The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife

[William]

Lately some of us have been arguing from three differing positions is which the bible can be used to defend all three. All three appear to agree that each individual has a "Soul" although there may be disagreement on what the exact function of a "Soul" is.

[1] A "Person" is "Spirit" and temporarily exists as a human being until the body dies then that "Person" enters an afterlife and is judged by "God" and is condemned or saved. Those saved go to "heaven" and those condemned go to "Hell" - or in some variances on this, are "exterminated".

[2] A "Person" a "Human being" and when the human being dies, that is the end of that person unless "God" judges them as "saved" in which case that person is resurrected and given a new body which will last forever more.

[3] A "Person" is an eternal Spirit in human form and when the body dies, that Spirit immediately moves to the next phase and either knowingly or unknowingly creates for their self, their next experience, based upon a combination of mainly what they believe, what their overall attitude is and what they did in the previous phase.

Often any different position which opposes another might logically mean that they both cannot be correct, assuming one or the other is true.

Both [1]&[2] fall into this category as they cannot both be true. [1]&[2] also both agree that [3] is false.

However, [3] Can be true without making the other two false.

And [3] - just as with [1]&[2] can be backed by the bible, depending on what parts of the bible once uses to do so.

The bible is interpreted throughout, based upon which position [1][2] or [3] is being used to interpret it through [the filter].

If [1]&[2] oppose each other but can still be "proven" by using the bible, then this makes the bible something of a contradiction.

But if [3] - although different from [1]&[2] does not oppose either [1]&[2] and can still be "proven" by using the bible just like [1]&[2], then [3] takes away the contradictory aspect of the bible which [1]&[2] create by being in opposition.

Question: Would it be fair to say therefore, that [3] is the best position to assume on the overall biblical script to do with the subject of the next phase [afterlife]?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #231]

Thanks for that.

I am trying to ascertain whether there is really any point in continuing with our conversation. As I said, I have been sorting it into a more readable format to see if this might help me pin-point any particular problem, which I why I asked you those questions.

To date we have written a total of near on 29.000 words between us and are no closer to any resolve, for that.

In the mean time, I will go back to where we left off and answer post #223.

[William]

Can you give examples?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #224]

Examples of what I think are physical and non-physical things that make up reality? God and angels are non-physical; animals, planets, plants are physical things.

Okay.

What evidence do you have to support that physical and non-physical things are both real and distinct from each other?

As soon as we can note such a distinction, our initial thoughts are that it is a true distinction. We don’t see a tree and think that that we and that tree exists in the imagination of some other non-physical being.

This may be because the human form is designed that way, as I have argued already. We do not have the memory of being Eternal Spirits because the design of the human form is specific to retarding such memories of prior existence.
Thus, it can be explained why we resort to the form itself [re "intuition"] but it may be a case that we confuse intuition in form, with Spiritual intuition.

Also, given our position in a seemingly infinite Universe, it is difficult to comprehend that such a thing could exist within the mind of any Entity, so it is natural enough that we default to the flesh for our reasoning.
We can also add to that, we are all subjected to being taught to think about life in certain ways which do not include the idea we exist with the imagination of an Entity. Thus, what appears to be 'intuition' is more the product of education.

We only turn to forms of idealism through philosophical shifts in thinking (however they come about). That alone doesn’t mean it is true, but I believe that universal human intuitions are more rational to believe than their alternatives until some argument comes in to support the alternative over the universal intuition.

I think that the time will not come for those who have embraced ideas to the point where those ideas have solidified into belief. The better position to hold is to accept that any form of philosophical/theological idealism has to be regarded as 'not true' on its own.
So we look for evidence in the Creation in order to piece together philosophical/theological likelihoods.

Now, the reason this came up in our discussion was because I said that I would agree with you that creatio ex nihilo was illogical if you could show all of reality is non-physical. What evidence do you have to support that only the non-physical is real, in the sense spoken of above.

You have effectively placed a barrier for yourself of which words would be wasted on.

You believe that creatio ex nihilo is logical because you believe that all of reality is physical.

Do you believe that IF our universe is indeed within the Mind of The Creator THEN there is no reason why things shouldn't seem physical?

