a physical body, and a spiritual body (perhaps several idk)

Its not new age, its an idea thats been around for milenia...

Are we so nieve to believe that we are the most spiritually advanced civilization that has existed? A society built around science, greed and distraction. Myself... i believe our society is so distracted by every day life that we have no chance to get in touch with anything but the physical world.

Try to quiet your mind for 30 seconds... unless you practice meditation i garentee you can't do it.

We are a spiritually weak, inept society... which is why people use terms such as "mundane causality"

Every day life is issolated and boring to most people... this wasn't the case before the invention of TV... even the word "boring" didn't exist until recently, so its no wonder very few people understand spirituality, the only source they have is church or study, the latter being the usual which always ends up in those people judgeing others as you can clearly see on these forums...

Western bhakti...and why is love the strongest vibration?

Yes as i've told you, i've studied many different religious scripture. Each religion has its own truths...

Why is love the strongest vibration?

Have you ever been "in love"?

Have you ever had your emotions get the best of you, and you break down in tears?

Love is the most powerful emotion/vibration in the universe, it can cripple you or set you free.

Love is the only way to bring true peace to our world...

And as i've said before, Love is the only real absolute. Its unquestionable, and undeniable.

It can make a person turn on his family and friends, and it could destroy or unite the world...

If everything is a vibration then truely, love is the most powerful vibration possible.

Maybe to not fill the unknown with wild speculations.

As i've said, i know what i know.... these are my answers. Im not asking you to accept them, though you can quesiton them all you like and i will explain to the best of my ability.

I wish i knew what was next honestly...

Claims sofar: Trans-cosmic meaning of life, suffering as a teaching tool, spirit, true self, vibrations, and love as the highest vibration.

Where do you get all these things from?

Different places, studying different materials... Not all religious in nature of course. I take what i deem as logical or have proven to myself as true and discard what makes no sence.

I work with what rings true in my heart...

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["What we have is "knowledge" from various sources all through out our history... Every culture has its own beliefs in some spiritual entity, be it Gods or diety's, excluding of course the vary latest belief "atheism" which also has a broad definition of beliefs but as far as i know they believe, once you die theres nothing."]

Yes, except that atheism generaly isn't a belief anymore (you refer to earlier gnostic atheism).

Quote: ["Either way theres a relative concencus that there is something more then the physical world."]

I miss the implication of "either way". There are metaphysical speculations like my own, completely independent of theism. There are scientific hypotheses of 'beyond event-horizon'. These are part of 'either way'.

Quote: ["I have my own proofs which i won't discuss on these forums, though i have discussed one of them with you in private. I also know you have your own "proof" of something more then the physical world."]

I have some experiences, which are not 'proof' of anything. And actually MY experiences make OTHER experiences invalid as 'proof'. For the simple reason, that they sofar can be considered as completely subjective, and very 'un-uniform' with other anomalies.

Quote: ["Do you not learn from "mundane causality"?"]

Mundane causality is not the point. The point is you claim knowledge trans-mundane causality (its inetent/principles).

Quote: [" This doesn't have to be true to anyone but myself... This is my truth... it can change according to what i learn or what i feel is correct, not according to what others tell me."]

You have presented general 'truths', which is something else than your personal beliefs.

Quote: ["I disagree, "trans-mundane" things can be proven."]

They can be possibly be demonstrated, but 'proven'.....how?

Quote: ["You just can't prove the existence of such things to another person, they must find they're own answers... theres a reason for this."]

So better not state general 'truths'.

Quote: ["As can the spirit, many can feel it... some can see spiritual entities, some comunicate with the spiritual world..."]

In so many different ways, that the only word covering it is...the unknown (though I believe a serious effort could bring some patterns to the surface).

Quote: [" Thats because there is a reason for mundane existence... Life has a purpose... its not a "cosmic accident"]

Are you stating a general 'truth' or your subjective opinion?

Quote: ["The spirit that is in everyone and everything... the vibrations of existance, and the source that moves them."]

As above.

Quote: ["Actually, in the end i will have all the answers, so will everyone..."]

As above.

Quote: [" Reality is that life has a purpose. You can disagree all you want, as i've said before some things don't require belief to be true..."]

Our presently best bid for (local) 'truth' is objective procedure. What other methods do you have in mind?

Quote: [I wrote: If you remember, it was you saying, that we learn from suffering.


You: Whats your point?"]

