What do you think happens when you die?

Deki

Because this thread asked "What do you think happens when you die?"
So I said what I think somehow after that there was a bombardment of posts telling me how ludicrous my beliefs are. As of yet no one has been able to tell me why all these posters even care what I think? I didn't ask anyone to change their beliefs. I believe what I believe, and whether I am right or the atheists are right, I am not backing down on my beliefs. I do however have to leave now as I'm out of bread.:P Take care...

Dimithy

Deki wrote: »

Because this thread asked "What do you think happens when you die?"
So I said what I think somehow after that there was a bombardment of posts telling me how ludicrous my beliefs are. As of yet no one has been able to tell me why all these posters even care what I think? I didn't ask anyone to change their beliefs. I believe what I believe, and whether I am right or the atheists are right, I am not backing down on my beliefs. I do however have to leave now as I'm out of bread.:P Take care...

Yes, but you're being wrong..........ON THE INTERNET!!

LeeHoffmann

maggots eat your eyeballs?

Doc Ruby

ScumLord wrote: »

Free will is a bit of a myth.

Great stuff lads, take your theories to the stock market and retire on the proceeds. Save a yacht for me. Periwinkle blue.

philologos wrote: »

Explaining free will in the light of a Creator isn't hugely difficult.

Oh yes it is, laddie. Smarter men than you and me have spent their entire lives working on the problem and failed. So are you a poster or a paid up propagandist?

ScumLord

philologos wrote: »

I don't think it is any more an "assertion" than the idea that this universe managed to cause itself to exist. In fact it's much less of an assertion. It seems more sound to me to argue that there was an intelligent Creator than the idea that this universe spontaneously came to be out of absolutely nothing.

Depends on your definition of nothing. It's also not the case science is saying the universe popped out of nothing as such, it's just we don't know for sure what happens beyond that point. Maybe something did intentionally start this universe given that we could possibly achieve such a thing in the future, it's possible an intelligent being has already done it and we're the result.

philologos

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh yes it is, laddie. Smarter men than you and me have spent their entire lives working on the problem and failed. So are you a poster or a paid up propagandist?

I studied philosophy at university, and I know there are a wide range of responses to this topic. I don't agree that anyone who held that free will and divine foreknowledge were compatible (such as in the early writings of Augustine - De Libero Arbitrio / On The Freedom of the Will books 2 and 3 come to mind) failed

I've explained to you already how knowing something is not the same as determining it, even if one is omniscient. If God did determine everything, then it would be fair to hold Him to account for everything. If God created all, and then left freely willed humanity to its devices, then if man does something wrong, man is made accountable.

If you genuinely doubt the free nature of the will, you should consider scrapping the criminal justice system.

As for being a propagandist, I'm no more a propagandist than any atheist who posts on this forum. They propose new-atheism, I propose Biblical Christianity. There is no middle ground in respect to the Gospel, either you accept Jesus as Lord or you don't. There's no "impartial" position on the Gospel.

We could do without the condescension also by the by. I don't really care how smart you think I am.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

RussellTuring wrote: »

Automata. For your assertions to be of any consequence, you first need to demonstrate that your god is responsible for this concept of free will. Unfortunately for you, a belief in the existence of something like this doesn't necessarily mean your god exists. I could easily say that my god, Derek, invented the concept of gravity. That doesn't mean he exists.

Additionally, could you give us your idea of what free will is? I'm not sure I accept it as readily as you, let alone your assumption that it was something that had to be created at all.

Thanks for your post.

I don't think it is any more an "assertion" than the idea that this universe managed to cause itself to exist. In fact it's much less of an assertion. It seems more sound to me to argue that there was an intelligent Creator than the idea that this universe spontaneously came to be out of absolutely nothing.

That's the ultimate claim that we have to tackle when it comes to Creation. Explaining free will in the light of a Creator isn't hugely difficult. If all things were created, and if humanity was also created then it is a part of the creation of humanity that they have this thing called the will, that allows them to determine their active behaviour or what path they are going to meander give or take in this life.

It doesn't particularly matter whether you call God Derek or not. We begin looking at Creation. That points us by and large to a Creator God. What we can do then is assess on the basis of the Biblical text as to whether or not it corresponds to the way things are. If it does, then it is entirely reasonable to suggest that this points to Christianity being true. Indeed, it helps us point to the identity of the God that many call "unknown".

The difference is simple in this case. It comes down to whether or not God has revealed Himself to us. If He has, then His word is authoritative. If He hasn't then you're right, its just mankind pointing varying guesses as the Almighty.

It's much the same as this. I've used this analogy on boards.ie before, so forgive me if you've read it already. If there is a girl called Lucy, and if one of Lucy's classmates writes a note claiming that "Lucy is a dog". Does Lucy have the right to defend herself? And indeed, if Lucy does defend her humanity to those who read the note, should Lucy's word about herself be regarded as authentic.

