The Exclusivity of Christianity

[Exaltist Ethan]

No it isn't. Believable has to be both plausible and have at LEAST a MODERATE level of evidence that an idea is true or likely true. The literallist notion of hell and what you proposed are not very plausible nor evidenced, so neither believable. Your thinking offers no evidencd basis for belief, it is more wishful thinking.

Many folks are very sloppy believers, and they have a mix of beliefs that are likely true with others that are absurd. If you follow these debates you will see how critical thinkers subject all ideas with the same scrutiny regardless how much they can appeal to human emotions. The theists among us show patterns of bias for ideas that feel good and satisfying. That's fine for the self's own meaning, but very poor in debate. Critical thinkers will subject ideas to the same scrutiny that believers won't, and we will explain why.

So you reject both my idea and @Trailblazer 's idea of the afterlife because there's no evidence for it, in your opinion. Your critical thinking can only go so far when it comes to planning for the future. You don't know the future and neither do I. But the evidence I see laid out before me is that technology has the ability to save lives and make people's lives better through various ways. If you reject the notion that people can be resurrected one day, then why not reject the idea of various technologies that are known to exist now? You don't, because they do. And one day I will awake from my sleep with a new body and an entire galaxy to control. You might not have hope for people because you're too focused on what's here and now, but I understand exactly what's going on.

My point is, you, Trailblazer and I all have conflicting view points that are not subjected to change while we're alive, but we are in a debate forum where said ideas are meant to be heard. The future is too difficult to fully understand for anyone to claim they were right about the whole ordeal anyways. I am a syntheist, you are an atheist and Trailblazer is a Baha'i. And there's nothing you can do to change that - you can only change your own opinions, something you don't want to do - and that's fine. When I debate with other people I am not trying to understand their opinion - I'm trying to understand my own. Syntheism is a very rare position in theology because it's right in-between the theists and atheists. But people need to know that there's more than two options in understanding this, and that's where I come in.

 

[F1fan]

So you reject both my idea and @Trailblazer 's idea of the afterlife because there's no evidence for it, in your opinion.

It's not my opinion that you all lack evidence, it's a fact you lack evidence, and that is why your beliefs are dismissed. If you want agreement then provide adequate evidence that your ideas are true or at least likely true, or at the very least plausible. Remember, if opinions are so bad be careful not to share yours without adequate justification and evidence.

Your critical thinking can only go so far when it comes to planning for the future.

Yup, I could be struck by lightening out of the blue. That's not part of any of my plans.

You don't know the future and neither do I.

I can plan a future and organize my life to make those goals likely. It tends to be the case, and for you too. Do you think you will wake up tomorrow and have breakfast?

But the evidence I see laid out before me is that technology has the ability to save lives and make people's lives better through various ways. If you reject the notion that people can be resurrected one day, then why not reject the idea of various technologies that are known to exist now?

Because for the reasons I brought up, that about brains that no longer exist. Where are those memories and experiences to resurrect? You seem to have overlooked this crucial issue.

You don't, because they do. And one day I will awake from my sleep with a new body and an entire galaxy to control. You might not have hope for people because you're too focused on what's here and now, but I understand exactly what's going on.

Wishful tinking. You offer no basis in fact for this.

Could it be you justy fear death and oblivion and this is a helpful illusion to offset the anxiety?

My point is, you, Trailblazer and I all have conflicting view points that are not subjected to change while we're alive, but we are in a debate forum where said ideas are meant to be heard.

They have been heard and criticisms offered. If you don't like the criticism then a forum isn't a good fit for you. Forums are an opportunity to learn and adjust thinking for the better.

The future is too difficult to fully understand for anyone to claim they were right about the whole ordeal anyways. I am a syntheist, you are an atheist and Trailblazer is a Baha'i. And there's nothing you can do to change that - you can only change your own opinions, something you don't want to do - and that's fine.

See how you deflect from your own problematic belief and thinking and accuse others of flaws? You offer no evidence for this, but it suggests you are feeling stress in this interaction. It's clearly projection. It's fine to criticize my thinking but you need to explain why and use facts, which you haven't. Just insisting I'm wrong isn't good enough.

When I debate with other people I am not trying to understand their opinion - I'm trying to understand my own.

Yet you are doing neither. You ignore the critique of others and look to reinforce your own opinion. Let's note you aren't debating either.

Syntheism is a very rare position in theology because it's right in-between the theists and atheists. But people need to know that there's more than two options in understanding this, and that's where I come in.

From what you have shared I can see why it is rare, and that is because there is little evidence that it is plausible.

And you keep saying opinion as if it's both a bad thing, but some is truth. That is a confusing stand. You seem to avoid the word "knowledge" in your posts which suggests to me you are more interested in a belief system and not any sort of knowledgable understanding about how things are. That's fine, but it is extremely limited and offers little as a platform in these forums.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

It's not my opinion that you all lack evidence, it's a fact you lack evidence, and that is why your beliefs are dismissed. If you want agreement then provide adequate evidence that your ideas are true or at least likely true, or at the very least plausible. Remember, if opinions are so bad be careful not to share yours without adequate justification and evidence.

The idea that people will get a reality afterlife they want is not as less plausible as you think. We already do that to some degree by having TVs, cars, and Internet forums where people can talk to each other. I just take that reality to its logical extreme.

Yup, I could be struck by lightening out of the blue. That's not part of any of my plans.

