What if you KNEW there was a God.

[ether-ore]

Interesting discussion... I'd like to interject my reasoning on the subject of creating a self aware entity. In just thinking about it, it doesn't make any sense to me that it could be. That anyone thinks that someday man will create such a thing is pure hubris. Any created thing can only have those attributes it was given at the time of its creation. If the essence of men were created by God, then no requirement for love or obedience could be made; it would already have been built in; there would have been no necessity for prophets or scripture for use as guides. It seems reasonable to me to understand that there is a part of each individual that was not created. I'll call this 'part' an intelligence. I submit that this 'intelligence' was not created and has always existed. Taking that as a given, then our being here in mortality begins to make sense. We are here to gain a physical body which we never had before; to learn to control it and to gain experience by it. It is through the generosity and love of God that we were made His spirit children to begin with, and then were given these physical bodies to be clothed withal, and because our intelligence (being clothed with these things) was never created and because of that, we naturally have our agency to choose. Now... the commands to love and to be obedient begin to make sense. Unless there were a part of us that was not created, the making of choices with consequences would make no sense. While in mortality, part of the experience gaining process is that we bear the consequences of our actions as well as the actions of others. The making of choices would have little meaning (in terms of character building for said eternal intelligence) without adversity. Knowing there is a God is only part of the equation. One has to know one's own eternal nature relative to that God in order for any result (on the other side of the 'equals' sign) to be a valid.

Eternal God +/- the free choices of the eternal intelligence = an eternal result. One's relationship to God determines whether the sign is a plus or a minus.

 

[JoStories]

I cannot prove you wrong. Neither can I prove my position. All I can do is suggest my own reasoning. First, it has been my understanding of Buddhism that there was no belief in a god as such. The Buddha never claimed to be a god. This enlightenment you refer to is an admirable thing, but as I understand it, it has little to do with an afterlife unless reincarnation can be considered an afterlife. But even that suggests little in the way of advancement since all believed instances of it bring men back to the same conditions in mortality. The Christianity I believe in tells me that I am an eternal being whom God made to be His children and He is assisting us along a path of progression wherein we use our agency to choose to follow His laws or not. However, even doing all we can to follow God's commands, we using our agency still make mistakes and since no unclean thing can inherit the Kingdom of God (the afterlife we desire), we are faced with a dilemma. Even though we may have repented, we in using our agency, still have sinned, which makes us unclean, so God sent His Son who also has the status of God, or in other words, God Himself takes upon Him our sins as long as we do repent. Without repentance and the atonement of Jesus Christ, we cannot have the afterlife of joy and real enlightenment which we would likely want.

You don't understand reincarnation at all. I mean no offense by that but am just saying you don't. With reincarnation, we come back more evolved, as a higher soul, each time. We are sent back to learn more and more. The ultimate goal being to become enlightened or part of the Godhead. Or God. However you wish to conceive of that concept. The rest of what you write is your view of things and has little meaning to me. I simply don't believe God, as depicted in the Bible, could possibly be the monster the Bible makes God out to be.

 

[JoStories]

This is indeed a very relevant comment. How on earth can Christians claim to be Christians while killing people? The fact that many Christians around the world refused to assist in Iraq is exactly why I advocate Christians converting to Islam, specifically the Mu'tazilite sect of Islam. The Muslims are far more honest in admitting the need to use force. Whereas if Christians are busy turning the other cheek, they may even refuse to ring the police to report a rape in progress. They may even say "I have no business interfering - the argument is between that man and that screaming woman". If the observer is white, and the rapist and rape victim are black, the white person may similarly say "none of my business, this is a black matter". Substitute "black" with "Iraq" and we can see effectively the exact same thing. Regardless, here is the ideology that I encourage American Christians to adopt if they aren't doing so already: The Holy Book of Mu'tazilah

There's no need for you to emigrate. The US is currently the most benevolent country in the world, even on a per capita basis. That wasn't always true, e.g. they were immoral for turning up late for WW1 and WW2, but ever since Pearl Harbor there has been no country at all that has done more to protect and expand the free world as the Americans. Read this: Anti-Subjugator: Thanks America

There is nothing here that you have written, save perhaps the parts about not speaking up regarding a crime, that I agree with. This country makes me sick. And I stand by what I said.