There's a flaw in this analogy insofar as Lucy is not omniscient. However, the same logic can be applied to God. If God has spoken, what is the conjecture of humanity about Him? His omniscience is more of a reason that we should regard what He has told us about Himself and Creation to be authoritative.

You're right, there could be a god called Derek. On the basis of what has been revealed, and on the basis of what we know of Christianity. I'd say that there is a heck of a lot more to demonstrate it being true over other approaches. At the same time, I'm more than likely to consider those other approaches should adherents come to me and tell me about it.

What atheists fail to consider is that just because there are lots of opinions on God doesn't mean that atheism is any more right. Indeed, atheism is simply one of those positions on God, and is equally as questionable.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So did god come out of nothing?

Finite things, must have been created a finite time ago. That's why I question the origins of things such as the universe. Finite things, have causes.

God however, being external to Creation is not confined to its constraints, and is infinite in terms of time, and space. Indeed, it is necessary that the Creator of the universe suits these qualities. If God was finite in age, He too would have to be created. If God were confined in space, someone else would have had to create that space, and indeed it would mean that God would be limited in His availability.

How do you know the universe is a finite thing?

Maybe the universe is infinite in terms of time and space.

newmug

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How do you know the universe is a finite thing?

Maybe the universe is infinite in terms of time and space.

Its finite alright, its 15 billion years old and counting. And by its own rules, if it had a beginning, it WILL have an end!

Doc Ruby

philologos wrote: »

I studied philosophy at university

Pity you didn't study theology, or you'd understand why this is a major issue. Actually you don't need to study anything to understand it, children grasp it with ease. So I guess we can file that under "none are so blind" etc.

philologos wrote: »

, and I know there are a wide range of responses to this topic. I don't agree that anyone who held that free will and divine foreknowledge were compatible (such as in the early writings of Augustine - De Libero Arbitrio / On The Freedom of the Will books 2 and 3 come to mind) failed

Augustine was frankly a lunatic the world would have been a better place without. And no, he didn't explain away the problem, if he had the church would have trumpeted it front and centre. So another failure.

philologos wrote: »

I've explained to you already how knowing something is not the same as determining it, even if one is omniscient. If God did determine everything, then it would be fair to hold Him to account for everything. If God created all, and then left freely willed humanity to its devices, then if man does something wrong, man is made accountable.

The failure in your line of reasoning is not only obvious, it has been recognised by religious scholars for thousands of years, who like Augustine also failed to come up with an answer.

Because there isn't one.

It really is that simple.

philologos wrote: »

If you genuinely doubt the free nature of the will, you should consider scrapping the criminal justice system.

Oh I don't doubt free will. I'm merely pointing out that it is incompatible with omniscience and omnipotence. So what I'm saying is that if your concept of god exists, he's not all powerful or all seeing.

Which makes things doubly interesting for the spiritual minded as it opens the doors to other faiths as being equally valid, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, even Wicca.

Scanlas The 2nd

newmug wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

How do you know the universe is a finite thing?

Maybe the universe is infinite in terms of time and space.

Its finite alright, its 15 billion years old and counting. And by its own rules, if it had a beginning, it WILL have an end!

We don't know that, it could be infinitely contracting and expanding.

Wibbs

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Augustine was frankly a lunatic the world would have been a better place without. And no, he didn't explain away the problem, if he had the church would have trumpeted it front and centre. So another failure.

I would agree with you re Augustine on quite a few matters, though I'd not describe him as a loony. Clearly a very clever individual, a product of his life and times searching for a way out of what he saw as his own self destruction and that of the world and church around him. I think he suffers in current eyes because of his hangups surrounding sex(of which he had many) and many ignore some of his other musings. In some areas he was remarkably "modern" compared to his contemporaries. IE he suggested and believed many of the old testament stories were metaphorical and not to be taken literally. He didn't believe in a literal reading of genesis/creation myth for example so it's likely the modern discoveries about the formation of the universe would not throw him too much, even a concept like evolution(though he'd likely have difficulty with that applied to humans). Something that a load of good ol boys in the US would string him up for today if they got the chance.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

We don't know that, it could be infinitely contracting and expanding.

Well "infinite" as a concept is pretty heavily entwined with the concpet of time and since time didn't exist before the big bang it gets weird. Even the concept of "before" the big bang is a difficult one.

paddyandy

Re-runs showing lots of surprises and shocks .We will see re-runs of our lives and it's a 'viewing' few enjoy ....serious science on the web tells us . I'm certainly not looking forward to it .Search for yourself ..

jaspertheghost

my grandfather always said,sure if there is a heaven then grand if not sure we wont know any different, i personally think there is some sort of after life wether it be that we wonder the earth as spirits or we just become one with the universe..at the end of the day we are all just energy so we gotta go somewhere,but hey theres one thing for definite, we`re all goin to find out someday

eyescreamcone

I love when the our local religionists spout their version of the afterlife.
God, Jesus, wholey ghosts, pearly gates, heaven, hell, angels etc.