I can plan a future and organize my life to make those goals likely. It tends to be the case, and for you too. Do you think you will wake up tomorrow and have breakfast?

I am not talking about tomorrow. I am talking thousands of years into the future. I figure that life is a valuable thing and being alive is valuable, so coming back isn't less plausible if you consider the ramifications of that technology.

Because for the reasons I brought up, that about brains that no longer exist. Where are those memories and experiences to resurrect? You seem to have overlooked this crucial issue.

That is a very good point that you have me cornered in. I don't know how this is going to happen. I simply don't. But I'm going to take the risk of believing it anyways, because if I am right, then the expectation was earned, and if I am wrong, I won't know the difference anyway. There is some miraculous technologies that already exist that allow people to use holograms to talk to people who already died. No, I don't know how brains come back after they decompose, but that doesn't mean they won't.

Could it be you justy fear death and oblivion and this is a helpful illusion to offset the anxiety?

I don't have anxiety about death. I am hopeful that my idea of resurrection will eventually take off and we find ways of bringing people who no longer exist back. I had this thought when I was 14, when, I asked myself, "what isn't possible?" The thought was, if I couldn't say, "but you can't do that" I would correct that thinking because it is possible. I don't claim to know all the answers, but I know enough that life and living is valuable enough that we will want it back one day, enough so that we will correct the mistakes in nature for making us mortal to begin with.

See how you deflect from your own problematic belief and thinking and accuse others of flaws? You offer no evidence for this, but it suggests you are feeling stress in this interaction. It's clearly projection. It's fine to criticize my thinking but you need to explain why and use facts, which you haven't. Just insisting I'm wrong isn't good enough.

"Being the last person to speak doesn't make you right, it just makes you louder than everybody else in the room." You reject my syntheistic facts like you reject the facts of the Baha'i Faith. I reject facts of the Baha'i Faith too and we can both agree that the Baha'i Faith makes little sense when trying to understand the whole picture among things. Life is valuable enough to come back, that's my case, and if you don't think it's possible, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it will always be this way. You can project what's going to happen tomorrow but not what is going to happen a thousand years from now, nor would you even want to honestly.

Yet you are doing neither. You ignore the critique of others and look to reinforce your own opinion. Let's note you aren't debating either.

As long as we are on this forum we are both debating. Sharing ideas and concepts.

From what you have shared I can see why it is rare, and that is because there is little evidence that it is plausible.

There's little evidence that the Catholic view point is correct as well but there's literally billions of Catholics that exist. Being rare or common doesn't negate the validity of an argument.

And you keep saying opinion as if it's both a bad thing, but some is truth. That is a confusing stand. You seem to avoid the word "knowledge" in your posts which suggests to me you are more interested in a belief system and not any sort of knowledgable understanding about how things are. That's fine, but it is extremely limited and offers little as a platform in these forums.

Yet I often say things like, "in my opinion", "the way I see things", "my idea is". I'm not proselytizing any more than @Trailblazer is by simply creating and posting on this thread.

 

[Trailblazer]

And when your luck runs out or your circumstances change and you no longer have the rosy control over how your life unfolds, what then? How are you going to muster the hope and courage to keep moving forward when all your assessed probabilities tell you that doom is inevitable? Or are you just going to check out; take your ball and go home, then, because you can't win the game, anymore?

It is luck, and some people are lucky and some are not. It is not mostly what they choose to do that causes their lives to unfold as they do, it is fate, yet they think they made it happen, as if they have that much control.

Some people fool themselves into thinking that their luck will never run out just because it hasn't happened yet but it is just a matter of time, as the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. I know that only too well.

“While a man is happy he may forget his God; but when grief comes and sorrows overwhelm him, then will he remember his Father who is in Heaven, and who is able to deliver him from his humiliations.”
Paris Talks, pp. 50-51

 

[Trailblazer]

That's ultimately where we disagree on the most. I believe you will have more free will in the afterlife than you do in this life, you think there will be less, or really, no free will. If I don't have any free will in the afterlife I really don't want to have an afterlife, honestly. What's the point of living if you can't, well, live?

I don't believe we will have the same kind of free will as we have in this life, since the spiritual world is different from this world, but I think there will be something akin to free will, I just don't know what that will be.

And as far as Shoghi Effendi's comment about the afterlife is considered, only Baha'is who do good works will enter the kingdom of Heaven anyways. This line of thinking is tribalism and does not promote the unity of humankind together. If he were to say anyone who believes in any manifestation and does good works goes to Heaven, I could almost get on board with such an idea, but the afterlife is not a place where only Baha'u'llah has the keys to get into!

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)

If you read the quote again, he was not saying that you have to have both of the two things, although having both would be better. Also you need to realize the context of the letter, as he was responding to a person who was already a Baha'i who was asking him about Heaven. He also said that God can accept anyone into Heaven if He pleases.

In the passage below Baha'u'llah wrote that anyone who is a follower of the one true God will go to Heaven. Since He says that God is the Lord of all Faiths, that indicates that anyone who follows God through any Faith will get to Heaven.

“They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness as would be impossible to describe, while they that live in error shall be seized with such fear and trembling, and shall be filled with such consternation, as nothing can exceed. Well is it with him that hath quaffed the choice and incorruptible wine of faith through the gracious favor and the manifold bounties of Him Who is the Lord of all Faiths…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Logically speaking, it is obvious that not only Baha'is will be in heaven, since there was a time before Baha'u'llah came and millions of people died before that, so if they believed in God through any manifestation and did good works they would be in Heaven.