 

[JoStories]

I'm quite sure they won't.



Would be a terrible heaven without animals don't you think?



Then it is questionable how much of the Bible you have actually read.

You may want to believe that someone will not invent a being that is self aware but one need only read some of the more classic Sci-Fi books to see how true they really painted their future. Do you really think Big Brother is not watching? Do you really think that we will have vehicles that have no need of gas? 300 years ago you would have been burned at the stake for having a cell phone. To imagine that a robot of some sort won't be invented is myopic and simply denying the facts.

 

[JustWondering]

I'm quite sure they won't.

When someone does create a self aware entity of some kind, what will you say then? You will utter nonsense about it not having a soul and therefore its not really alive or sentient. However, no one sharing your beliefs as ever proven such a thing as a spirit/soul even exists! Belief in spirits/souls is no more grounded in reality than belief in Leprechauns and Unicorns. On the other hand there is a mountain of evidence to show that the brain (which is a completely physical non-mystical organ) generates our thoughts, actions, and emotions. There is not one shred of actual evidence to show that human beings are composed of anything more than organic matter. That is reality.

 

[JustWondering]

Interesting discussion... I'd like to interject my reasoning on the subject of creating a self aware entity. In just thinking about it, it doesn't make any sense to me that it could be. That anyone thinks that someday man will create such a thing is pure hubris.

Unless you can provide actual evidence otherwise, humans are beings only composed of organic matter. Our intelligence comes from our brain, which is an organ composed purely of organic matter. If our intelligence is derived from a physical organ and we learn how it functions (which I believe is only a matter of time) then humans can eventually create an artificial intelligence based from that knowledge.

Any created thing can only have those attributes it was given at the time of its creation. If the essence of men were created by God, then no requirement for love or obedience could be made; it would already have been built in; there would have been no necessity for prophets or scripture for use as guides.

I agree. That's why real prophets and scriptures from god don't exist. Religion is something created by men. Do you think if god honestly gave us a book of guidance it would have nonsense about burning bushes, talking snakes, and all other manner of needless, superstition in it?

It seems reasonable to me to understand that there is a part of each individual that was not created. I'll call this 'part' an intelligence. I submit that this 'intelligence' was not created and has always existed. Taking that as a given, then our being here in mortality begins to make sense. We are here to gain a physical body which we never had before; to learn to control it and to gain experience by it. It is through the generosity and love of God that we were made His spirit children to begin with, and then were given these physical bodies to be clothed withal, and because our intelligence (being clothed with these things) was never created and because of that, we naturally have our agency to choose. Now... the commands to love and to be obedient begin to make sense. Unless there were a part of us that was not created, the making of choices with consequences would make no sense. While in mortality, part of the experience gaining process is that we bear the consequences of our actions as well as the actions of others. The making of choices would have little meaning (in terms of character building for said eternal intelligence) without adversity. Knowing there is a God is only part of the equation. One has to know one's own eternal nature relative to that God in order for any result (on the other side of the 'equals' sign) to be a valid.

Eternal God +/- the free choices of the eternal intelligence = an eternal result. One's relationship to God determines whether the sign is a plus or a minus.

The above is not a reasonable assertion. Your assertions about spirits and spirit babies and needing physical bodies is nothing but wishful belief in fantasy. I could make a "reasonable" assertion that this world is actually some type of hell or time out room we have to endure for being bad in a previous existence. You'll notice that my "reasonable" assertion has just as much evidence and logic (or lack thereof) to back it as yours.

 

[ether-ore]

Unless you can provide actual evidence otherwise, humans are beings only composed of organic matter. Our intelligence comes from our brain, which is an organ composed purely of organic matter. If our intelligence is derived from a physical organ and we learn how it functions (which I believe is only a matter of time) then humans can eventually create an artificial intelligence based from that knowledge.

I agree. That's why real prophets and scriptures from god don't exist. Religion is something created by men. Do you think if god honestly gave us a book of guidance it would have nonsense about burning bushes, talking snakes, and all other manner of needless, superstition in it?