When you point out that all of these concepts were made up by man in the recent past, they then back the truck up to another position.
They talk of a god chap who created the big bang.

Meanwhile the god of easters, xmas' and transubstantiation gets left behind in favour of this god/creator of big bangs etc.

But when things quiten down they crawl back to the man made god of bible/manger/crucifixion/holy communion fame.

This to me is the real moveable feast!

srsly78

newmug wrote: »

Its finite alright, its 15 billion years old and counting. And by its own rules, if it had a beginning, it WILL have an end!

Some Greek lad figured this out already, he posited a hypothetical situation where they sent Achilles to the edge of the universe. Then he chucks a spear/arrow out past the edge. Therefore the universe is infinite

Modern science can't refute these Greek feckers! Think this was one of Zeno's paradoxes?

positron

newmug wrote: »

Its finite alright, its 15 billion years old and counting. And by its own rules, if it had a beginning, it WILL have an end!

I think this is totally wrong way to conclude something. Big Bang 'theory' (not fact) mentions a singularity, and no one said the singularity is finite or infinite!

May be the big bang was purely when the universe entered the dimensions comprehensible to us. So may be universe existed before big bang, and infinite in that way?

However, none of the god-book-man-in-the-sky people deserve this level of thought or consideration though. They are trying to make their fairly tales appear more credible by pitting it against heavy scientific questions. It's like pushing an elephant with a blade of grass and claiming the grass and elephant pushed each other, and that they both had fifty fifty chance of winning etc.

philologos

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Pity you didn't study theology, or you'd understand why this is a major issue. Actually you don't need to study anything to understand it, children grasp it with ease. So I guess we can file that under "none are so blind" etc.

I don't think we can. You're good at claiming what you do and don't think, what I haven't seen you do is explain why you think what you do. There are a number of examples of this in your post.

I think it's a little rude at best to suggest that I'm blind, despite not engaging with my position in a positive manner.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Augustine was frankly a lunatic the world would have been a better place without. And no, he didn't explain away the problem, if he had the church would have trumpeted it front and centre. So another failure.

Why was Augustine a "lunatic"? - By the by, I've looked into his work on this, and there are a few aspects of it that I would criticise. However, his argument concerning the compatible nature of foreknowledge and free will isn't all that difficult to understand or explain to others. Simply put, knowledge is not the same thing as determination. I'm interested to see you explain otherwise, but all I've seen is snide remarks and ad-hominems. If we could cut that type of nonsense out perhaps we could have a good discussion on this.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

The failure in your line of reasoning is not only obvious, it has been recognised by religious scholars for thousands of years, who like Augustine also failed to come up with an answer.

What failure?
How is it obvious?
What religious scholars?

This is what I mean, you're great at stating what your opinion is. Not so great at explaining why you think so.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Because there isn't one.

It really is that simple.

This is a little inadequate. Again, what have you looked at concerning this? Are you just fobbing off what you're not familiar with? Or do you have some familiarity.

I'd like to see you engage with my position rather than ignore it to be honest.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Oh I don't doubt free will. I'm merely pointing out that it is incompatible with omniscience and omnipotence. So what I'm saying is that if your concept of god exists, he's not all powerful or all seeing.

I'm failing to see how you pointed it out, and I'm disappointed that you haven't given a decent response to my posts to you.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Which makes things doubly interesting for the spiritual minded as it opens the doors to other faiths as being equally valid, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, even Wicca.

That's before we start looking more systematically as to how the Biblical text is evident in reality. I'd be happy to discuss that, on the provisio that you and others will actually engage with my arguments rather than chucking ad-hominems along.

Duggys Housemate

Augustine was no lunatic, he was a brilliant man, but he prostrated his intelligence in some respects. He is great at times. Here he is ( in City of God) saying that people who say that 6,000 years is too short a time for the world compared to eternity don't really understand eternity.

