Nothing lasts forever in this life

[Trailblazer]

You can't claim that someone was the messenger of a god without first proving that the god exists.

Nobody can prove that God exists. God could prove He exists if He chose to do so but obviously God has not chosen to prove He exists because if He did, everyone would believe that God exists.

All we have is evidence because that is all that God provides. Evidence is not proof.

The Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists so we have to look at the Messengers in order to know that God exists.

 

[Trailblazer]

It absolutely does matter! If the "soul"/consciousness/personality/whatever you want to call it is just a product of electro-chemical activity in the brain and vanishes when the brain does, then there is no "afterlife", and the two main religions collapse.

No, such is not the case. The soul animates the brain and makes electro-chemical activity in the brain possible. When the brain dies the soul continues to exist and associated itself with a spiritual body in the spiritual world.

So the "soul" is a product of the physical brain then?

Nope. See above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Two more very specific claims about what the afterlife is like.

Nope. Two very specific claims about what the afterlife will not be like.
What the afterlife will not be like says nothing about what the afterlife will be like.

 

[Trailblazer]

If something cannot be detected by any means, has no effect on any measurable thing, and is not required for any known process to work - how is it any different to "nothing", and why should I believe it exists?

God can be detected by means of the Messengers of God, who are also Manifestations of God in the flesh.

Timothy-1 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[Trailblazer]

You clearly are blissfully unaware that you just repeated the same contradiction.

consciousness IS a product of the brain,
the soul is responsible for consciousness.
when we die and no longer have a brain, consciousness continues,

There is NO contradiction whatsoever.

The reason that consciousness continues (when we die and no longer have a brain) is because the soul, which is responsible for consciousness, does not die when the brain dies. The soul lives on in the spiritual world where it associates itself with a spiritual body and continues to be conscious.

Maybe if you would actually read what I actually say you might be able to understand it. You might not agree with it, but at least you would understand my actual position.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you say the afterlife does not have X, you are making a positive claims about what the afterlife is like!

That is drop dead illogical.
No, I am stating what the afterlife is not like.
Saying that the afterlife does not have X does not say what the afterlife has!

e.g.
John does not have blue eyes. John is not an engineer.
That does not tell us what color eyes John has or what John does for a living.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Nobody can prove that God exists. God could prove He exists if He chose to do so but obviously God has not chosen to prove He exists because if He did, everyone would believe that God exists.

All we have is evidence because that is all that God provides. Evidence is not proof.

The Messengers of God are the only real evidence that God exists so we have to look at the Messengers in order to know that God exists.

I believe that you are correct when you say that no one can prove that God exists, and I do not believe that anyone can disprove the existence of God either. And this is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist when it concerns the existence of the Christian God. In my opinion, no one, not me, you, or anyone else, can empirically or independently demonstrate whether God or any other god is real or not. No human has ever searched across all of space and time to give verifiable and empirical proof for the existence of deities, since humans lack omniscience, omnipotence, and the capacity to exist everywhere at once. We make decisions on whether or not to believe in gods or the supernatural based on the limited knowledge we have. As I previously stated, I was a Christian and I believed in one God but now I am a Wiccan who believes in multiple deities. However, I am unable to independently and scientifically prove the existence of these deities. By the same token, I am unable to independently and empirically prove whether the Christian God exists or not. And although I am unable to demonstrate the existence of any deities, I still choose to believe because I have my reasons for my spiritual beliefs and I believe in the afterlife. I'm aware that my belief in these deities is only supported by anecdotal evidence and it doesn't satisfy the requirements for empirical and verifiable evidence. Likewise, Christians who say, "God saved me and transformed my life" or "I feel God's presence in my life, so I know he is real," fall short of the standards for empirical and verifiable evidence too.

 

[Trailblazer]

So - what is the soul? And if our consciousness (which is who we are, our awareness of self) dies with the brain, what point is the afterlife?

Our consciousness does not die with the brain since the soul - which is responsible for consciousness - lives on after the brain dies. The soul leaves the body when we die and passes to the spiritual world, where it takes on a new form, a spiritual body, which is fully conscious.

The "soul" as you describe it isn't "us", it is simply a mechanism that facilitates "us".

The soul is "us"; it is the sum total of who we are as persons.
We are a soul, not a physical body. The physical body is simply what the soul associates with while we are living in a physical body.

Really? References please.

Private Dowding
The Afterlife Revealed

 

[Trailblazer]

So if human spirit is the soul, why isn't animal spirit a soul?

Simple. Because God did not endow the lower animals with a soul.

If the animal spirit continues after death, where does it go?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Bahaullah told Bahais to look to Abdulbaha as the perfect exemplar of Bahai faith and teaching, because he has been "purposed by god". Yet you disagree with him. So you disagree with Bahaullah.

It is completely illogical to say that if I disagree with Abdu'l-Baha I also disagree with Baha'u'llah, since they are two separate persons.

No, I do not disagree with Baha'u'llah, I disagree with Abdu'l-Baha on this matter, and so do many other Baha'is.

Which means that all your claims based on Bahaullah's infallibility can be dismissed.

No, it means that Abdu'l-Baha is not infallible because he was not a Manifestation of God.
Only Manifestations of God are infallible.

 

[Trailblazer]

*sigh*
Once again, if you cannot understand something, you cannot make definitive claims about it.
If you can't understand what time will be like in the afterlife, you cannot assert that it will not be like time here.