Baha'u'llah also wrote the following. Not only Baha'is are confident believers. Those of other religions are also confident believers.

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.” Gleanings, p. 345

 

[Trailblazer]

Yup, I could be struck by lightening out of the blue. That's not part of any of my plans.

Or you could get in a car accident and die or become disabled, or you could get cancer.
These are not things that anyone plans for.

I can plan a future and organize my life to make those goals likely. It tends to be the case, and for you too.

That is all you can do, try to make your goals more likely, but you cannot control fate.
Often I am hearing of a person who retired and had big plans but then he got cancer or had a heart attack and died.
Or a spouse might get very ill or die and all plans for the future with that spouse go right out the window.

I finally realized that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you think memories, knowledge, experiences, etc. that any arbitrary person had in life before their death is recorded somewhere? Where is this data?

I've had similar intuitions. I think they come in part from Sheldrakes morphic fields, a controversial idea that has damaged his professional reputation, but one I find provocative. He asserts that the DNA does not contain all of the information needed to shape an developing organism). From Morphic Resonance and Morphic Fields an Introduction : "Over the course of fifteen years of research on plant development, I came to the conclusion that for understanding the development of plants, their morphogenesis, genes and gene products are not enough."

The reason is I have similar intuitions about instincts. I just don't see them being carried by the DNA, which codes for proteins. Yes, an incredulity argument if stated as fact, but it's a nagging intuition nevertheless.

Lastly, I find it curious that Newton and Leibnitz each developed calculus independently at the same time. Sure, that could be coincidence, but it's also consistent with a common repository of knowledge into which we all contribute and which in turn affects us, perhaps manifesting as instinct.

I understand how flimsy all of this is. I mention it because I have ideas like this for decades, and they are compelling tome. I trust that somewhat but not like I do reason.

It is not mostly what they choose to do that causes their lives to unfold as they do, it is fate, yet they think they made it happen, as if they have that much control.

Our fates are dependent both on things we cannot control and those we can. Nobody has a good outcome without good luck, but even that is not enough for many, who still end up in prison or strung out on drugs or shot by a jealous husband even with all of the advantages. They wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory. You know people like that and so do I. We call them foolish.

That is all you can do, try to make your goals more likely, but you cannot control fate.

Not completely, but one does have partial control if he knows how to effect outcomes successfully. It's what I've been discussing for years now about knowledge and truth being that which is demonstrably correct, the demonstration being the successful prediction of outcomes and using that information to maximize desirable ones and minimizing undesirable ones as just described.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I don't believe we will have the same kind of free will as we have in this life, since the spiritual world is different from this world, but I think there will be something akin to free will, I just don't know what that will be.

I figure you can't do bad things, and can't make anyone a victim, including yourself. But then again, your abilities to do good should be greatly expanded, so there should be as much free will in Heaven as there is on Earth. And I figure if we all know the truth regarding life's deepest questions and know God exists, pretty much everybody will want to draw into that light, even if they proclaimed atheism or anti-theism on Earth. There is going to be a temporary Hell however knowing just how wrong their beliefs were. Remember though, that this life is several years, whereas the afterlife is for eternity.

I think it's possible to raise or lower your divinity after death, so some people that were close to God here on Earth might not be close to God in the afterlife, they might change their mind and distance themselves from Him. I do not think that one thing stays the same forever, even God, and people will fluctuate between being closer and further from God in the spiritual world as they agree or disagree with His decisions in that spiritual world... If there even is a spiritual world. I tend not to agree with the idea of a spiritual world, but it might be useful one day to tap into in order to find their energy and reassemble it for the physical, material world again.

Honestly, what I believe reality is, is like light. Both a particle and a waveform. When you die the particle part goes away and you are left with a waveform. What that waveform is and how it interacts with other things is up for debate. But as soon as it is possible to transform that waveform back into particles, I think it would be much desired to go back to the physical world even if there is a spiritual world for those waves and they're happy with it.

"To 'get to heaven' as you say is dependent on two things--faith in the Manifestation of God in His Day, in other words in this age in Bahá'u'lláh; and good deeds, in other words living to the best of our ability a noble life and doing unto others as we would be done by. But we must always remember that our existence and everything we have or ever will have is dependent upon the mercy of God and His bounty, and therefore He can accept into His heaven, which is really nearness to Him, even the lowliest if He pleases. We always have the hope of receiving His mercy if we reach out for it." (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, January 12, 1957)

If you read the quote again, he was not saying that you have to have both of the two things, although having both would be better. Also you need to realize the context of the letter, as he was responding to a person who was already a Baha'i who was asking him about Heaven. He also said that God can accept anyone into Heaven if He pleases.

In the passage below Baha'u'llah wrote that anyone who is a follower of the one true God will go to Heaven. Since He says that God is the Lord of all Faiths, that indicates that anyone who follows God through any Faith will get to Heaven.

“They that are the followers of the one true God shall, the moment they depart out of this life, experience such joy and gladness as would be impossible to describe, while they that live in error shall be seized with such fear and trembling, and shall be filled with such consternation, as nothing can exceed. Well is it with him that hath quaffed the choice and incorruptible wine of faith through the gracious favor and the manifold bounties of Him Who is the Lord of all Faiths…” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Logically speaking, it is obvious that not only Baha'is will be in heaven, since there was a time before Baha'u'llah came and millions of people died before that, so if they believed in God through any manifestation and did good works they would be in Heaven.