It appears that is your argument against the idea that we exist within the Mind of The Creator. That things shouldn't appear to be physical [ie "real"]

Do you mean it in the way light and darkness are distinct from one another?

I don’t think darkness is a “thing” in the same way light is. Darkness is the absence of light. Just like a hole is the absence of the material the wall is made out of, rather than any positive existence itself. I believe physical and non-physical “substances” both positively exist like a wall does, rather than the non-physical simply being an absence of physical substance. I would call the absence of physical (or non-physical substance, for that matter, pun intended) “nothing”.

Yet we know that a hole in a brick wall is the absence of bricks. We also know that the hole itself consists of something. So that you do not think darkness is an actual thing, but rather it is a hole in light [absence of light] is probably an erroneous thought on your part.

Yes - with darkness it is easy enough to prove 'absence of light' but we should not take from this, the position of thought that "therefore - darkness is no thing."

If so, are you therefore concluding that these are not of the same system?
Obviously they are, so just because things can be distinguished as 'different' does not conclude that they must be of distinctly different systems.

I don’t know what you mean by being (or not being) “of the same system”.

The Universe = the same system in which both dark and light coexist together.

Let me ask you this. Is the Mind of The Creator an 'ultimate substance'?

I think that the Creator, whose ‘ultimate substance’ is non-physical, has a mind. I don’t separate the Creator from His mind.

So then you are answering that yes, the Mind of The Creator is an 'ultimate substance'?

If so, then anything within the Mind of The Creator must derive from an ultimate substance. Thus we cannot differential between 'real and 'unreal' for everything exists within the ultimate substance, if indeed we exist within The Mind of The Creator.

Do you think that this Universe would exist [be real] independent of The Creators Consciousness? If so, how would you explain its existence?

No, I think it is dependent on God’s thoughts.

And yet you resist the idea that we exist within The Mind of The Creator and presently think it illogical.

That is why I say that the actual real [ultimate substance as you put it] is the eternal - the permanent, not the temporal. That is what I meant when I wrote "Essentially - if this is the case - then we have it backwards as to what 'real' is. It is not the physical, but the non physical - it is not the creation but the mind in which the creation is projected into."

So, by ‘real’ you mean what I would call ‘necessary’ as opposed to ‘contingent’? We aren’t real/necessary because our existence is dependent on another? If so, then we agree.

How would I be saying that when my position as stated is that of [3]? The other positions might see it that way, but [3] does not.

What is 'unreal' are really the personalities which are formed through the experience of being human. They are developed fictional characters which take on a life of their own through the medium of the Eternal Spirit which is the actual real substance behind the fictional.

We [Eternal Spirits] are real because our existence is not "dependent upon another" any more than an actor can be said to be 'unreal' unless he is performing a role.

Is this why you believe they are independent processes which require The Creator is separate from The Creation?

My understanding is that the “processes” being talked about here are, as examples:

(1) my vocal chords producing sound waves received by your ears that you can understand

and

(2) a non-physical being producing sound waves (without the help of physical vocal chords), or even without actually producing sound waves that travel throughout the world, which you can understand

I’m not sure what you mean about these processes requiring separation. I think the Creator and Creation could be the same and you still have the first process. If all is the same, then I don’t think you could really distinguish between a non-physical and physical being.

We can distinguish between a fictional character and the actor playing the part.

We can hear the sound of our voice within our mind which can produce through that process, images and ideas etc which we can explore. We can do this because The Creator can do this.

Do you know with any certainty that this is not what went on [and continues to go on] in The Creators Mind, which produced this Universe?

That the sound of The Creators thought-voice produced vibrations which in turn created the imagery which could then be entered into and explored through experience, by The Creator through forms which allowed for the individuate, because that is what those forms were designed to achieve?

Does the belief that things come from no things force you to close the door on that possibility? Or is there something else not yet identified which has you believing what you do?

How is ignorance not evil, in your view?

Is ignorance evil in your view?

What’s the distinction?

As I said, I do not sort things as 'good' or 'evil'.

That is why there is this [so-called] "Problem of Evil" - separating The Creator from the Creation does not solve said problem, even that religion has attempted to use the belief in an effort do do so.

If you want to provide your reasoning for why it doesn’t solve the problem of evil, then I could share my thoughts on why I disagree.