As to those who are always asking why man was not created during these countless ages of the infinitely extended past, and came into being so lately that, according to Scripture, less than 6000 years have elapsed since He began to be, I would reply to them regarding the creation of man, just as I replied regarding the origin of the world to those who will not believe that it is not eternal, but had a beginning, which even Plato himself most plainly declares, though some think his statement was not consistent with his real opinion. If it offends them that the time that has elapsed since the creation of man is so short, and his years so few according to our authorities, let them take this into consideration, that nothing that has a limit is long, and that all the ages of time being finite, are very little, or indeed nothing at all, when compared to the interminable eternity. Consequently, if there had elapsed since the creation of man, I do not say five or six, but even sixty or six hundred thousand years, or sixty times as many, or six hundred or six hundred thousand times as many, or this sum multiplied until it could no longer be expressed in numbers, the same question could still be put, Why was he not made before? For the past and boundless eternity during which God abstained from creating man is so great, that, compare it with what vast and untold number of ages you please, so long as there is a definite conclusion of this term of time, it is not even as if you compared the minutest drop of water with the ocean that everywhere flows around the globe. For of these two, one indeed is very small, the other incomparably vast, yet both are finite; but that space of time which starts from some beginning, and is limited by some termination, be it of what extent it may, if you compare it with that which has no beginning, I know not whether to say we should count it the very minutest thing, or nothing at all. For, take this limited time, and deduct from the end of it, one by one, the briefest moments (as you might take day by day from a man's life, beginning at the day in which he now lives, back to that of his birth), and though the number of moments you must subtract in this backward movement be so great that no word can express it, yet this subtraction will sometime carry you to the beginning. But if you take away from a time which has no beginning, I do not say brief moments one by one, nor yet hours, or days, or months, or years even in quantities, but terms of years so vast that they cannot be named by the most skillful arithmeticians,— take away terms of years as vast as that which we have supposed to be gradually consumed by the deduction of moments—and take them away not once and again repeatedly, but always, and what do you effect, what do you make by your deduction, since you never reach the beginning, which has no existence? Wherefore, that which we now demand after five thousand odd years, our descendants might with like curiosity demand after six hundred thousand years, supposing these dying generations of men continue so long to decay and be renewed, and supposing posterity continues as weak and ignorant as ourselves. The same question might have been asked by those who have lived before us and while man was even newer upon earth. The first man himself in short might the day after or the very day of his creation have asked why he was created no sooner. And no matter at what earlier or later period he had been created, this controversy about the commencement of this world's history would have had precisely the same difficulties as it has now.

He is basically saying that compared to enternity 6,000 years is as insignificant as 6,000,000 or 6,000,000,0000 years.

Thats a good argument ( except for the a priori assumption that the 6,000 is true).

Duggys Housemate

But this is the most cogent argument of Augustine, and one which makes me believe that he would a scientist were he alive today. He is grappling with the idea that Angels are said, in some biblical sources to be eternal, and therefore cannot be created by God ( a big deal for Augustine who is trying to convince Romans that the gods in their religions were misrepresentations of Angels).

An angel co-enternal with God is equal to God, or at any rate not created by him. That's not acceptable to a Christian. The solutions? Augustine argues that Angels are enternal in time ( which given his last quatrain makes them 6,000 years old). His argument that we can't really talk about time until God created the universe still, however stands. Not the God bit, but the rest.

He argues that God exists outside time, but that time cant be said to exist unless there is movement, on Earth or in Heaven. Therefore the Angels are eternal in time, and time began when movement began. Which is what modern physicists say about the big bang ( we cant talk about a "before" the big bang), and as he point out in his last quatrain, this logic applies to 6,000 years as it does to 13.6 billion years.

But if I make such a reply, it will be said to me, How, then, are they not co-eternal with the Creator, if He and they always have been? How even can they be said to have been created, if we are to understand that they have always existed? What shall we reply to this? Shall we say that both statements are true? That they always have been, since they have been in all time, they being created along with time, or time along with them, and yet that also they were created? For, similarly, we will not deny that time itself was created, though no one doubts that time has been in all time; for if it has not been in all time, then there was a time when there was no time. But the most foolish person could not make such an assertion. For we can reasonably say there was a time when Rome was not; there was a time when Jerusalem was not; there was a time when Abraham was not; there was a time when man was not, and so on: in fine, if the world was not made at the commencement of time, but after some time had elapsed, we can say there was a time when the world was not. But to say there was a time when time was not, is as absurd as to say there was a man when there was no man; or, this world was when this world was not. For if we are not referring to the same object, the form of expression may be used, as, there was another man when this man was not. Thus we can reasonably say there was another time when this time was not; but not the merest simpleton could say there was a time when there was no time. As, then, we say that time was created, though we also say that it always has been, since in all time time has been, so it does not follow that if the angels have always been, they were therefore not created. For we say that they have always been, because they have been in all time; and we say they have been in all time, because time itself could no wise be without them. For where there is no creature whose changing movements admit of succession, there cannot be time at all.

Duggys Housemate

I feel I should apologise for killing the thread by actually quoting the man who is in discussion. Mea culpa.

RussellTuring

philologos wrote: »

Thanks for your post.

Thanks for your response.

I don't think it is any more an "assertion" than the idea that this universe managed to cause itself to exist. In fact it's much less of an assertion. It seems more sound to me to argue that there was an intelligent Creator than the idea that this universe spontaneously came to be out of absolutely nothing.

That's fine, but I don't see how it relates to the point I was making. If I wasn't clear, I was referring to assertions like these:

philologos wrote: »

Unless you're claiming that free will was a mistake? I don't feel it is, and I'm sure you don't either. However, it does have the side effect that we can fall into sin, and indeed that we are accountable for our disobedience before God. Clearly however, God thought it best that we were free willed rather than automaton.

