Death

[jimbo]

Pixie,

J: If a Christian believes that the biblical god can do anything, that it can violate the laws of nature/perform miracles, it seems to me that this would make any claim in the Bible unfalsifiable to the theist. The claim would not have to conform to natural laws or physics or common sense.

P: Am I breaking the natural laws if I catch a rock before it hits the ground?

No, you are not.

Jimbo

[Oolon Colluphid]

"I have not read in my "Bible" anything that included anything "anonymous, fantastical..."

That seems a little disingenuous. Who wrote the letter to the Hebrews? When Dawkins (of all people) said it was St. Paul theologians who understandably took a dim view of 'The God Delusion' leapt on this as a chance to claim TGD was riddled with factual errors, and could therefore easily be dismissed (curious that no one wants to dismiss Luther's writings, although he too makes the same error). And as for 'fantastical' well, if there's really nothing in your Bible that you find 'fantastical' then all I can say is that, should judgment day ever arrive, you're going to be pretty non-plussed by it I guess.

[lilpixieofterror]

No, you are not.

So why is God breaking the laws of nature when he decides to intervene in the universe?

[jimbo]

Trusty,

J: I would really like to know how you folks think you are going to get to live forever.

T: I don't see it as something I "get" to do, as "living forever" is part of the program of which I had no say so in design.

From my perspective, we were simply designed by evolution to pass on our genes.

J: Do you really think that you are something other than a flesh and bone primate?

T: Depends, I can't necessarily just be my brain or my body, though I very well may be the totality of its contents...no one knows for sure exactly what the "I" actually is.

It seems that our consciousness resides in our brains, or rather is a function of our brains, and it doesn't seem reasonable to believe consciousness can exist apart from our brains.

J: Do you really think you are something else?

T: "I" would have to be since an "I" is neither flesh or bone by definition.jimbo

That is what you are made out of. When your flesh and bone decays, where will "you" be?

J: Do you think you can somehow overcome cell death, brain death, and experience anything at all when all your sensory organs are gone and the brain that interprets the signals from your nonexistent sensory organs has been decayed away? What will "you" (or I) really be at that point?

T: I don't think so, but then again, I am not a substance (strong) dualist either in the Cartesian or Platonic school.

Okay.

J: I understand very well how attractive eternal life is.

It is not attractive to everyone.

No, but It is to most people.

J: I would love to live forever too.

T: You say that now...

And....? What are you implying?

J: But you have to realize that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

T: Or it is not.

Most probably it is though.

J: Getting granted eternal life in exchange for simple faith in absurd claims is too good to be true.

T: Well, perhaps, and I may be inclined to agree since you must not be talking about Christianity and talking about something else, since Christianity is anything but "simple faith in absurd claims".

Christians are taught that they have to believe in the miracle claims in the Bible in order to get into heaven.

J: Eternal life clearly goes against everything we know to be true about biological life.

Wrong, it is only inconsistent with what we know to be the normal, causal biological operation.

Like I said-it goes against what we know to be true about biological life. Do you know of any form of biological life that lives forever? I would love to hear about it.

J: Step back for a moment from the faith you have in the anonymous, fantastical, absurd, uncorroborated stories in the Bible and look in the mirror.

T: Easy to do considering

1) I am handsome and have never NOT looked into a mirror when I pass one...

and

2) I have not read in my "Bible" anything that included anything "anonymous, fantastical, absurd, uncorroborated stories"...unless you are using the term Bible as a referent to some other religious book of ancient texts that is not related to Christianity.

Do you consider the anonymous Genesis stories about Adam and Eve and the Great Flood to be absurd, uncorroborated and fantastical or not? Please be honest.

J: Understand what you are.

T: There you go again, Anon shut this down already...

I have not addressed his post yet but he was trying to use modern theories about the nature of matter to say that souls are made out of nothing. It seemed more like a misuse of science to avoid explaining what a soul is than a genuine effort to explain anything.

J: You are a physical being, you will age, and you will inevitably die.

T: Subtract the "you" bit, and I agree, though I add that there will be a resurrection.

That is an interesting theory. What support do you have for the theory that there will be a resurrection? How, specifically, would it work?