The above is not a reasonable assertion. Your assertions about spirits and spirit babies and needing physical bodies is nothing but wishful belief in fantasy. I could make a "reasonable" assertion that this world is actually some type of hell or time out room we have to endure for being bad in a previous existence. You'll notice that my "reasonable" assertion has just as much evidence and logic (or lack thereof) to back it as yours.

I know, you're from the school of: If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. The evidences I have are the reports of people who claim to have seen and have had revealed to them the truthfulness of the things I relayed. These collective claims from several people (some of whom are centuries apart) are nonetheless cohesive and coherent. That you reject these eyewitness accounts is absolutely ok, but the evidence is there.

There are indeed things in scripture that I can't explain and don't have the answers to, but the core message of our relationship to God can be readily gleaned from the pages of scripture. I'm not sidetracked by incidental things which have little or no bearing on the core message of scripture, and am able to hold understanding of those things in abeyance until such time as God sees fit to make them clear.

 

[JustWondering]

I know, you're from the school of: If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. The evidences I have are the reports of people who claim to have seen and have had revealed to them the truthfulness of the things I relayed. These collective claims from several people (some of whom are centuries apart) are nonetheless cohesive and coherent. That you reject these eyewitness accounts is absolutely ok, but the evidence is there.

There are indeed things in scripture that I can't explain and don't have the answers to, but the core message of our relationship to God can be readily gleaned from the pages of scripture. I'm not sidetracked by incidental things which have little or no bearing on the core message of scripture, and am able to hold understanding of those things in abeyance until such time as God sees fit to make them clear.

I have yet to see credible evidence for the existence of any god. If you have evidence please provide it.

 

[viole]

I'm quite sure they won't.

If I were able to make a perfect copy of your body, for instace by using a very advanced X-ray machine and a very advanced 3-d printer, do you think that body and that brain will not have consciousness?

I don't see how you can deny that without begging the question that there is something like a soul.

Would be a terrible heaven without animals don't you think?

May I suggest God that He does not let mosquitos in? On second thought, since I will presumably go to Hell, maybe it is OK if He lets all mosquitos go to Heaven. It will be already annoying enough to gnash ones teeth for all eternity without those beasts buzzing around.

Well, if animals go to Heaven, we can safely assert that is not necessary to accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour in order to reach that goal. i can harly imagine pigs or cats being able to do that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ether-ore]

I have yet to see credible evidence for the existence of any god. If you have evidence please provide it.

There is no doubt but that credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I consider the eye witness reports of the prophets as collectively (each corroborating the other) recorded in scripture as credible while it is obvious that you do not.

 

[JustWondering]

There is no doubt but that credibility is in the eye of the beholder. I consider the eye witness reports of the prophets as collectively (each corroborating the other) recorded in scripture as credible while it is obvious that you do not.

I wonder however why you find the bible a credible source of information and not the holy texts and testaments related to other religions. Was there a logical process you used to determine the bible was credible or was it mostly just a gut feeling?

 

[Marisa]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

If the bible is true and accurately describes the god who exists, that god can kiss my ***.

 

[ether-ore]

I wonder however why you find the bible a credible source of information and not the holy texts and testaments related to other religions. Was there a logical process you used to determine the bible was credible or was it mostly just a gut feeling?

Being LDS, I draw on more scripture than just the Bible. All of what I have read within the LDS canon of scripture provides me with greater sense of purpose than is represented in the texts of other religions. The panoramic view of where we come from, why we are here, and the justice and mercy that will have sway concerning the hereafter, makes more sense to me than any other perspective of the same from any other religion. This is not to say that there is not abundant merit in other religions, it is simply that they seem to have fewer answers over all and their concepts for the purpose of life and their concepts of a hereafter simply do not persuade by comparison. The process I used was what I consider to be a rational one. For me to consider that I have agency; that must mean there is a part of me that was not created by God. If God created me, I could only do what I was created to do. Since I believe that my intelligence (such as it is) has always existed and that God is (out of His loving kindness) assisting me along a path of progression through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (as long as I keep His commandments), then the character building purpose for my being here in mortality begins to make sense. Also the judgments and mercies of God with regards to an afterlife make sense to me as well.