You state that free will allows room for sin, that we are disobedient and accountable to a god who is yet to be even shown to exist, and that our apparent free will was clearly a product of this mysterious being's preferences. How you can claim all of this is beyond me. I should also note that in your most recent response you attempt to add weight to your beliefs by comparing them to the idea that the "universe spontaneously came to be out of absolutely nothing", as if these are the only two options.

That's the ultimate claim that we have to tackle when it comes to Creation. Explaining free will in the light of a Creator isn't hugely difficult. If all things were created, and if humanity was also created then it is a part of the creation of humanity that they have this thing called the will, that allows them to determine their active behaviour or what path they are going to meander give or take in this life.

That's very circumstantial, to say the least, and we don't even agree that this being exists. It would also help the discussion if you could let me know what exactly you mean by "free will".

It doesn't particularly matter whether you call God Derek or not. We begin looking at Creation. That points us by and large to a Creator God. What we can do then is assess on the basis of the Biblical text as to whether or not it corresponds to the way things are. If it does, then it is entirely reasonable to suggest that this points to Christianity being true. Indeed, it helps us point to the identity of the God that many call "unknown".

You're right and that it doesn't matter what you or I choose to call our gods, especially when the concepts for which we say they are responsible (free will, gravity etc) aren't necessarily ones with divine origins. Gods were once credited with numerous phenomena for which we now know the actual causes.

My grievance isn't what you choose to call the supernatural being in which you believe but that your existing belief makes you credit it with anything for which we don't have a well-accepted natural cause. You're not looking at what's evident and drawing conclusions from it; instead you are a person with a particular set of beliefs doing what you can to support them, even trying to use the Bible as some sort of frame of reference despite it's biases and contradictions.

The difference is simple in this case. It comes down to whether or not God has revealed Himself to us. If He has, then His word is authoritative. If He hasn't then you're right, its just mankind pointing varying guesses as the Almighty.

It's much the same as this. I've used this analogy on boards.ie before, so forgive me if you've read it already. If there is a girl called Lucy, and if one of Lucy's classmates writes a note claiming that "Lucy is a dog". Does Lucy have the right to defend herself? And indeed, if Lucy does defend her humanity to those who read the note, should Lucy's word about herself be regarded as authentic.

There's a flaw in this analogy insofar as Lucy is not omniscient. However, the same logic can be applied to God. If God has spoken, what is the conjecture of humanity about Him? His omniscience is more of a reason that we should regard what He has told us about Himself and Creation to be authoritative.

I'm not sure I get your analogy since Lucy has no obligation to disprove the assertions of her classmates. The onus is on them to demonstrate that she is a dog rather than on her to disprove it, in much the same way that you really have to convince me why I should believe your god exists before I can accept that he is omniscient. This just seems obvious to me.

Tell me: would you feel the need to defend your humanity to someone who claimed you were a dog or would you not think it much fairer for the burden of proof to be on the person making the claim?

You're right, there could be a god called Derek. On the basis of what has been revealed, and on the basis of what we know of Christianity. I'd say that there is a heck of a lot more to demonstrate it being true over other approaches. At the same time, I'm more than likely to consider those other approaches should adherents come to me and tell me about it.

I don't agree that Christianity is an approach rather than a set of unsound premises.

What atheists fail to consider is that just because there are lots of opinions on God doesn't mean that atheism is any more right. Indeed, atheism is simply one of those positions on God, and is equally as questionable.

The number of opinions on God isn't a good way to determine if there is one. I don't believe in any god simply because I've yet see any reason to. However I don't see how being sceptical of gods existing is equally as questionable as believing they do. Until someone convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that ghosts inhabit a particular building would I be best to go along with the belief that they do? They could indeed be there but it's an exceptional claim and therefore requires a lot to convince me.

Finite things, must have been created a finite time ago. That's why I question the origins of things such as the universe. Finite things, have causes.

God however, being external to Creation is not confined to its constraints, and is infinite in terms of time, and space. Indeed, it is necessary that the Creator of the universe suits these qualities. If God was finite in age, He too would have to be created. If God were confined in space, someone else would have had to create that space, and indeed it would mean that God would be limited in His availability.

You still have to show that such a being exists, let alone that it is even possible. You've just said that our universe isn't possible without a creator god and that this god must be outside of our current understanding of time and space without any hint as to how this can be.

Can anyone explain freewill in the context of a person who has alzheimers?

bnt

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone explain freewill in the context of a person who has alzheimers?

I've yet see a cogent explanation of "freewill" in any context. It's a religious concept first and foremost, one invented to "explain" why we're not all living in the Garden of Eden. It's the original "blame the victim" cop-out: we could have had it good, but bad things happened because we "chose" to be bad, and so we're all guilty of ... something. Don't ask where we got the ability to "choose", or the information on which to base our "choices". :rolleyes:

I know of no reason to believe that "freewill" is a real thing. The complexities of our brains and the world around us is (IMHO) sufficient explanation for why we think what we do, or not. The "random" or "unexplained" things we apparently think are just very, very, very complex.