Baha'u'llah also wrote the following. Not only Baha'is are confident believers. Those of other religions are also confident believers.

“Death proffereth unto every confident believer the cup that is life indeed. It bestoweth joy, and is the bearer of gladness. It conferreth the gift of everlasting life.” Gleanings, p. 345

This borders on Universalism, and I am so glad you aren't so tribalistic to think only Baha'is are going to Heaven. Are all people who follow God good people? No. Are all people who are atheists bad people? Again, no. But a believer of God who is also a good person might as well be creating that God here on Earth, which will be very useful when we find ways to use the latest technology to either tap into the spiritual world or bring them back and physically resurrect them.

There just doesn't seem to be much evidence for a spiritual world that I happen to agree with, but I do believe it is possible to exist as a waveform without a particle. I would think, then, that one day we'll use theosophy and knowledge of the spirit world to bring back waveforms from the dead and give them a physical presence again. To me that is very important, as I believe more things ultimately can be done physically than spiritually, although it may be possible to one day shut down the body and enter the spirit world without actually having to die, and if that happens, it will dramatically change and reform society. (Or does this already happen by dreaming? Hmm...)

These are good conversations! It lets me think outside the box. Thank you!

 

[F1fan]

The idea that people will get a reality afterlife they want is not as less plausible as you think. We already do that to some degree by having TVs, cars, and Internet forums where people can talk to each other. I just take that reality to its logical extreme.

How does having TVs, cars and internet forums indicate any sort of afterlife/immortality. I don't see any connection here.

I am not talking about tomorrow. I am talking thousands of years into the future. I figure that life is a valuable thing and being alive is valuable, so coming back isn't less plausible if you consider the ramifications of that technology.

You are still just guessing, not making a prediction.

That is a very good point that you have me cornered in. I don't know how this is going to happen. I simply don't. But I'm going to take the risk of believing it anyways, because if I am right, then the expectation was earned, and if I am wrong, I won't know the difference anyway. There is some miraculous technologies that already exist that allow people to use holograms to talk to people who already died. No, I don't know how brains come back after they decompose, but that doesn't mean they won't.

This is how religious belief works, you have an idea that apveals to emotion and that is why you belueve it, not because it is rational and based on fact.

I don't have anxiety about death. I am hopeful that my idea of resurrection will eventually take off and we find ways of bringing people who no longer exist back. I had this thought when I was 14, when, I asked myself, "what isn't possible?" The thought was, if I couldn't say, "but you can't do that" I would correct that thinking because it is possible. I don't claim to know all the answers, but I know enough that life and living is valuable enough that we will want it back one day, enough so that we will correct the mistakes in nature for making us mortal to begin with.

Well atheists certainly have no illusions about an afterlife. We know it is a common belief in the Abrahamic religions, and I susvec t it was designed for the purpose of attracting believers. The idea directly exploits the fear of death which many have. You may or may not, but there is no rational reason you are guessing you will be resurrected so it's likely emotional. It's not unusual for religious concepts to act on the subconscious and the believe unaware of the motive for their beliefs.

"Being the last person to speak doesn't make you right, it just makes you louder than everybody else in the room." You reject my syntheistic facts like you reject the facts of the Baha'i Faith. I reject facts of the Baha'i Faith too and we can both agree that the Baha'i Faith makes little sense when trying to understand the whole picture among things. Life is valuable enough to come back, that's my case, and if you don't think it's possible, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it will always be this way. You can project what's going to happen tomorrow but not what is going to happen a thousand years from now, nor would you even want to honestly.

I haven't seen you post any facts that your views are correct, and by logical default I reject them. It's not personal, it's that you haven't earned a positive judgment due to a lack of evidence.

As long as we are on this forum we are both debating. Sharing ideas and concepts.

No, debate is a process where parties debate evidence to conclusions that are valid. Ideally some parties lack knowledge of some facts and data, and their judgments are incorrect. We also discuss the course of actions, but that depends on having the same set of facts to discuss outcomes. For example we could discuss climate change and what the best solutions are, and the debate could revolve around how the reduction of fossil fuels will harm some industry and workers, and how green energy is expensive. So a compromise would be a valid result. But there is no debate with those who are climate change deniers. There is no debate with creationists, the discussions are about explaining to Christians who have bought into misinformation that they have been duped.

There's little evidence that the Catholic view point is correct as well but there's literally billions of Catholics that exist. Being rare or common doesn't negate the validity of an argument.

I don't think there are billions of Catholics, but even if there was the numbers are irrelevant. Your view being rare isn't why I reject it, it is due to a lack of evidence. That's based on the merits.

Yet I often say things like, "in my opinion", "the way I see things", "my idea is". I'm not proselytizing any more than @Trailblazer is by simply creating and posting on this thread.

Well opinions need evidence, too. I see a lot of folks state their bad opinions as if they are famous or something, and we care what they think. No. To share an opinion in debate there has to be some basis for sharing it that has significance. We don't care that other members believe in what they do, we care about what evidence shows their belief true or likely true.

 

[F1fan]

Or you could get in a car accident and die or become disabled, or you could get cancer.
These are not things that anyone plans for.