That I initially considered the explanation of 'suffering as a teaching tool' as a sign of a badly contructed cosmos (that is, if it is constructed).

Quote: ["Your true self is what is inside you... We all have a physical body, and a spiritual body (perhaps several idk)"]

Considering that you're talking about me, a person you don't know apart from my scribblings, you must be making a statement of general 'truth' on my behalf. How have you arrived at this universal 'truth' of true selves?

Quote: ["Its not new age, its an idea thats been around for milenia... "]

Nope, not in this distorted form.

Quote: ["Are we so nieve to believe that we are the most spiritually advanced civilization that has existed? A society built around science, greed and distraction. Myself... i believe our society is so distracted by every day life that we have no chance to get in touch with anything but the physical world."]
Agreed, but that's no reason to invent answers for what we may find.

Quote: ["Try to quiet your mind for 30 seconds... unless you practice meditation i garentee you can't do it."]

I started to meditate 45 years ago.

Quote: ["We are a spiritually weak, inept society... which is why people use terms such as "mundane causality"]

Mundane causality as opposed to theist fantasies.

Quote: ["Every day life is issolated and boring to most people... this wasn't the case before the invention of TV... even the word "boring" didn't exist until recently, so its no wonder very few people understand spirituality, the only source they have is church or study, the latter being the usual which always ends up in those people judgeing others as you can clearly see on these forums..."]

I haven't has a TV for close to 50 years, so I wouldn't know. Real study can be pretty fascinating AND useful. As to judging people, this 'judging' is commonly done when theists insist that their fantasies are real.

Quote: ["Have you ever been "in love"?

Have you ever had your emotions get the best of you, and you break down in tears?"]

Yes.

Quote: ["Love is the most powerful emotion/vibration in the universe, it can cripple you or set you free."]

That is the expected answer from the blind alley of bhakti.

Quote: ["And as i've said before, Love is the only real absolute. Its unquestionable, and undeniable."]

You brim over with self-proclaimed absolutes.

reply to post by bogomil

Yes, except that atheism generaly isn't a belief anymore (you refer to earlier gnostic atheism).

Honestly i don't know either of the terms very well, i've heard so many definitions....

I miss the implication of "either way". There are metaphysical speculations like my own, completely independent of theism. There are scientific hypotheses of 'beyond event-horizon'. These are part of 'either way'.

Sure, although you might not call them answers... to some they are. As far as i know the atheist believes in science based theory and nothing from religious dogma... Religious people are quite the opposite.

There is a general concencus of there being "something" more then just the physical world...

I have some experiences, which are not 'proof' of anything. And actually MY experiences make OTHER experiences invalid as 'proof'. For the simple reason, that they sofar can be considered as completely subjective, and very 'un-uniform' with other anomalies.

Healing someone is not proof of anything? I don't see how that is subjective...

Mundane causality is not the point. The point is you claim knowledge trans-mundane causality (its inetent/principles).

I also said i could be wrong... What i say is logical to me, it may not be to others... and im fine with that.

You have presented general 'truths', which is something else than your personal beliefs.

this is why i say these are "my truths"... they arn't general, though most of what i say can be found in various scriptures... i chose not to quote scripture in these debates because it would sound like im comming from an authoritative position. Though i do understand the bible better then most, im my own authority on the book and no one elses.

They can be possibly be demonstrated, but 'proven'.....how?

Each person can prove certian things to himself... synchronicity isn't proof, but sometimes it can make you wonder... I've detailed one thing which proves the existance of the etherial world to me... though it might not be proof to others such as yourself. Again, proving such things to another person is practically impossible, but i made an attempt with you in private...

So better not state general 'truths'.

Why is that?

As i've said these are my truths, they're not general truths, but if others accept what i say...so be it. I do not care what others think of me, so i have no problem explaining my truths to others. And again, im not trying to prove anything... You're asking for proof, and i can only explain what i know as truth to myself.

In so many different ways, that the only word covering it is...the unknown (though I believe a serious effort could bring some patterns to the surface).

Probably... but even if one did make a serious effort... there would be a line up a mile long of people trying to prove otherwise.

Are you stating a general 'truth' or your subjective opinion?

I am saying life has a purpose, its not a "cosmic accident"... take it as you will.

Quote: ["The spirit that is in everyone and everything... the vibrations of existance, and the source that moves them."]

As above.

this would be a general truth, science has confermed that all matter consists of atomic vibrations.

Quote: ["Actually, in the end i will have all the answers, so will everyone..."]