I think I have isolated the problem! Maybe persistence pays off.
The reason I say that it will not be like time here is because it cannot be like time here given it is a spiritual world where there is nothing physical by which to calculate and measure time. It cannot be like time here where time is measured by the sun, because there is no sun in the spiritual world.

*sigh*
Surely you are taking the **** now? Wellesley Tudor Pole was a Bahai! How can you seriously claim that his belief in the afterlife was not based on scripture?
The very concept of the soul is so inextricably entwined with religious belief that you can't really separate them.

It is the fallacy of jumping to conclusions to assume that just because he was a Baha'i that he based his book upon Baha'i scriptures. If you read the book you would know that he did not do so. He just happened to be a Baha'i but he was also a medium and he based his book upon communications he received from a spirit (soul) in the spiritual world. You should read the book sometime. It is a classic, and it is fun, and even if you do not believe what is in the book it will give you something to think about.

 

[Trailblazer]

How does Abdulbaha know? You said that it is unknowable.

I never said that everything is unknowable. Some things we can figure out just by using deductive reasoning.

You have also said that you don't agree with everything he said.

But that does not mean I do not agree with anything he said.

So your ideas of what the afterlife is like are based on Abdulbaha's ideas, which must be just speculation because he can't know. And you don't consider him to be an entirely reliable source.

Bzzzzzt! Abdu'l-Baha could know because he was the son of Baha'u'llah who was by his father's side all of his life, and Baha'u'llah knew what the afterlife was like (even though He did not tell us much of what He knew).

“Wert thou to ponder in thine heart the behavior of the Prophets of God thou wouldst assuredly and readily testify that there must needs be other worlds besides this world. The majority of the truly wise and learned have, throughout the ages, as it hath been recorded by the Pen of Glory in the Tablet of Wisdom, borne witness to the truth of that which the holy Writ of God hath revealed. Even the materialists have testified in their writings to the wisdom of these divinely-appointed Messengers, and have regarded the references made by the Prophets to Paradise, to hell fire, to future reward and punishment, to have been actuated by a desire to educate and uplift the souls of men. Consider, therefore, how the generality of mankind, whatever their beliefs or theories, have recognized the excellence, and admitted the superiority, of these Prophets of God. These Gems of Detachment are acclaimed by some as the embodiments of wisdom, while others believe them to be the mouthpiece of God Himself. How could such Souls have consented to surrender themselves unto their enemies if they believed all the worlds of God to have been reduced to this earthly life? Would they have willingly suffered such afflictions and torments as no man hath ever experienced or witnessed?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 157-158

*crunch, munch*

Do you want to just keep eating, or are you going to share some of that popcorn?
I am too busy answering your posts to run to the store.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is logical that something that does not exist will not show any evidence for itself.
It is not logical to claim that that something exists if there is no evidence for it.

There is evidence of the soul as it shows itself in man's personality.
There is evidence of God as it is manifested in the Messengers who are Manifestations of God.

But hypothetically, something can exist for which there is no evidence. For example, before 1930 there was no evidence of the planet Pluto, yet it existed long before 1930.

Are emotions physical? No. But they present evidence in the physical world.

Yes, but they do not present physical evidence. Emotions emanate from the mind of man which is not physical. The brain is physical but the mind isn't.

Traditionally, scientists have tried to define the mind as the product of brain activity: The brain is the physical substance, and the mind is the conscious product of those firing neurons, according to the classic argument. But growing evidence shows that the mind goes far beyond the physical workings of your brain.Dec 24, 2016

Scientists say your “mind" isn't confined to your brain, or even ...

 

[Trailblazer]

Er, yeah. If you make extraordinary claims that go against what we know about nature, then I would like some supporting evidence.
It's only logical.

I have presented the evidence I have, I cannot help it if you don't like that evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

You struggle to realise that you cannot claim someone is a messenger of god it you cannot show that god exists.
I understand that concept perfectly well.

We certainly can claim that someone is a Messenger of God, since the Messenger is the way we know that God exists.
I understand that concept perfectly well.

Ironically, you perfectly illustrated the cognitive issues pretty much all the Bahais on here seem to have. It really is quite a remarkable phenomenon.

Ironically, you perfectly illustrated the cognitive issues pretty much all the atheists on here seem to have. It really is quite a remarkable phenomenon.

 

[Trailblazer]

Of course it does! That is the fundamental issue here. Does the software require hardware to run?
The answer is an absolute "yes".

The answer is "yes" but only in the physical world.
Where there is no hardware, the software continues to run, for eternity.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't believe you, since there is ample evidence that consciousness is a product of functioning brain. There is no objective evidence for woo woo like souls.

No, there is no objective evidence of the soul, but objective evidence is not what makes anything exist.
Objective evidence is just what atheists want.

 

[Trailblazer]

Humans are animals, this is demonstrably true.

but that does not mean all animals are humans.

We are also a relatively new species, and our taxonomy is that we are part of the family of great apes.

Who said the great apes did not have a soul?

 

[Trailblazer]

Please cite the most compelling piece of objective evidence from those links for an afterlife?

I'd bet a months salary it will involve appeal to mystery and unevidenced assumption, as all such claims do.

You should know by now that I am not going present any objective evidence.

I am not going to appeal to any mysteries when talking to you because I know better....
You are going to lose your month's salary so I hope you don't need it to live on.

 

[Trailblazer]

But software can be transfered from one hardware to another.

or it can run with no hardware.

 

[Trailblazer]

You do realise that "the cloud" is just a term for massive room full of servers. It is most definitely "physical".

"The cloud" is physical but God's cloud is not physical.