 

[JustWondering]

Being LDS, I draw on more scripture than just the Bible. All of what I have read within the LDS canon of scripture provides me with greater sense of purpose than is represented in the texts of other religions. The panoramic view of where we come from, why we are here, and the justice and mercy that will have sway concerning the hereafter, makes more sense to me than any other perspective of the same from any other religion. This is not to say that there is not abundant merit in other religions, it is simply that they seem to have fewer answers over all and their concepts for the purpose of life and their concepts of a hereafter simply do not persuade by comparison. The process I used was what I consider to be a rational one. For me to consider that I have agency; that must mean there is a part of me that was not created by God. If God created me, I could only do what I was created to do. Since I believe that my intelligence (such as it is) has always existed and that God is (out of His loving kindness) assisting me along a path of progression through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (as long as I keep His commandments), then the character building purpose for my being here in mortality begins to make sense. Also the judgments and mercies of God with regards to an afterlife make sense to me as well.

Liking what a religion has to say isn't enough to sway me. I haven't heard or seen anything from any religion that proves they have any more actual knowledge about anything than anyone else. What makes sense to me isn't necessarily what I would want (A god watching over me and giving me all sorts of good stuff if I do what it wants, like eternal life). Reality says that if something is too good to be true than its not true. Fantastical claims from some religions simply seem too good to be true (see previous sentence). I need something concrete to go on, guess I'm just not a very trusting person. I totally don't buy that faith is a good or virtuous thing either.

 

[Thanda]

Liking what a religion has to say isn't enough to sway me. I haven't heard or seen anything from any religion that proves they have any more actual knowledge about anything than anyone else. What makes sense to me isn't necessarily what I would want (A god watching over me and giving me all sorts of good stuff if I do what it wants, like eternal life). Reality says that if something is too good to be true than its not true. Fantastical claims from some religions simply seem too good to be true (see previous sentence). I need something concrete to go on, guess I'm just not a very trusting person. I totally don't buy that faith is a good or virtuous thing either.

Except that you operate by faith in all you do. You know very little, when we get down to it, about anything. All you have is belief. So it is no use pretending you are too good or advanced for faith.

 

[ether-ore]

Liking what a religion has to say isn't enough to sway me. I haven't heard or seen anything from any religion that proves they have any more actual knowledge about anything than anyone else. What makes sense to me isn't necessarily what I would want (A god watching over me and giving me all sorts of good stuff if I do what it wants, like eternal life). Reality says that if something is too good to be true than its not true. Fantastical claims from some religions simply seem too good to be true (see previous sentence). I need something concrete to go on, guess I'm just not a very trusting person. I totally don't buy that faith is a good or virtuous thing either.

The only thing I can say to that is that if I do like you have done, and reduce the probabilities of what is real to the strictly empirical and totally ignore the written record evidence of eye witnesses to a God that ought to have some influence in our lives, then that completely eliminates any conception of the eternal life of the soul. You may consider that to be rational, but I do not. It seems to me that if it were only one individual who made some weird claims about some god, (as other religions have done) then I might believe as you do and be very skeptical. But this is not the case. In spite of the admittedly strange and inexplicable things recorded in scripture, all the prophets have stated that they have witnessed God and that men ought to obey His laws. To me, the fact that all of these eye witnesses (over millennia) have said the same thing about the nature of God and all of them, without any contact between themselves have provided a cohesive and coherent testimony concerning Him... the fact of these witnesses... tells me that I am more than a biological machine and that I existed before I came here to mortality, and will exist after the trial of this life is over.

For example; this is why I myself do not consider Islam credible. It relies on the report of one man, Mohammed, It is true that they have coopted Jewish and Christian scripture, but they have altered what those records have said to fit their narrative. Buddhism (in its pure form) does not claim the existence of a god... the Buddha himself did not claim to be a god. Buddhism's claims for progressive reincarnation; where each life supposedly gains for the soul more enlightenment until at some unspecified time, in eternity (who knows when and after how many lives of suffering in mortality), one enters Nirvana... that strikes me as way too uncertain and un-necessarily long and labored to me. Pretty much the same thing goes for Hinduism. Of course, these are my evaluations. The point is... I have considered them. I just find them wanting in the cohesive and coherent narrative in terms of what eternity means for the individual soul. The difference between you and I, is that I believe in the eternal nature of the soul, where you do not.