I have seen no evidence that separating The Creator from the Creation has solved the "so-called problem of evil". Do have have evidence to support that it has?

Performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things.

Can you give an example of something in today's world which can show us that?

The point is, if you are open, then ask that which has the power to show you.

Ask for your own OOBE. Then you will join the multitude of ones who now know, through personal experience.

If you don't want to know, then you won't ever ask.

Why do you think I haven’t asked God for that?

Have you asked or not?

[The Tanager]

What evidence do you have to support that physical and non-physical things are both real and distinct from each other?

Like I then went on to say, if all else is equal, the universal human intuition supports the distinction being true over false.

This may be because the human form is designed that way, as I have argued already. We do not have the memory of being Eternal Spirits because the design of the human form is specific to retarding such memories of prior existence.

Do you believe that IF our universe is indeed within the Mind of The Creator THEN there is no reason why things shouldn't seem physical?

Sure. I didn’t say the intuition couldn’t be wrong. Your view requires it is wrong, though. Your view goes against our intuition and is a less simple answer (i.e., you have to explain there being a reality and an illusory reality, more levels of reality that need explanation compared to the alternative view). That it might be true, mere logical possibility, isn’t a rational reason to switch one’s belief because the alternative is also logically possible.

We can also add to that, we are all subjected to being taught to think about life in certain ways which do not include the idea we exist with the imagination of an Entity. Thus, what appears to be 'intuition' is more the product of education.

If that were true, then we’d have some young kids being idealists just like we have kids going against what is taught in every other subject and that simply isn’t the case. Those who believe in some form of Idealism must introduce the idea through education.

I think that the time will not come for those who have embraced ideas to the point where those ideas have solidified into belief. The better position to hold is to accept that any form of philosophical/theological idealism has to be regarded as 'not true' on its own.
So we look for evidence in the Creation in order to piece together philosophical/theological likelihoods.

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here as a response to me talking about how idealism is introduced through education.

Now, the reason this came up in our discussion was because I said that I would agree with you that creatio ex nihilo was illogical if you could show all of reality is non-physical. What evidence do you have to support that only the non-physical is real, in the sense spoken of above.

You have effectively placed a barrier for yourself of which words would be wasted on.

How is asking you to show me evidence for your belief placing a barrier to seeing its truth? I have placed no barrier. You are barring me from considering it by not sharing the reasons.

You believe that creatio ex nihilo is logical because you believe that all of reality is physical.

I don’t believe all of reality is physical, so how could that be the reason I believe in creatio ex nihilo?

It appears that is your argument against the idea that we exist within the Mind of The Creator. That things shouldn't appear to be physical [ie "real"]

That isn’t my argument at all.

Yet we know that a hole in a brick wall is the absence of bricks. We also know that the hole itself consists of something. So that you do not think darkness is an actual thing, but rather it is a hole in light [absence of light] is probably an erroneous thought on your part.

Yes, the absence of something that used to be there. The hole, as a hole, doesn’t consist of some positive thing. What does it consist of? There may be air in between the bricks of the wall now, but the hole doesn’t consist of air. The hole makes it so that air can exist where a brick wall used to be.

Yet, even if a hole consisted of something, that doesn’t mean darkness would have to. They are different things. The hole requires that an actual brick wall used to occupy that exact spatial location. Theoretically, one spatial location could have always been dark, a place where there is and never have been any light. We don’t call every bit of air a hole in something.

I am open to any reasoning you want to share as to why you think darkness is a positive thing, rather than just an absence of light, though.

Yes - with darkness it is easy enough to prove 'absence of light' but we should not take from this, the position of thought that "therefore - darkness is no thing."

Something being an absence of an X is obviously different than something being the presence of an X. The latter is a “thing” that positively exists, while the former is not a “thing” that positively exists like a wall does.

The Universe = the same system in which both dark and light coexist together.

I agree there is light and dark in our universe. That’s different than saying both are positively existing things like a wall.

So then you are answering that yes, the Mind of The Creator is an 'ultimate substance'?

If so, then anything within the Mind of The Creator must derive from an ultimate substance. Thus we cannot differential between 'real and 'unreal' for everything exists within the ultimate substance, if indeed we exist within The Mind of The Creator.