As above.

I would need a bible quote to answer this... so i'll leave it alone.

Our presently best bid for (local) 'truth' is objective procedure. What other methods do you have in mind?

Actually i'd like any suggestions... Im not looking for proof of anything.

That I initially considered the explanation of 'suffering as a teaching tool' as a sign of a badly contructed cosmos (that is, if it is constructed).

i would call it a perfectly "constructed" cosmos... Suffering has a purpose...

Considering that you're talking about me, a person you don't know apart from my scribblings, you must be making a statement of general 'truth' on my behalf. How have you arrived at this universal 'truth' of true selves?

Studying the words of spiritually wise people, not just Jesus. We are all a part of the whole...

Nope, not in this distorted form.

Im afraid its true, it has been talked about for milena... Christ spoke about the spirit within, and also that the physical body is nothing but meat. Theres nothing distorted about it.

I started to meditate 45 years ago.

Good for you... then you understand how hard it is to quiet your mind...

Mundane causality as opposed to theist fantasies

Isn't that a definitive as well? How do you know their Fantisies are not correct?

I haven't has a TV for close to 50 years, so I wouldn't know. Real study can be pretty fascinating AND useful. As to judging people, this 'judging' is commonly done when theists insist that their fantasies are real.

True... Or even atheists claiming their fantasies are absurd and delusional...

That is the expected answer from the blind alley of bhakti.

would you disagree with that statement?

You brim over with self-proclaimed absolutes.

Yes i have a few absolutes, to me some things are absolute because no one has been able to prove otherwise...

Similar to my beliefs, they've been unchanged for many years because no one can show me they're wrong...

Feel free to try though...

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["i would call it a perfectly "constructed" cosmos... Suffering has a purpose..."]

Full circle. You're back where you started. Still without anything but speculations.

Quote: [" How do you know their Fantisies are not correct?"]

Because I start with asking the proper questions, not guesssing at answers to work backwards from. This doesn't make all answers invalid, though a considerable amount of theist postulates can be disregarded at once. To choose between what's correct or faulty, I use logic. Not faith.

Quote: ["Similar to my beliefs, they've been unchanged for many years because no one can show me they're wrong..."]

There are worse things than your beliefs; I'm not trying to convert you. Only to let objectivity have its rightful place in the contexts meant for it without interference.

reply to post by bogomil

Full circle. You're back where you started. Still without anything but speculations.

What else do we have but speculation?

this arguement is about God being a bad designer correct? Im argueing against that point, and providing the answers i can... This isn't about if God exists. If he was infact a "bad designer"...one would have to accept the existance of a God. Or theres no debate...

Because I start with asking the proper questions, not guesssing at answers to work backwards from. This doesn't make all answers invalid, though a considerable amount of theist postulates can be disregarded at once. To choose between what's correct or faulty, I use logic. Not faith.

As do i... belief, and blind faith are seperate issues. I think my beliefs are completely logical... and im sure you think yours are as well.

So, lets start with logic... Logically, why is God a bad designer?

There are worse things than your beliefs; I'm not trying to convert you. Only to let objectivity have its rightful place in the contexts meant for it without interference.

Is that a complement? haha!

Remember, i didn't say what i believe is absolutely correct... Hell i might be way off...

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["What else do we have but speculation?"]

Depends on how far you want to take it epistemologically. I don't 'speculate' on traffic-lights, even if they ultimately may be a part of a general cosmic illusion.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Akragon

 

You wrote:

["What else do we have but speculation?"]

Depends on how far you want to take it epistemologically. I don't 'speculate' on traffic-lights, even if they ultimately may be a part of a general cosmic illusion.

Im pretty sure i've showed how far i take it... and included the fact that i might be wrong...

So again what else do we have but speculation?

reply to post by Akragon


You wrote:

["this arguement is about God being a bad designer correct? Im argueing against that point, and providing the answers i can... This isn't about if God exists. If he was infact a "bad designer"...one would have to accept the existance of a God. Or theres no debate... "]

Why does he have to be 'real'? The impact of the probably fictive character has had impact on mankind and can be considered in terms of that impact.

Quote: ["So, lets start with logic... Logically, why is God a bad designer?"]

Round two, probably identical to round one: Because of the un-necessary amount of suffering.

Quote: ["Is that a complement? haha!"]

You are a decent person; with no harm in you, I believe. And your worldview seems rather gentle.

I certainly don't dislike people, just because they disagree with me.