As I have stated elsewhere; I find it curious that atheists reject the concept of faith, when (unless they have performed all science themselves) they are taking it on faith that those who have... have got it right. It appears to me, whether atheists like to admit it or not, that they are exercising faith in science or scientists. Empirical science by itself comes up short in explaining anything concerning the eternal nature of the soul.

 

[JustWondering]

Except that you operate by faith in all you do. You know very little, when we get down to it, about anything. All you have is belief. So it is no use pretending you are too good or advanced for faith.

No, I do not operate on blind faith. That is an absurd statement that is totally false.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except that you operate by faith in all you do. You know very little, when we get down to it, about anything. All you have is belief. So it is no use pretending you are too good or advanced for faith.

You are operating with a very disfunctional understanding of "faith", I fear. Otherwise you would not say such a patently meaningless thing.

 

[JustWondering]

The only thing I can say to that is that if I do like you have done, and reduce the probabilities of what is real to the strictly empirical and totally ignore the written record evidence of eye witnesses to a God that ought to have some influence in our lives, then that completely eliminates any conception of the eternal life of the soul. You may consider that to be rational, but I do not. It seems to me that if it were only one individual who made some weird claims about some god, (as other religions have done) then I might believe as you do and be very skeptical. But this is not the case. In spite of the admittedly strange and inexplicable things recorded in scripture, all the prophets have stated that they have witnessed God and that men ought to obey His laws. To me, the fact that all of these eye witnesses (over millennia) have said the same thing about the nature of God and all of them, without any contact between themselves have provided a cohesive and coherent testimony concerning Him... the fact of these witnesses... tells me that I am more than a biological machine and that I existed before I came here to mortality, and will exist after the trial of this life is over.

If you WANT to believe as you do, go for it. However, the bible is nothing more to me than a book of mythology that is no different than any other mythology.

For example; this is why I myself do not consider Islam credible. It relies on the report of one man, Mohammed, It is true that they have coopted Jewish and Christian scripture, but they have altered what those records have said to fit their narrative. Buddhism (in its pure form) does not claim the existence of a god... the Buddha himself did not claim to be a god. Buddhism's claims for progressive reincarnation; where each life supposedly gains for the soul more enlightenment until at some unspecified time, in eternity (who knows when and after how many lives of suffering in mortality), one enters Nirvana... that strikes me as way too uncertain and un-necessarily long and labored to me. Pretty much the same thing goes for Hinduism. Of course, these are my evaluations. The point is... I have considered them. I just find them wanting in the cohesive and coherent narrative in terms of what eternity means for the individual soul. The difference between you and I, is that I believe in the eternal nature of the soul, where you do not.

Whatever floats your boat. You are correct that no one has yet to prove to me in any way that spirits/souls exist, let alone are necessary.

As I have stated elsewhere; I find it curious that atheists reject the concept of faith, when (unless they have performed all science themselves) they are taking it on faith that those who have... have got it right. It appears to me, whether atheists like to admit it or not, that they are exercising faith in science or scientists. Empirical science by itself comes up short in explaining anything concerning the eternal nature of the soul.

I don't need to have faith in science. First off, the scientific method produces results and hard data, not unsubstantiated claims about invisible beings and spirits. Second, the scientific method is not a religion or philosophy.

As for "the eternal nature of the soul", well, first you have to demonstrate that souls/spirits exist. Until someone does nobody has any obligation to indulge your beliefs. If you WANT to believe that you have an eternal soul, go for it. If you WANT to believe your spirit goes to some magical paradise for eternity after you die, go for it. At the least you could be honest and admit that the main reason you belief what you do is because you WANT to believe it, not because it makes logical and reasonable sense to believe it.

 

[Thanda]

No, I do not operate on blind faith. That is an absurd statement that is totally false.

You have inserted the word blind for your own convenience.