I have never questioned the logical coherency of everything existing within the Mind of the Creator. I don’t think it is logically impossible. I’m questioning what reason we have to believe that reality is actually so.

No, I think it is dependent on God’s thoughts.

And yet you resist the idea that we exist within The Mind of The Creator and presently think it illogical.

First, I don’t think idealism (in general) is illogical. I think there is no reason to think it is true (both generally or in your specific version of it). I do think your specific version of idealism has logical faults for the various reasons we’ve shared throughout the years but that concerns other beliefs you hold, not the idea of idealism itself.

Second, being dependent on the thought of another is not the same thing as being the thought of another. I can write a computer program. It would be dependent on my thoughts, yet be distinct from my thoughts and myself.

That is why I say that the actual real [ultimate substance as you put it] is the eternal - the permanent, not the temporal. That is what I meant when I wrote "Essentially - if this is the case - then we have it backwards as to what 'real' is. It is not the physical, but the non physical - it is not the creation but the mind in which the creation is projected into."

So, by ‘real’ you mean what I would call ‘necessary’ as opposed to ‘contingent’? We aren’t real/necessary because our existence is dependent on another? If so, then we agree.

How would I be saying that when my position as stated is that of [3]? The other positions might see it that way, but [3] does not.

I’m trying my best to understand what you are saying. That is why I asked the question.

What is 'unreal' are really the personalities which are formed through the experience of being human. They are developed fictional characters which take on a life of their own through the medium of the Eternal Spirit which is the actual real substance behind the fictional.

We [Eternal Spirits] are real because our existence is not "dependent upon another" any more than an actor can be said to be 'unreal' unless he is performing a role.

Okay, then, again, why should I agree with you here?

We can distinguish between a fictional character and the actor playing the part.

Yes but the Pirates of the Caribbean movies series’ Jack Sparrow and Johnny Depp are the same person. Those two things refer to the same actual person. One isn’t non-physical and the other physical.

Do you know with any certainty that this is not what went on [and continues to go on] in The Creators Mind, which produced this Universe?

Do you know much at all with certainty?

That the sound of The Creators thought-voice produced vibrations which in turn created the imagery which could then be entered into and explored through experience, by The Creator through forms which allowed for the individuate, because that is what those forms were designed to achieve?

Does the belief that things come from no things force you to close the door on that possibility? Or is there something else not yet identified which has you believing what you do?

First, I don’t believe that things come from no things, as I’ve already shared. A new substance comes from the Creator in creatio ex nihilo which is a thing coming from a thing. Second, I reject your view because I see no good reasons to believe it is true. I hold my beliefs with an open mind and do not close the door on the possibility of your view being true. I keep asking for reasons to believe your view is true.

How is ignorance not evil, in your view?

Is ignorance evil in your view?

If you answer my question, then I’ll answer yours. I’ll even give a scenario within which you can answer it. Hypothetically, if some creatures of this simulation always remained in ignorance, would this be just as positive as them coming to true knowledge that they are the Creator?

That is why there is this [so-called] "Problem of Evil" - separating The Creator from the Creation does not solve said problem, even that religion has attempted to use the belief in an effort do do so.

If you want to provide your reasoning for why it doesn’t solve the problem of evil, then I could share my thoughts on why I disagree.

I have seen no evidence that separating The Creator from the Creation has solved the "so-called problem of evil". Do have have evidence to support that it has?

I didn’t offer an argument because it wasn’t what this topic was about. You claimed that it does not solve the problem of evil. Do you want to back up that claim? Or are you softening it to how you haven’t seen any support for it solving the problem of evil? If it is the latter, then what does that have to do with our conversation? I didn’t offer the truth of my belief there as support for one of the things we are disagreeing about here.

Performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things.

Can you give an example of something in today's world which can show us that?

I helped my 15 year old learn to drive a car.

Have you asked or not?

Oh, perhaps that other stuff was your way of asking me this question? I’m sorry I missed that. It seemed to me that you were assuming that I hadn't. Yes, I have asked.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #234]

Sure. I didn’t say the intuition couldn’t be wrong. Your view requires it is wrong, though.

I need to correct your misunderstanding therein. My view does not require intuition is necessarily wrong. It is just not the complete picture, as I have explained already.