PS: on the OP's question about what happens when die? Death is when things stop happening for a person. That is the definition of death, isn't it?

IM0

a big party

IM0

just like falling asleep, you feel tired [dying, its painfull though] you sleep [your dead] but you dont wake up simple really. everyone else knows you are gone except you!

and theres no dreams either. its just like the nights where you sleep but dont dream of anything and the only way you know you were asleep is by piecing it together by memory.

philologos

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's fine, but I don't see how it relates to the point I was making. If I wasn't clear, I was referring to assertions like these:

It relates to your entire post, because I find that assumption requires more faith than accepting the Gospel.

RussellTuring wrote: »

You state that free will allows room for sin, that we are disobedient and accountable to a god who is yet to be even shown to exist, and that our apparent free will was clearly a product of this mysterious being's preferences. How you can claim all of this is beyond me. I should also note that in your most recent response you attempt to add weight to your beliefs by comparing them to the idea that the "universe spontaneously came to be out of absolutely nothing", as if these are the only two options.

I don't feel that God is yet to be shown. He has revealed Himself. Indeed, the very fact that you and I are stood on this earth begs a Creator as far as I can tell. The very notion of objective morality that we see on a daily basis begs a Moral Law giver. God has already demonstrated through Jesus who He is. I don't need a whole lot more evidence that God is real personally.

I don't need to add weight to my beliefs. They have weight in and of themselves. As Charles Spurgeon put it in the 19th century:

The Word of God is like a lion. You don't have to defend a lion. All you have to do is let the lion loose, and the lion will defend itself

RussellTuring wrote: »

That's very circumstantial, to say the least, and we don't even agree that this being exists. It would also help the discussion if you could let me know what exactly you mean by "free will".

I think there is more to support God's existence than the atheistic alternative in respect to our being.

RussellTuring wrote: »

You're right and that it doesn't matter what you or I choose to call our gods, especially when the concepts for which we say they are responsible (free will, gravity etc) aren't necessarily ones with divine origins. Gods were once credited with numerous phenomena for which we now know the actual causes.

The God of the gaps hypothesis. Funnily enough, I don't believe God is a filler of gaps. I believe God runs the whole show. It's a misunderstanding that many atheists have to a Christian worldview. You claim that we know the causes to these things as if science is some alternative to God. Rather, science is simply a description of God's creative power insofar as most Christians see it. Where it becomes problematic is the further and further back we go.

RussellTuring wrote: »

My grievance isn't what you choose to call the supernatural being in which you believe but that your existing belief makes you credit it with anything for which we don't have a well-accepted natural cause. You're not looking at what's evident and drawing conclusions from it; instead you are a person with a particular set of beliefs doing what you can to support them, even trying to use the Bible as some sort of frame of reference despite it's biases and contradictions.

See above. I think even what we do have a scientific description for was caused by God. That's the misunderstanding that atheists have of Christianity and how it views Creation.

Simply put, as I was reading the Bible, I had one thought process and one thought process only. When I am reading what is written in here, is it reasonable to believe this in respect to reality. I found that it was, thanks to God showing me clearly how His truth lines up with reality.

As for biases and contradictions. I find that the more "contradictions" that atheists have presented over on the Christianity forum, they end up not being contradictions at all by a look at the Scriptural context, or what is happening in those passages. Most of the lists that people find online on sites such as The Reason Project also show themselves to be lacking.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I'm not sure I get your analogy since Lucy has no obligation to disprove the assertions of her classmates. The onus is on them to demonstrate that she is a dog rather than on her to disprove it, in much the same way that you really have to convince me why I should believe your god exists before I can accept that he is omniscient. This just seems obvious to me.

Tell me: would you feel the need to defend your humanity to someone who claimed you were a dog or would you not think it much fairer for the burden of proof to be on the person making the claim?

If someone was spreading slander about me, I would find it important to defend myself certainly.

Likewise, there are many opinions of God, some falsehoods, some slander, but ultimately something is true about Him. Either it is fable, or it is truth that He exists and has made Himself known. If He has made Himself known, then it is entirely reasonable to trust His testimony over other human conjecture. That's my point.

RussellTuring wrote: »

I don't agree that Christianity is an approach rather than a set of unsound premises.

Funnily enough, I regard atheism in much the same light.

RussellTuring wrote: »

The number of opinions on God isn't a good way to determine if there is one. I don't believe in any god simply because I've yet see any reason to. However I don't see how being sceptical of gods existing is equally as questionable as believing they do. Until someone convinces me beyond a reasonable doubt that ghosts inhabit a particular building would I be best to go along with the belief that they do? They could indeed be there but it's an exceptional claim and therefore requires a lot to convince me.

The number of opinions about God isn't. Human opinion is lacking. This is why we should be seeking out what God has to say for Himself, if indeed He has something to say for Himself. The more and more I have seen how the Bible agrees with the reality that we live in, the less and less it takes in order to understand that it is God's word.