That is all you can do, try to make your goals more likely, but you cannot control fate.
Often I am hearing of a person who retired and had big plans but then he got cancer or had a heart attack and died.
Or a spouse might get very ill or die and all plans for the future with that spouse go right out the window.

That is the lottery of life. No guarantees. It helps to be more cautious and proactive as it raies your odds of a longer life.

I finally realized that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Rather it's just how nature works. Bringing a God into only begs more questions that don't get answered.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Your view being rare isn't why I reject it, it is due to a lack of evidence.

This is your whole argument in a nutshell. I may not have evidence of this resurrection, but there’s plenty of things once thought impossible that we can do now, too. Human life is a valuable asset, and having as many people as possible in the distant future is going to be a necessity, and eventually, we will find ways to resurrect people because that will become easier to make people than the natural method. Of course, as we explore new planets we’ll still need new people to inhabit these worlds, and having all the tools necessary to do this is going to take a lot of people to do. We are not overpopulated as a society, we are deeply underpopulated, because one day we won’t just have the world to explore but everything around it too. I see a need for more life to exist in the deep and dark distant future, and with that, we will develop technologies that will fulfill that need.

I’ll give you an exercise in how I think. Let’s take the idea “humans can’t fly.” Well, they can’t. Or can they? They have airplanes now. Well, “humans cannot fly without airplanes” but here’s the thing - airplanes make up a lot of the space in airports and other places. That’s why it’s literally impossible to say things like “can’t” without using the word “without”, because there will always be conditions that something like that is indeed possible. That’s how I initially came to my Syntheist revelation when I was growing up. Anything is possible as long as you don’t put conditions down as what is or isn’t acceptable. And overall I am more prone to concepts like this than you are. That’s fine, because it gets me to explain myself more thoroughly.

Btw, people don’t need to agree on anything to make it a debate. We are in Religious Debates and we wouldn’t be doing this if it were in Interfaith or a DIR. And I’m fine with that.

 

[F1fan]

This is your whole argument in a nutshell. I may not have evidence of this resurrection, but there’s plenty of things once thought impossible that we can do now, too.

Irrelevant. This doesn't mean your idea will be the next one.

And yes, my position is that when a person makes a claim they need evidence to support it. That is debate and logic.

Human life is a valuable asset, and having as many people as possible in the distant future is going to be a necessity, and eventually, we will find ways to resurrect people because that will become easier to make people than the natural method.

This is a science fiction story. You make a lot of claims here and fail to expalin why any are true, so all are rejected by default.

Of course, as we explore new planets we’ll still need new people to inhabit these worlds, and having all the tools necessary to do this is going to take a lot of people to do. We are not overpopulated as a society, we are deeply underpopulated, because one day we won’t just have the world to explore but everything around it too. I see a need for more life to exist in the deep and dark distant future, and with that, we will develop technologies that will fulfill that need.

This is Star Trek.

I’ll give you an exercise in how I think. Let’s take the idea “humans can’t fly.” Well, they can’t. Or can they? They have airplanes now. Well, “humans cannot fly without airplanes” but here’s the thing - airplanes make up a lot of the space in airports and other places. That’s why it’s literally impossible to say things like “can’t” without using the word “without”, because there will always be conditions that something like that is indeed possible. That’s how I initially came to my Syntheist revelation when I was growing up. Anything is possible as long as you don’t put conditions down as what is or isn’t acceptable. And overall I am more prone to concepts like this than you are. That’s fine, because it gets me to explain myself more thoroughly.

You are admitting to thinking like a child and imagining a future that you like. This isn't knowledge, nor a sound prediction.

Frankly I don't see space travel outside of our solar system any time soon, like even 1000 years. Why? Because the physics and human biology are very problematic. Now I could be wrong about that but experts have not been able to form any plausible way to move humans hundreds of lightyears away and not suffer certain problems. Just to travel to another livable planet will take hundreds of years, if not more, and that is assuming they can travel at the speed of light. And the money required will be difficult to justify on a planet with growing billions that are stressing the planet in new ways, namely climate change. That will absorb a lot of money soon, like in the next 20-30 years. At some point there is going to be a breakdown of sustaining life, and there will be a global crisis that will need to find a balance before we can resume space programs and the arts, etc.

Btw, people don’t need to agree on anything to make it a debate. We are in Religious Debates and we wouldn’t be doing this if it were in Interfaith or a DIR. And I’m fine with that.

It's not agreement, it is the LACK OF EVIDENCE. Those who come to debate forums with views that lack evidence can't debate them. They make claims, and they face critique of making claims they can't support.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is the lottery of life. No guarantees. It helps to be more cautious and proactive as it raises your odds of a longer life.

That's true. If I had been more careful rather than being in such a big hurry when I was riding my bike to work one morning I would not have run into that shopping cart someone left right in the middle of the sidewalk!

Rather it's just how nature works. Bringing a God into only begs more questions that don't get answered.

That's true. If would be the same scenario whether God exists or not. In life, we are given certain things and then they are taken away.
I believe it is fate and fate would still exist whether God exists or not.

I just threw in that verse from the Bible since I have been thinking of all that I believe God has taken away and I am still waiting for what God is going to give me although I will probably be waiting till hell freezes over.

 

[Trailblazer]

I figure you can't do bad things, and can't make anyone a victim, including yourself. But then again, your abilities to do good should be greatly expanded, so there should be as much free will in Heaven as there is on Earth.