Your view goes against our intuition and is a less simple answer (i.e., you have to explain there being a reality and an illusory reality, more levels of reality that need explanation compared to the alternative view).

No. It is no more complex than your view of there being an immaterial Creator existing in an alternative reality.

That it might be true, mere logical possibility, isn’t a rational reason to switch one’s belief because the alternative is also logically possible.

[See my comment at the end of this post re the quotes in blue]

Those who believe in some form of Idealism must introduce the idea through education.

The context of my comment re 'education' has to do with that particular type of education, that "being taught to think about life in certain ways which do not include the idea we exist with the imagination of an Entity."

In that, such education is missing/incomplete. Not necessarily 'wrong', as you put it.

I think that the time will not come for those who have embraced ideas to the point where those ideas have solidified into belief. The better position to hold is to accept that any form of philosophical/theological idealism has to be regarded as 'not true' on its own.
So we look for evidence in the Creation in order to piece together philosophical/theological likelihoods.

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here as a response to me talking about how idealism is introduced through education.

Why should it? You only just responded in your talking about how idealism is introduced through education.

Therefore, my comment stands as it is.

How is asking you to show me evidence for your belief placing a barrier to seeing its truth? I have placed no barrier. You are barring me from considering it by not sharing the reasons.

If only that were true. But the evidence is clear that I have indeed been sharing my reasons...quite substantially. You referred to these as "Explanations" and this is what you had to say about those;

My initial point was about you giving support for rather than explanations of your view.

The hole, as a hole, doesn’t consist of some positive thing

Is darkness also the absence of light?

Point being, it takes the two apparently opposing properties in order for the Universe to function as it does. In that, it is wise [logical] to at least attempt to reconcile that which for all intent and purpose is not even actually unreconciled...except in the minds of those who see it that way.

So it is a matter of re-educating how one sees what is to see. Otherwise we are left with an unreconciled Universe.

I am open to any reasoning you want to share as to why you think darkness is a positive thing, rather than just an absence of light, though.

See my comment above.

Something being an absence of an X is obviously different than something being the presence of an X. The latter is a “thing” that positively exists, while the former is not a “thing” that positively exists like a wall does.

If the wall was the absence of darkness, [only light] then no gateway [hole] would be apparent.

That in mind, it becomes obvious that the gateway is also positive, as is the wall - and for the same reason. If only the hole existed, what would one see?

So - it has to be logically accepted that neither dark or light are positive or negative. They are the same thing [the 'uni' in 'verse'].

I agree there is light and dark in our universe. That’s different than saying both are positively existing things like a wall.

Well then, think about not labelling things in that way.

I have never questioned the logical coherency of everything existing within the Mind of the Creator. I don’t think it is logically impossible.

Then why do we not agree?

I’m questioning what reason we have to believe that reality is actually so.

First, I don’t think idealism (in general) is illogical. I think there is no reason to think it is true (both generally or in your specific version of it). I do think your specific version of idealism has logical faults for the various reasons we’ve shared throughout the years but that concerns other beliefs you hold, not the idea of idealism itself.

Unless you list these, I see no reason why you write about these supposed other beliefs you say I hold.

Second, being dependent on the thought of another is not the same thing as being the thought of another. I can write a computer program. It would be dependent on my thoughts, yet be distinct from my thoughts and myself.

Where are you going with that?

I’m trying my best to understand what you are saying. That is why I asked the question.

I know that I have spent much time writing words in my attempt to explain my position. I have even stated possible reasons why you are having problems with my position [3] such as it is because of your beliefs. You do not seem to agree with that assessment.

Okay, then, again, why should I agree with you here?

We can distinguish between a fictional character and the actor playing the part.

Yes but the Pirates of the Caribbean movies series’ Jack Sparrow and Johnny Depp are the same person. Those two things refer to the same actual person. One isn’t non-physical and the other physical.

Irrelevant, as we can distinguish between a fictional character and the actor playing the part, which is what I said. You know Johnny Depp is not Jack Sparrow. That is what is distinguishable.

Do you know with any certainty that this is not what went on [and continues to go on] in The Creators Mind, which produced this Universe?

Do you know much at all with certainty?

Is that a 'yes' or 'no' or are you saying that you do not want to answer my question?