I think atheism is an exceptional claim, much in terms of how you think that Christianity is an exceptional claim.

RussellTuring wrote: »

You still have to show that such a being exists, let alone that it is even possible. You've just said that our universe isn't possible without a creator god and that this god must be outside of our current understanding of time and space without any hint as to how this can be.

How can it be that this universe came from absolutely nothing?

It is really simple as to how I can point to a Creator. It is simply put down to the fact that all finite things have causes. That includes the universe which is 15.7bn years old. It is reasonable to conclude that there was an intelligent force outside of this universe, that caused this to be. It is also reasonable that such a Creator could act within Creation, and indeed reveal Himself to humanity.

I find from looking at the Bible and seeing what it has to say about humanity, that there are a number of grounds on which it can be defended. I have also found that most if not all objections that have been raised to it have fallen flat.

Deus Ex Machina

I, like a lot of people here, am functionally an atheist when the god in question is that described by all religions I've encountered. Perhaps where I differ to some of the aforementioned group is that I am completely open to the possibility that there is an entity of some sort within the universe that possess characteristics which could easily fit any definition of the word godlike. Be this entity a supreme power which set this cosmic cacophony in motion for his own amusement, or just a highly advanced civilisation, or an infinity of postulations in between, I just think what I've seen so far is so nuts, so completely whacko, that nothing can really be off the table, falsifiable or otherwise.

IM0

life gets better :pac:










hang on I left the iron on......

Tazium

At least you won't get bored reading threads like this

I think i will take up the Muslim faith and become a martyr cos at least they give a really clear and concise description of what it will be like when i die.

shizz

Deleted User wrote: »

I think i will take up the Muslim faith and become a martyr cos at least they give a really clear and concise description of what it will be like when i die.

haha yeah they don't doubt it one bit.

bnt

Deleted User wrote: »

I think i will take up the Muslim faith and become a martyr cos at least they give a really clear and concise description of what it will be like when i die.

Yeah, any answer - no matter how daft - has to be better than having no answer. Right? Uncertainty is intolerable!

HemlockOption

Deleted User wrote: »

I think i will take up the Muslim faith and become a martyr cos at least they give a really clear and concise description of what it will be like when i die.

......plus there's all those virgins to get stuck into

HemlockOption

HemlockOption wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

I think i will take up the Muslim faith and become a martyr cos at least they give a really clear and concise description of what it will be like when i die.

......plus there's all those virgins to get stuck into

Virgins then you remember you are gay!

HemlockOption

Deleted User wrote: »

Virgins then you remember you are gay!

I'm sure they can supply those type of virgins too - it is heaven after all

HemlockOption

HemlockOption wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Virgins then you remember you are gay!

I'm sure they can supply those type of virgins too - it is heaven after all

Any other religion offer better life after death than the Muslims? Am open to offers as long as they are clearly defined.

Cherry Blossom

I think we just simply cease to exist but live in hope that the last thought that courses through my human brain will be - yay!! I was wrong!!

RussellTuring

philologos wrote: »

It relates to your entire post, because I find that assumption requires more faith than accepting the Gospel.

What assumption? I never claimed that the Universe caused itself to exist or spontaneously came to be out of nothing. You brought that up and began to argue against it.

I don't feel that God is yet to be shown. He has revealed Himself. Indeed, the very fact that you and I are stood on this earth begs a Creator as far as I can tell. The very notion of objective morality that we see on a daily basis begs a Moral Law giver. God has already demonstrated through Jesus who He is. I don't need a whole lot more evidence that God is real personally.

This obviously is satisfactory to you but your thoughts, opinions and feelings don't constitute evidence for God to other people. I would love someone to show me objective evidence for gods and other supernatural beings but all I've ever gotten is conjecture.

I don't need to add weight to my beliefs. They have weight in and of themselves. As Charles Spurgeon put it in the 19th century:

Are you saying your beliefs are self-evident? If you think your position is so obvious that you're not really making an effort to argue it then I wonder what we're doing here.

I think there is more to support God's existence than the atheistic alternative in respect to our being.

What is this atheistic alternative? I thought that atheism implied nothing more than not believing in gods. You've also failed to explain your understanding of free will yet again.

The God of the gaps hypothesis. Funnily enough, I don't believe God is a filler of gaps. I believe God runs the whole show. It's a misunderstanding that many atheists have to a Christian worldview. You claim that we know the causes to these things as if science is some alternative to God. Rather, science is simply a description of God's creative power insofar as most Christians see it. Where it becomes problematic is the further and further back we go.

I've never before seen science defined as a description of God's power. Science is far more rigourous than any religion and to try pass it off as just another facet of Christianity or religion in general is absurd.

Anyway, I'm aware of people with a similar position to yours but all it amounts to is a shifting of goalposts: once the reasons for natural phenomena are found when once they were considered acts of God, he's still credited because he apparently created the Universe. It's a cop-out.