J: Few if any people want to die, and that is why religions like Christianity that sell the hope of eternal life tend to do very well. They address the (nearly) universal fear of death.

T: This is meaningless dribble, as noted already in other posts.

Do you deny that most people do not want to die, that the idea of eternal life therefore is appealing to most people, and that the offer of eternal life that various religions provide to believers is somewhat or very attractive to them?

J: What's that you say? You have an invisible "soul" which magically teleports itself to a heavenly paradise when you die?

T: I do not say this at all. There will be a resurrection and believers will thus dwell in some paradise of sorts after the resurrection referred to as heaven.

So what happens to people's consciousnesses when they die? Where do they go and how? In other words, what is the medium that stores people's memories and personalities prior to the supposed resurrection event?

J: Tell me, please, what this "soul" is. What is it made out of? How does it function? How does it move?

T: Time for you to look in the mirror in answer this question.

I look in the mirror and I see a bald ape with a definite expiration date.

J: I don't think you actually know what a "soul" is and I don't think you ever will.

T: I do know what a soul is, it is me.

And you will die.

J: I think it is a nonsensical term invented to support the notion of eternal life.

T: I think it is a wonderful, and very useful philosophical term used to describe the essence of self or selves.

The "essense of self or selves" is very nondescript and nebulous. What, specifically, does that mean?

J: I have never had any religious person explain what it is too me in any kind of a coherent fashion, and I have never seen or read about any good supporting evidence for such a thing.

T: Yet the sentence above uses the words "me" and "I", so "coherent" seems to be an issue with "you" and not the concept.

Why don't you give it a shot and tell me, in very clear and explicit terms, what a soul is?

J: Life is very short. Do you really want to waste any of it living in a delusion?

T: Given your worldview, you seem to think it a worthwhile investment of time. So...

Believe whatever you like. I personally think it is pointless to focus a lot of time and energy on trying to please a god which doesn't exist to try to get into a heaven which doesn't exist.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[jimbo]

J: No, you are not.

P: So why is God breaking the laws of nature when he decides to intervene in the universe?

Uh, you are not a supernatural being. Pixie, are you?

In any case you don't seem to understand the point I am making. My point is this: Once you accept supernaturalism, the fantastical claims in the Bible become unfalsifiable to you. If someone explains to you that people cannot rise from the dead, you will say that God can rise from the dead or cause other people to rise from the dead because he is all-powerful. If someone informs you that people cannot walk on water, you will say that God can overcome any law of nature. If someone tells you that you cannot live forever, you will triumphantly proclaim that God will give you a miraculous, supernatural, everlasting permanent spirit body in heaven, because God can do anything. He is supernatural!

In other words, every logical, scientific, common sense objection to the fantastical claims in the Bible can be overcome by appealing to supernaturalism. Really, the Bible could say absolutely anything and it could not be falsified as long as one holds the premise that with God anything is possible. This appeal can be seen as a simple but effective way of protecting absurd Bible claims from critical examination by believers.

Maybe I am just stating the obvious but I hope this helps.

Jimbo

[lilpixieofterror]

Uh, you are not a supernatural being. Pixie, are you?

Being supernatural has nothing to do with it Jimbo. God made the universe in the Christian world view so since he built the universe, he knows how it works and far more about it than you or I. I'll explain more in a second.

In any case you don't seem to understand the point I am making. My point is this: Once you accept that the biblical god can do anything, the miracle claims in the Bible become unfalsifiable to you. In other words, if someone explains to you that people cannot rise from the dead, you will say that God can rise from the dead or cause other people to rise from the dead because he is all-powerful. If someone informs you that people cannot walk on water, you will say that God can overcome any law of nature. If someone tells you that you cannot live forever, you will triumphantly proclaim that God will give you a miraculous, supernatural, everlasting permanent spirit body in heaven, because God can do anything.

Got to love those strawman arguments you throw up, let me try using a metaphor.