I think that the Baha'i Faith teaching that there is no free will in the spiritual world it means we will no longer be able to choose between good and evil as we can do in this world, but that does not mean we won't be able to choose. I think that those souls who were selfish and attached to the material world pleasures in this life will be that way in the spiritual world, only there will be no way to fulfill their desires since there is nothing physical in the spiritual world, and that will be Hell for them. By contrast, those souls who love God and other people and do good deeds in this life will be that way in the spiritual world. But that does not mean souls cannot progress and improve their condition. I believe our souls progress along a new line after we enter the spiritual world but we can only progress with the spiritual qualities we brought with us. I just remembered this article where I read that.

A long article on death and dying is found in the Baha’i Library online. The part about death and dying starts on the middle of page 4. It is very informative since the writer was able to read the original writings of Baha’u’llah penned in Persian and Arabic, so he had an advantage over Baha’is who only speak English, since there are many Tablets of Baha’u’llah that have not been translated into English yet.

Death and Dying in the Bahá’í Faith

Below is a short excerpt from the long article. Since it says the challenge of life in this world continues in the world of spiritual reality to me that indicates that we must have something like free will, to meet the challenges.

"Death is regarded as the shedding away of the physical frame but no more, the real part of the person is the soul, which is indestructible. In this there is nothing new, but the Bahá’í thought added another dimension to this idea. The soul is the sum total of the personality it is the person himself; the physical body is pure matter with no real identity. The person, having left his material side behind, remains the same person, and he continues the life he conducted in the physical world. His heaven therefore is the continuation of the pure life that he conducted in the physical world, and his hell is the continuation of the immoral life, which he conducted on earth. The effort to come nearer to God in the physical world continues with coming near God in the heaven of the mystical paradise. Remoteness from God in the physical life means remoteness in the world to come.

The challenge of life in this world continues in the world of spiritual reality as well, only that in the latter the meeting of this challenge is easier because the person is free from physical needs.

Bahá’u’lláh explains that since the mystery of death has such fateful effects, it better remains unrevealed, but he confides that far from being an occasion for grief, death is an opportunity for joy. For the soul is freed from the material form just like the bird is freed when the cage is broken."

And I figure if we all know the truth regarding life's deepest questions and know God exists, pretty much everybody will want to draw into that light, even if they proclaimed atheism or anti-theism on Earth. There is going to be a temporary Hell however knowing just how wrong their beliefs were. Remember though, that this life is several years, whereas the afterlife is for eternity.

I do not believe that is what will happen. I mean I do not think that people who did not have that spiritual awareness in this life will suddenly have it when they die and enter the spiritual world, and sadly, they may never have it at all.

I think there will be something like purgatory where all souls go when they first enter the spiritual world. I have read this in a book entitled Private Dowding and I believe it even though It does not say this in the Baha'i Writings.

I think it's possible to raise or lower your divinity after death, so some people that were close to God here on Earth might not be close to God in the afterlife, they might change their mind and distance themselves from Him.

Based upon the Bible and the Baha'i Writings, I don't believe we will be able to change our minds after we die and that is precisely why it is so important to 'get it right' in this life. This short excerpt from the Writings of Baha'u'llah indicates we won't have a second chance.

“He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner attained, at the hour of death, to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the Concourse on high! And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire!” Tablet of the True Seeker, p. 266

I do not think that one thing stays the same forever, even God, and people will fluctuate between being closer and further from God in the spiritual world as they agree or disagree with His decisions in that spiritual world... If there even is a spiritual world. I tend not to agree with the idea of a spiritual world, but it might be useful one day to tap into in order to find their energy and reassemble it for the physical, material world again.

No, I don't think that souls will stay the same forever. Baha'u'llah wrote that souls will continue to progress forever, and there is no retrogression.

This borders on Universalism, and I am so glad you aren't so tribalistic to think only Baha'is are going to Heaven. Are all people who follow God good people? No. Are all people who are atheists bad people? Again, no.

If people really did follow the teachings and laws of God they would be good people, whether they are atheists or believers.

No, atheists are not bad people but there are consequences for not believing in God in this earthly life, although I cannot say exactly what they are. Only God knows.

These are good conversations! It lets me think outside the box. Thank you!

Thanks to you too. It helps me to think it through, and there is always more to think about since nothing is written in marble. Baha'is do not believe in the Heaven and Hell dichotomy that some Christians believe in. That is much too simple, because nobody is either all good or all bad. This belief that all one has to do is believe that Jesus died for our sins and that is a ticket to Heaven is much too simple, and that is not even what Jesus said, it is a Christian doctrine.

 

[Trailblazer]

Our fates are dependent both on things we cannot control and those we can.

That's true. From a believer's perspective what happens to us in this life is a combination of what we choose with our free will and what we don't choose, what happens to us that we have no control over, which I consider to be fated by God. But even if there is no God fate would still exist and it would be dependent both on things we cannot control and those we can.

Nobody has a good outcome without good luck, but even that is not enough for many, who still end up in prison or strung out on drugs or shot by a jealous husband even with all of the advantages. They wrestle defeat from the jaws of victory. You know people like that and so do I. We call them foolish.

Even if those people were fortunate in certain ways, their good luck would be counterbalanced by the bad choices they made with their free will and/or the bad people they choose to be affiliated with.