First, I don’t believe that things come from no things, as I’ve already shared. A new substance comes from the Creator in creatio ex nihilo which is a thing coming from a thing.

In that case, I can agree that "Creation is within The Mind of The Creator" is the same thing as "creatio ex nihilo."

Second, I reject your view because I see no good reasons to believe it is true. I hold my beliefs with an open mind and do not close the door on the possibility of your view being true. I keep asking for reasons to believe your view is true.

How is ignorance not evil, in your view?

Is ignorance evil in your view?

If you answer my question, then I’ll answer yours.

In the course of our conversation you said this;

It seems to me that [3] doesn't think evil is a problem at all.

I answered you thus;

The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.

That is the context in which the phrase is being used.
And yes - [3] does fix The Problem of Evil.

You already know that my position does not sort things into those categories [good/evil dark/light wall/hole positive/negative] So you should also know the answer to your question. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Ignorance is not the lack of good.

I know that there is such a thing as willful ignorance, where a person may purposefully not want to know something, but how can such be classified as 'evil' unless the one doing it lacks good?

It is not my place to judge.

I have seen no evidence that separating The Creator from the Creation has solved the "so-called problem of evil". Do have have evidence to support that it has?

You claimed that it does not solve the problem of evil.

I have seen no evidence that there is a problem of evil and I claimed that I have seen no evidence that separating The Creator from the Creation solves said claimed 'problem'. If there is no real problem then there is no need for any solution, let alone separating The Creator from the Creation.

Performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things.

Can you give an example of something in today's world which can show us that?

I helped my 15 year old learn to drive a car.

Great Dad skills. At least you were there watching over your child, yes? And no doubt you made sure the car was as safe as could be yes? And that your child was wearing a seatbelt and driving to the speed limits and road rules, yes? And if you had known that there was a maniac stalking your child and waiting for the opportunity to crash into the vehicle while your child was learning to drive it, you would have done something about that too, yes?

You didn't just hand your child the keys and say 'go for it kid' no? You told your child of all the dangers to look out for, you could think of yes?

When it comes to the Garden story, I see a type of double standard which I find very questionable. It does put the 'dad' figure in a dubious position in relation to the children. It wouldn't be any issue with me but for the fact that Christians [generally] obviously know [and argue for] what being a decent parent is but do not seem to see fault in the entity called "God" as if somehow just because the entity has that name, He can act as he pleases. double standards and all.

And you call this an 'act of love'. Your helping your 15 year old seems more an act of love, logically and demonstrably.

The point is, if you are open, then ask that which has the power to show you.

Ask for your own OOBE. Then you will join the multitude of ones who now know, through personal experience.

If you don't want to know, then you won't ever ask.

Why do you think I haven’t asked God for that?

Have you asked or not?

Yes, I have asked.

Were you specific in the asking? It is hard to tell from your answer. Often it is the way with you to share very sparsely.

I know this, because in searching for possible reasons as to why you appear to find it hard to understand my world view as logical, I spent many hours arranging the content of our interaction in this thread to make it more in line with normal face to face conversation, and in doing so it was interesting what was revealed.

The way conversation is achieved in this forum format with threads and posts, it can become quite disjointed, so organizing this into a more coherent and natural conversational format has given me insight.

Which leads me to one point I want to finish off with.

The aforementioned quotes in blue

My reason for creating this thread [and many others] is not for the purpose of convincing anyone of anything. The reason I am an active member of this Message Board is not for the purpose of convincing anyone of anything.
I think it is fair to say that on a Christian-based forum, I can expect Christians to be the ones trying to convince me that their beliefs are true. However, I do not expect any such thing. I even made a point about this as far back as 2018 by asking whether faith-based beliefs can be truthfully categorized as debatable, since they are faith-based.

Since then I have seen nothing significant in which I can change my view about that. I am fine with the fact that there are non-negotiable faith-based beliefs as long as those who hold them do not make noises which imply that their beliefs are based on facts.

When such claims do arise, I am keenly interested in what evidence the claimant holds. I gave a couple of examples of such implied statements which came from you, to do with the subject of the resurrection.

The expectancy for supporting evidence is there, if the claim is said to be believed.