Lets say my computer breaks so I take it in to get fixed. I've tried working on it and I wasn't able to fix it. So the computer guy looks at it and has it fixed in minutes. Did this guy have to violate the computer's programing to fix my computer? No he didn't, all that was required was a more in depth knowledge than I possessed to fix my computer. Likewise, the computer programmer is going to know even more about how my computer works than the computer repair man, right? Is he violating the computer programing because he knows more than both myself and the computer repair man? No, he designed the computer's program and therefore, he knows all of it's ins and outs. Same thing with God, he knows it's programing (being things like the laws of physics), he has a far more in depth knowledge of the universe and it's laws than you or I do so therefore just because something violates our understanding of the universe doesn't mean squat. Besides, the claim that I used the bathroom at 1am this morning is also a unfalsifiable claim because I can't prove it. Come on Jimbo, please think and use arguments that were not refuted 40+ years ago.

In other words, every logical, scientific, common sense objection to the fantastical claims in the Bible can be overcome by appealing to supernaturalism. This appeal can be seen as a simple but effective way of protecting absurd Bible claims from critical examination by believers.

Somebody doesn't understand that science isn't the end all answer of everything. Why is it that fundy atheist often seem to think that science is God and that it knows the answer to everything?

Hope this helps.

To show others that you don't know what you're talking about? it helped quite a bit, thanks.

[UrbanMonk]

Perhaps I fail to understand the (other) concept, then.

I don't have to call myself a Christian to achieve salvation. I have no investment in any identity that is not able to save me. So I also have no investment in any (other) identity either...other than the one identity ("name") that can save me.

I guess I don't see a difference between Jesus and Christ.

Big difference. The Son of God is not a body...not part of a spirit-mind-body mix. There isn't any "balance" to that mix...because there isn't any truth to it.

Let me put it this way...

If you fell asleep and dreamed you were an elf dancing in a circle of elves, who or what are you? Are you Bob the elf? Are you "son of elf"? Son of a virgin elf? And who are these other elves? Where do they come from? Who is who? Who sleeps?

In terms of salvation, "Christ" is the one who sleeps and dreams he is a man among men...the "son of man". In this analogy, there is no difference between the elves and man. Both are mythological dream characters. "Jesus" is the first one to understand this, and marshalling this understanding, he woke up...in Christ...as Christ. Christ is the "Savior" who informed Jesus of the situation. And as Jesus listened and learned and practiced, he eventually layed down any other identity except Christ...the one dreaming the dream we call "the world". In doing so, he showed the greatest love of all, laying his life down for his friends...those still dancing in circles.

In this analogy, would you say you are both the elf and Carrikature? If not, then why do we say that Jesus is both God and man?

I thought we had that in the Bible....

Christ is our Savior saving us from self-concepts that are not Christ...that deny Christ. So, they (self-concepts) exist in a kind of "hell". These identities have been stolen. They are not legit. We make them with mind-power we have taken from Christ...theoretically bleeding Christ in order to supply blood to our self-concepts. We have to give back what we seem to have taken.

The Bible does not tell us what the problem is, nor how to solve it. It dances around in circles...beating around the bush. It serves to maintain our defenses against the truth that the elves may be saved so-to-speak.

The key is this: Salvation comes from our one Self.

Which, according to you, means we stay on earth forever?

It means we stay within time...theoretically...forever. Time and mass are correlated. We have the power to delay our decision indefinitely...but not forever. The right choice is a foregone conclusion. There are many places to not be Christ...in time. Christ does not abide in "place" which is a concept not of God. If your alternative identity is already on this thing we call "earth", chances are you'll spend most of your time "here", recycling through our beloved "life cycle". But there are other kinds of realms or domains to call "home"...other galaxies...ect. But what is "earth"? What is "here"? Exactly where are we? We can never be anywhere except "within" the mind of Christ. In this case, we are within what a Course In Miracles calls a false thought about Self. As such, "the universe" is a false self-concept that is "different" from Christ. What is different is..."hell".

Regards,
Urban Monk

[UrbanMonk]

Being supernatural has nothing to do with it Jimbo. God made the universe in the Christian world view so since he built the universe, he knows how it works and far more about it than you or I. I'll explain more in a second.