Not completely, but one does have partial control if he knows how to effect outcomes successfully. It's what I've been discussing for years now about knowledge and truth being that which is demonstrably correct, the demonstration being the successful prediction of outcomes and using that information to maximize desirable ones and minimizing undesirable ones as just described.

That is true. One has more control if they make an effort to effect outcomes, like what you did when you carefully planned to retire to Mexico. You had a good outcome because you did the necessary research and planning. A person is less likely to have a good outcome if they don't plan at all, although it is possible if they are lucky. That is congruent with what Baha'u'llah wrote, that success or failure, gain or loss, depends upon man’s own exertions, and the more man strives, the greater will be his progress.

 

[Trailblazer]

This again? Why do you think anybody needs to do that? Seriously, why do you keep posting this? Atheists don't need disproof of gods, and theists don't need proof.

But if by 'God' you mean the god of the Old Testament, the god of Abraham, that one can be disproven, but only to a prepared mind ready to hear the disproof, meaning one capable of evaluating an argument for soundness and willing to change his mind following a compelling argument. Without that, and in the presence of a faith-based confirmation bias, there is no burden of proof. Teaching is a cooperative process, and experience tells us that it is nearly impossible to convince a person of that which he has stake in not believing.

No, God does not need to be proven or dis-proven.
No, you cannot disprove the God of the Old Testament, you can only have a personal opinion that no such God exists. I also am of the opinion that the God depicted in the Old Testament is mostly man-made anthropomorphic God, and as such is difficult to parse out what might be trur about that God vs. what is false.

Unverifiable claims should not be called true, but it would be a logical fallacy to call them false without falsification.

They should not be claimed to be true but they can be believed to be true.

I don't want any idea in my belief set that can only be believed by faith. You seem to think that if the faith-based belief follows looking at evidence that it is sound. It is not. The trope 'I have evidence but not proof, and I belief by that evidence and faith' means that you believe by faith. One drop of faith in an argument and the entire argument becomes unsound. Maybe your addition is impeccable except for just one mistake. If so, your sum is wrong. That's how faith contaminates reason. A little bit of faith and it's all faith.

This again? I have said repeatedly that there is no logical argument that can ever prove God exists, so there is no such thing as a sound or unsound argument for God's existence. If people want to believe in God they have to believe on faith and the evidence God provided. If you don't find it acceptable by all means remain a nonbeliever.

Faith does not contaminate reason because any person of reason would be able to figure out that God must be believed on faith if God is going to be believed in since God does not provide proof of His existence.

No, you don't. And that's demonstrably true as we'll see next:

That's an unsound argument. It contains a well-characterized fallacy. Can you name it despite committing it?

When I said that God is real because God exists I was not making a claim, I was only stating a belief.
I was responding to what @F1fan said "Gods are in the same category as imaginary characters."

I did not commit any fallacy since I did not present a logical argument. There is no unsound argument there since there is no argument at all. When are you going to stop trying to turn my beliefs into logical arguments? The premise God exists can never be proven so no the conclusion God exists can never be drawn. Case closed.

If you need faith to believe anything, then you shouldn't believe it. Tossing the word evidence in there doesn't make belief by faith any more sound.

Nobody tells me what I should believe. Do I tell you what you should believe? It is my business what I believe and it is your business what you disbelieve.

That's not a rebuttal. Nor is it correct. Millions agree with me that belief by faith is unjustified belief whether they use those words or not.

You just stepped in a pile of dog crap. If you are going to try to use that argument, many, many, more millions agree with me that belief by faith is justified belief whether they use those words or not.

It is in fact correct. There is a word faith that means unjustified belief, just as there is another word of the same spelling and pronunciation (homonyms that are both homographs and homophones) that means justified belief, and another that means a religion. Capitalized, it's also a girl's name. In the phrases good and bad faith, it refers to intention and trustworthiness.

Not only is it a rebuttal, it is correct. All of your deflection will not change that.
The word faith means what the definition says.

faith

• complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

You are wrong, so why not just fold your deck?
You believe that faith is unjustified but that is just your personal opinion, and most people in the world who believe in God (93% of the world population) hold the opinion that faith is justified.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

Frankly I don't see space travel outside of our solar system any time soon, like even 1000 years. Why? Because the physics and human biology are very problematic. Now I could be wrong about that but experts have not been able to form any plausible way to move humans hundreds of lightyears away and not suffer certain problems. Just to travel to another livable planet will take hundreds of years, if not more, and that is assuming they can travel at the speed of light. And the money required will be difficult to justify on a planet with growing billions that are stressing the planet in new ways, namely climate change. That will absorb a lot of money soon, like in the next 20-30 years. At some point there is going to be a breakdown of sustaining life, and there will be a global crisis that will need to find a balance before we can resume space programs and the arts, etc.

Yes, there's a lot of reasons that things could get worse rather than better. I tend to look through the lens with pragmatic optimism though. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a YouTube video with a caption like, "Are we near the end of the United States?" Still, humans have only existed for 200,000 years, civilization has only existed for roughly 6,000 years, and yet, before the Sun explodes and the collapse of heat happens, we have roughly another ten billion years before the end of the Sun occurs. Another thousand years is a speck of time in the grand scale of things, and we'll probably find ways to travel to other planets that doesn't involve going to outer space (wormholes maybe?). I just have hope that things will get better. A few thousand years ago the average age expectancy was 35 years, and now its doubled that. I also realize there is a cap on how old people can be before their cells stop dividing, but with any hope we'll find ways around that limit. If there is a breakdown which we cannot sustain life anymore, and things do turn for the worse, I believe that setback will only be temporary. Two steps forward, one step back.