See above. I think even what we do have a scientific description for was caused by God. That's the misunderstanding that atheists have of Christianity and how it views Creation.

This is what I was getting at. No answer that can be discovered through science will ever be good enough. It is indeed important to find the answers to questions we have but having the preconceived notion that God is ultimately responsible isn't very useful.

Simply put, as I was reading the Bible, I had one thought process and one thought process only. When I am reading what is written in here, is it reasonable to believe this in respect to reality. I found that it was, thanks to God showing me clearly how His truth lines up with reality.

Many things are believable and wouldn't drastically change what I understand about my world. That still isn't enough to believe they are true, and certainly not when it comes to extraordinary claims.

As for biases and contradictions. I find that the more "contradictions" that atheists have presented over on the Christianity forum, they end up not being contradictions at all by a look at the Scriptural context, or what is happening in those passages. Most of the lists that people find online on sites such as The Reason Project also show themselves to be lacking.

I'm sure we would disagree somewhat when it comes to biblical consistency. I don't see how we can resolve this just yet.

If someone was spreading slander about me, I would find it important to defend myself certainly.

Why would you entertain such nonsense as the claim that you are a dog? If the person who makes the claim can't support it then you have no reason to argue in the first place. Anyone who would believe a person claiming I'm a dog with no supporting facts probably won't understand such concepts as the burden of proof anyway.

Likewise, there are many opinions of God, some falsehoods, some slander, but ultimately something is true about Him. Either it is fable, or it is truth that He exists and has made Himself known. If He has made Himself known, then it is entirely reasonable to trust His testimony over other human conjecture. That's my point.

He may well have made himself known but why should I believe such a being even could exist? If he does not exist then you are not trusting his testimony but instead believing more human conjecture. He may also exist and have not yet made himself known, with the God of which we speak just another fable, but I digress.

Funnily enough, I regard atheism in much the same light.

What are the unsound premises of atheism? I consider it a rejection of the claim that any gods exist. It doesn't assert anything.

The number of opinions about God isn't. Human opinion is lacking. This is why we should be seeking out what God has to say for Himself, if indeed He has something to say for Himself. The more and more I have seen how the Bible agrees with the reality that we live in, the less and less it takes in order to understand that it is God's word.

I think atheism is an exceptional claim, much in terms of how you think that Christianity is an exceptional claim.

I think you may have misread my post. I agree that the number of opinions on God is a poor way to determine his existence which is why I don't use it as one. The reason I don't believe in the god you do is the same as that for my disbelief in all others. I imagine you've heard this before.

How can it be that this universe came from absolutely nothing?

I don't know. I never claimed it did.

It is really simple as to how I can point to a Creator. It is simply put down to the fact that all finite things have causes. That includes the universe which is 15.7bn years old.

How do you know that? It's also a bit under 14 billion.

It is reasonable to conclude that there was an intelligent force outside of this universe, that caused this to be. It is also reasonable that such a Creator could act within Creation, and indeed reveal Himself to humanity.

That's a massive leap and not at all reasonable. Even if you did show that the Universe was finite and had or even needed a cause, why should we believe that there was anything outside of the Universe, that it was or could be intelligent, or that it had the ability or motivation to create a Universe?

I find from looking at the Bible and seeing what it has to say about humanity, that there are a number of grounds on which it can be defended.

How did we get from some universe-creating intelligence to the Bible? I'd imagine most religions can be defended in the eyes of their adherents, but that doesn't make them any more believable to the rest of us.

I have also found that most if not all objections that have been raised to it have fallen flat.

I'd imagine so since you still believe what you do. This evidence for God that you promised is seriously lacking and not as simple as you claimed it would be.

Scanlas The 2nd

IMO free will is an illusion. Our thoughts are basically a complicated set of chain reactions. In order to have free will we would need to somehow be able to manipulate laws of physics.

Duggys Housemate

bnt wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone explain freewill in the context of a person who has alzheimers?

I've yet see a cogent explanation of "freewill" in any context. It's a religious concept first and foremost, one invented to "explain" why we're not all living in the Garden of Eden. It's the original "blame the victim" cop-out: we could have had it good, but bad things happened because we "chose" to be bad, and so we're all guilty of ... something. Don't ask where we got the ability to "choose", or the information on which to base our "choices". :rolleyes:

I know of no reason to believe that "freewill" is a real thing. The complexities of our brains and the world around us is (IMHO) sufficient explanation for why we think what we do, or not. The "random" or "unexplained" things we apparently think are just very, very, very complex.

PS: on the OP's question about what happens when die? Death is when things stop happening for a person. That is the definition of death, isn't it?

Free will is not a religious concept. It is a philosophical concept. Some Christian religions believe in it, Calvinists don't. Nor did Luther Calvinists believe that God has worked it all out already so you were saved before your were born. There are , and have been,plenty plenty of arguments either way in philisophy, religion and science, in the West and the East.