According to my sources ( you know what they are) the "maker" of "the universe" is the "prodigal Son"...a breakaway concept...out of the Kingdom, so, out of the mind of Christ. It is imaginary, making everything in it's kingdom in its own image. As you can see, the prodigal Son is this and that...everything that makes up "the universe". The prodigal Son, as you recall from the story, retains his inheritance, asked for it...took it with him. This means he takes the power and status of "God" to his home away from home. This inheritance, as the story goes, is "squandered" on things of no value. Such is "the world". The power of the prodigal derives from omnipotence...so let us not underestimate it. It is able to "make" such a universe in the blink of an eye...and make it seem like reality itself. Yet, it is never more than a "far off land" that is somehow "outside" the "Kingdom of God". Here, we are separated from God and from each other. There is no advantage to being here except that, here, we can be special, each in our own way...going our own way. So, does the prodigal Son know how the universe works? Yes. But that is not good news. The good news is that the Savior knows how to dismantle it and take it apart without violence, or without violating the "will" of the mind(s) that made it.

Regards,
Urban Monk

[Anon]

God can suspend what we think of "natural laws" because they are just descriptions of what we have observed. He created the universe and the "law" of how things work. We might think that dead people stay dead, but why would that be a problem for God?

But God is still "bound" by logic. Logic is a language/math that describes rationality. Like saying A cannot be Not-A. The "law" of non-contradiction. God can't be God and Not-God at the same time. God can't make illogical items like square circles because they are not rational. They are just words strung together without any meaning.

I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph.

But the first paragraph needs to be clarified: natural laws are indeed descriptions of the observed, but if we have that as our sole description, we'll be forced into the "induction problem" - i.e., why is it that past event A with conditions x will yield the same result B should it occur (with a relatively unchanged context x') in the future? Science assumes it; if B' happens instead of B we don't say that A (or its relatively unchanged cousin A') no longer entails B, but that some condition in A' /A that we have not detected caused B' instead of the expected B. For instance, if I hit a baseball at my neighbor's window and break it, and then hit my baseball at my neighbor's window and don't break it even though it was going faster, I don't reject the notion that baseballs won't break glass - I'll probably conclude that, upon further observation, there's a storm window more protective of such things there instead of the old brittle one from before.

The philosophy is quite deeper, but the conclusion is this: natural laws are absolute, even if they can't be discovered as such in the context of human epistemology. This actually can be supported by the Bible - couple John 1:1 with Hebrews 1:1 and the Christian can conclude that creation must behave in logic and not by contingency that God can suspend somehow. What's the resolution? That God has properties such that He can produce effects that humanity (or other entities in observation) cannot. The laws are still natural, only: the singular entity which can do these things is God.

'Tis my take on the miracles problem, at least.

It remains to be shown that such a Being (def. "omniscient") exists.

[Anon]

According to my sources ( you know what they are) the "maker" of "the universe" is the "prodigal Son"...a breakaway concept...out of the Kingdom, so, out of the mind of Christ. It is imaginary, making everything in it's kingdom in its own image. As you can see, the prodigal Son is this and that...everything that makes up "the universe". The prodigal Son, as you recall from the story, retains his inheritance, asked for it...took it with him. This means he takes the power and status of "God" to his home away from home. This inheritance, as the story goes, is "squandered" on things of no value. Such is "the world". The power of the prodigal derives from omnipotence...so let us not underestimate it. It is able to "make" such a universe in the blink of an eye...and make it seem like reality itself. Yet, it is never more than a "far off land" that is somehow "outside" the "Kingdom of God". Here, we are separated from God and from each other. There is no advantage to being here except that, here, we can be special, each in our own way...going our own way. So, does the prodigal Son know how the universe works? Yes. But that is not good news. The good news is that the Savior knows how to dismantle it and take it apart without violence, or without violating the "will" of the mind(s) that made it.

Regards,
Urban Monk

Read Hebrews 1. Your source would have to expunge Hebrews from the Bible.

[Anon]

Uh, you are not a supernatural being. Pixie, are you?

In any case you don't seem to understand the point I am making. My point is this: Once you accept supernaturalism, the fantastical claims in the Bible become unfalsifiable to you. If someone explains to you that people cannot rise from the dead, you will say that God can rise from the dead or cause other people to rise from the dead because he is all-powerful. If someone informs you that people cannot walk on water, you will say that God can overcome any law of nature. If someone tells you that you cannot live forever, you will triumphantly proclaim that God will give you a miraculous, supernatural, everlasting permanent spirit body in heaven, because God can do anything. He is supernatural!