Thanks to you too.

It sounds like we are in agreement of a lot of things about the afterlife, except for one thing: the ability for people to choose God's sovereignty over them after they are dead. If there is a purgatory that exists after death, I would think people would know instinctively that they were either right or wrong about their assertions and choose the right path. For this, I have spiritual hope for most people.

And that's ultimately where we separate. F1fan doesn't have as much hope as me that things will get much better here on Earth, in the physical world, and Trailblazer doesn't have as much hope as me when it comes to the spiritual world and people redeeming themselves in the afterlife. I am more in the line with Universalists, I believe and hope that things get better both in the physical and the spiritual world, where actuable. I simply believe that in the afterlife people will be educated and forced to change in order to build a better society for all. Call it faith, call it hope, call it a position without evidence - these are simply the terms I lay out for myself to understand things I can't right now.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith does not contaminate reason because any person of reason would be able to figure out that God must be believed on faith if God is going to be believed in since God does not provide proof of His existence.

That comment doesn't require faith to believe. The faith comes in jumping from if God exists to God exists.

When I said that God is real because God exists I was not making a claim, I was only stating a belief.

You were doing both.

I did not commit any fallacy since I did not present a logical argument.

You wrote, "God is real because God exists." Your fallacy is circular argument. Your premise and conclusion are the same - God exists because God exists. That's a fallacy in academia. I realize that you don't respect that.

If you are going to try to use that argument, many, many, more millions agree with me that belief by faith is justified belief whether they use those words or not.

They have no criteria for their belief beyond the will to believe, and their methods are to make claims and then create specious arguments to try to support the claims using any rules they like. No two give the same argument or employ the same rules of inference. By way of contrast, the critical thinkers come to their atheism by the same path, and enjoy consensus in their arguments.

Here's a column of numbers:

3486
+2208
+9795
--------

One hundred people skilled at addition and all using the same method come to consensus: 15489. One hundred people who haven't learned to add and all use a different method (maybe they consult a holy book) all give a different answer: infinity. Ask them how they got to that conclusion and you'll see a hundred different answers.

Not only is it a rebuttal, it is correct. All of your deflection will not change that.
The word faith means what the definition says.

faith

• complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
• strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

faith means - Google Search

You are wrong, so why not just fold your deck?

Your response supports my definition of faith as unjustified belief. Spiritual apprehension means without empirical justification, which is called proof there.

 

[Trailblazer]

It sounds like we are in agreement of a lot of things about the afterlife, except for one thing: the ability for people to choose God's sovereignty over them after they are dead. If there is a purgatory that exists after death, I would think people would know instinctively that they were either right or wrong about their assertions and choose the right path. For this, I have spiritual hope for most people.

I believe it is the opposite way around, that God has sovereignty over people after they die. In this life God also has sovereignty over people, but God allows us free will to chose between good and evil.

I think that the purpose of purgatory is so people can think about what they have done in this life and realize what they have done wrong. The more they have done wrong, the longer they will spend in purgatory. After they are purged they can move on and choose the right path.

Here are some quotes about purgatory from the book Private Dowding by Wellesley Tudor Pole.

“There are many forms. Each of us creates his own purgatorial conditions. If I had my time over again how differently I should live my life! I was not one of those who lived only for the purpose of satisfying ambition. Money was a secondary consideration. Yes, I erred at the other extreme, for I neither lived enough among my fellow-men nor interested myself sufficiently in their affairs., Well, I have created' my own purgatory. I must live through it somehow. Good-night. I will return again.” (p. 24)

“Purgatory and hell are different states. We all must needs pass through a purging, purifying process after leaving earth life. I am still in purgatory. Some day I shall rise above it. The majority who come over here rise above or rather THROUGH purgatory into higher conditions. A minority refuse to relinquish their thoughts and beliefs in the pleasures of sin and the reality of the sense life. They sink by the weight of their own thoughts. No outside power can attract a man against his will. A man sinks or rises through the action of a spiritual law of gravity. He is never safe until he has emptied himself completely.” (pp. 34-35)

“They are met over here by purgatorial tests which gradually purify and ultimately release the souls in torment. Purgatory, unlike Hell, is a condition to be welcomed, to be bravely faced and lived through. I am beginning to rise above my own purgatory; otherwise I could be of no real service to others.” (p. 62)

 

[Trailblazer]

You wrote, "God is real because God exists." Your fallacy is circular argument. Your premise and conclusion are the same - God exists because God exists. That's a fallacy in academia. I realize that you don't respect that.

I already explained why I said "God is real because God exists." I said it because @F1fan said that god is imaginary, so it was a simple retort.
I was not claiming that God is real because God exists since I could never prove such a claim.
I believe that God is real because I believe God exists. That is all.

You keep turning my beliefs into arguments but there is no circular argument because there is no argument.
Why do you keep misrepresenting my position?

Your response supports my definition of faith as unjustified belief. Spiritual apprehension means without empirical justification, which is called proof there.

No, my response does not support your definition of faith as unjustified belief, since the definition of faith is not unjustified belief.

In your opinion, spiritual apprehension without empirical justification, which is proof, means unjustified belief, but in my opinion and the opinion of 93% of people in the world, spiritual apprehension without empirical justification, which is or proof, is justified belief.