Which gets me to the point of making it clear that I did not create this thread to make a claim that [3] position [or for that matter [1]&[2] positions] are true. I made it to show that there are scripts in the Bible which can be interpreted and used to support all those positions [1] [2] & [3].

I did not create the thread to convince you that [3] is the position you should accept. I have no interest in doing so, and as such, am taking the opportunity to ask you to drop the type of arguments [re those words in blue above], in the future. Of course, you are free to do as your wish in that regard, but if you continue with that game-play, I will no longer be responding to such.

So I have eliminated the possibility that you do not agree with [3] to be considered preferable [more complete than [1] &[2] ] because you have not been convinced by me, that it is logical, possible, just and everything else I have referred to it as being.

You do have the option of course to show me where your current beliefs are the better option. That is something else I discovered in the process of taking time to sort our interactions here in a more conversational format. I now understand that I know very little about your beliefs because you are very frugal in sharing them in any comprehensive detail as you seem to prefer being the antagonist...but this is a Christian forum and as I wrote back in this post, I expect that Christians are the ones who should be trying to convince me that their beliefs are fat-based, here on a Christian forum, if indeed any imply as much.

In closing, I would also like to remind you that I do not hold beliefs. [3] as a position is based upon information source in various places, as I have already explained in this thread to you.

At present, what I am interested in hearing more about from you, are the details of your asking your God re OOBE. Specifics are important as they help me understand your beliefs more clearly.
Logically if such alternate experiences can be obtained, this might help you appreciate where I am coming from, if you were granted such an experience yourself.

[The Tanager]

I need to correct your misunderstanding therein. My view does not require intuition is necessarily wrong. It is just not the complete picture, as I have explained already.

Your view does require that the intuition that there is an ultimate distinction between the physical and non-physical is wrong. You think the distinction is not ultimate.

No. It is no more complex than your view of there being an immaterial Creator existing in an alternative reality.

It is more complex. My view is that there is one level of reality that contains both material and immaterial beings. Your view is that there is that level, which is really an illusion, and another level behind that appearance.

How is asking you to show me evidence for your belief placing a barrier to seeing its truth? I have placed no barrier. You are barring me from considering it by not sharing the reasons.

If only that were true. But the evidence is clear that I have indeed been sharing my reasons...quite substantially. You referred to these as "Explanations" and this is what you had to say about those;

So, the barrier I put up is not being convinced by your reasoning? That’s just me following where I think the reasoning goes, in this case, against your claims. To call that me putting up a barrier makes it sound like I’m not even giving your view a chance, when I have clearly and substantially engaged every point of yours that I can understand, while asking you to clarify those I can’t.

Point being, it takes the two apparently opposing properties in order for the Universe to function as it does. In that, it is wise [logical] to at least attempt to reconcile that which for all intent and purpose is not even actually unreconciled...except in the minds of those who see it that way.

So it is a matter of re-educating how one sees what is to see. Otherwise we are left with an unreconciled Universe.

I don’t see how this supports light and darkness being two positive “things” versus one being the absence of another. I don’t see how my view results in an unreconciled Universe. Darkness, in my view, still rightly describes a state of part of the Universe, just like a hole does even though the hole is an absence and not a positive thing.

If the wall was the absence of darkness, [only light] then no gateway [hole] would be apparent.

That in mind, it becomes obvious that the gateway is also positive, as is the wall - and for the same reason. If only the hole existed, what would one see?

So - it has to be logically accepted that neither dark or light are positive or negative. They are the same thing [the 'uni' in 'verse'].

That doesn’t make sense to me at all. Could you rephrase it?

I have never questioned the logical coherency of everything existing within the Mind of the Creator. I don’t think it is logically impossible.

Then why do we not agree?

I’m questioning what reason we have to believe that reality is actually so.

You seemed to ignore the answer I gave anticipating your possible question which you shared here. While agreeing that your view is logically coherent, at least in its general sense), we don’t agree that your view is the most reasonable view of reality.

First, I don’t think idealism (in general) is illogical. I think there is no reason to think it is true (both generally or in your specific version of it). I do think your specific version of idealism has logical faults for the various reasons we’ve shared throughout the years but that concerns other beliefs you hold, not the idea of idealism itself.

Unless you list these, I see no reason why you write about these supposed other beliefs you say I hold.