In other words, every logical, scientific, common sense objection to the fantastical claims in the Bible can be overcome by appealing to supernaturalism. Really, the Bible could say absolutely anything and it could not be falsified as long as one holds the premise that with God anything is possible. This appeal can be seen as a simple but effective way of protecting absurd Bible claims from critical examination by believers.

Maybe I am just stating the obvious but I hope this helps.

Jimbo

It's understood perfectly, yes. But aren't you just taking, as an unproven assumption, that God does not exist?

[Carrikature]

I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph.

But the first paragraph needs to be clarified: natural laws are indeed descriptions of the observed, but if we have that as our sole description, we'll be forced into the "induction problem" - i.e., why is it that past event A with conditions x will yield the same result B should it occur (with a relatively unchanged context x') in the future? Science assumes it; if B' happens instead of B we don't say that A (or its relatively unchanged cousin A') no longer entails B, but that some condition in A' /A that we have not detected caused B' instead of the expected B. For instance, if I hit a baseball at my neighbor's window and break it, and then hit my baseball at my neighbor's window and don't break it even though it was going faster, I don't reject the notion that baseballs won't break glass - I'll probably conclude that, upon further observation, there's a storm window more protective of such things there instead of the old brittle one from before.

The philosophy is quite deeper, but the conclusion is this: natural laws are absolute, even if they can't be discovered as such in the context of human epistemology. This actually can be supported by the Bible - couple John 1:1 with Hebrews 1:1 and the Christian can conclude that creation must behave in logic and not by contingency that God can suspend somehow. What's the resolution? That God has properties such that He can produce effects that humanity (or other entities in observation) cannot. The laws are still natural, only: the singular entity which can do these things is God.

'Tis my take on the miracles problem, at least.

I agree completely.

It remains to be shown that such a Being (def. "omniscient") exists.

Of course I don't agree with this.

Read Hebrews 1. Your source would have to expunge Hebrews from the Bible.

His source doesn't include the Bible, so I doubt that would be a problem.



@UrbanMonk:

Thanks for clarifying your position. I'm afraid I can't agree with any of it. Having read some of your other posts, there doesn't seem to a point debating with you, so I'll leave it at that.

[JimL]

Read Hebrews 1. Your source would have to expunge Hebrews from the Bible.

I think that what UrbanMonk is saying is that the Bible has it all wrong. That Jesus was not the son of God, that he was just a man who somehow attained a greater understanding of what life( Christ ) really is and therefore gave himself up to life( Christ ) on the cross in order to show others that death in this world is not to be feared because we all belong to Life( Christ ) eternally. Jesus in the Bible is identified as Christ( Life ), because he understood that he was one with it as are we all, supposedly for eternity.

So the theology that he is espousing, I think, that though it uses the biblical texts where it is helpful to their worldview, it interprets those texts in a totally new way or in a way that would have been more in line with what Jesus was actually trying to convey. In other words those who witnessed and wrote about him got his message confused, so that there is no need to be in accord with the bible, in this new worldview, rather, I think, they reinterpret it. Am I close UrbanMonk ?

[Anon]

I think that what UrbanMonk is saying is that the Bible has it all wrong. That Jesus was not the son of God, that he was just a man who somehow attained a greater understanding of what life( Christ ) really is and therefore gave himself up to life( Christ ) on the cross in order to show others that death in this world is not to be feared because we all belong to Life( Christ ) eternally. Jesus in the Bible is identified as Christ( Life ), because he understood that he was one with it as are we all, supposedly for eternity.

So the theology that he is espousing, I think, that though it uses the biblical texts where it is helpful to their worldview, it interprets those texts in a totally new way or in a way that would have been more in line with what Jesus was actually trying to convey. In other words those who witnessed and wrote about him got his message confused, so that there is no need to be in accord with the bible, in this new worldview, rather, I think, they reinterpret it. Am I close UrbanMonk ?

What? "Christ" means "anointed by God," not "Life."

[Anon]

Of course I don't agree with this.

OK, I'm not sure what you disagree with here - that such a Being does not need to be shown to exist? Or is this just a clever way to express that you already think the Deity has been shown to exist?