It was simply to clarify what I was saying. Here I ws addressing this specific, general topic of whether I think idealism is illogical or simply not the most reasonable view to have. I didn’t want you to confuse that in future conversations about other issues where we specifically disagree. I think some of your beliefs are logically contradictory with other beliefs you hold. We’ve talked about those in the past. They aren’t relevant to this specific discussion, though.

No, I think it is dependent on God’s thoughts.

And yet you resist the idea that we exist within The Mind of The Creator and presently think it illogical.

Second, being dependent on the thought of another is not the same thing as being the thought of another. I can write a computer program. It would be dependent on my thoughts, yet be distinct from my thoughts and myself.

Where are you going with that?

You seemed like you might be saying that your Idealistic view should follow from me saying I think the world is dependent on God’s thoughts. I’m noting that there are different kinds of dependence. An idea is dependent on a person in a different way than a product is.

I know that I have spent much time writing words in my attempt to explain my position. I have even stated possible reasons why you are having problems with my position [3] such as it is because of your beliefs. You do not seem to agree with that assessment.

Yes, for the (seemingly to me) logical reasons I always share in my responses.

Irrelevant, as we can distinguish between a fictional character and the actor playing the part, which is what I said. You know Johnny Depp is not Jack Sparrow. That is what is distinguishable.

But Jack Sparrow is really something else, not a being of his own. He is a creation of one (or more) individuals who are ultimate beings (or, if your view is true, creations of the Ultimate Being). Jack isn’t a being that freely does anything. Jack isn't a real being.

Is that a 'yes' or 'no' or are you saying that you do not want to answer my question?

It’s a “no” and a comment that the lack of certainty is no big deal.

In that case, I can agree that "Creation is within The Mind of The Creator" is the same thing as "creatio ex nihilo."

But it seems like it’s not the same thing because “within the Mind of The Creator” rejects the ultimate distinction between Creator and creation that creatio ex nihilo asserts is true. These are two different views that both have a thing coming from a thing.

You already know that my position does not sort things into those categories [good/evil dark/light wall/hole positive/negative] So you should also know the answer to your question. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge. Ignorance is not the lack of good.

So, it’s not bad to be ignorant, right? Why, then, in your view, would the Creator only create if coming to full knowledge is guaranteed in the end, as you have said before?

Great Dad skills. At least you were there watching over your child, yes? And no doubt you made sure the car was as safe as could be yes? And that your child was wearing a seatbelt and driving to the speed limits and road rules, yes? And if you had known that there was a maniac stalking your child and waiting for the opportunity to crash into the vehicle while your child was learning to drive it, you would have done something about that too, yes?

You didn't just hand your child the keys and say 'go for it kid' no? You told your child of all the dangers to look out for, you could think of yes?

So, you agree that performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things, right? You are at least conceding that point, correct? It's always hard to tell if people just don't like admitting their concessions or have ignored the point with responses like this.

When it comes to the Garden story, I see a type of double standard which I find very questionable. It does put the 'dad' figure in a dubious position in relation to the children. It wouldn't be any issue with me but for the fact that Christians [generally] obviously know [and argue for] what being a decent parent is but do not seem to see fault in the entity called "God" as if somehow just because the entity has that name, He can act as he pleases. double standards and all.

And you call this an 'act of love'. Your helping your 15 year old seems more an act of love, logically and demonstrably.

Would I be a loving Dad if I took my child’s freedom away in order to protect her? If I physically restrained her from any hand movement or decision I disagreed with while she was driving? Say, if I forced her to scoot over so that I was actually driving the car, while she was just forced to follow my movements with her hands touching the wheel and her foot under mine, while I press the gas and brake?

Were you specific in the asking? It is hard to tell from your answer. Often it is the way with you to share very sparsely.

I have asked both generally and specifically, yes.

My reason for creating this thread [and many others] is not for the purpose of convincing anyone of anything.

…

Which gets me to the point of making it clear that I did not create this thread to make a claim that [3] position [or for that matter [1]&[2] positions] are true. I made it to show that there are scripts in the Bible which can be interpreted and used to support all those positions [1] [2] & [3].

So, you tried to convince me and others that those were good interpretations of Scripture, that this view that you hold is true. How is that not trying to convince us of anything? Along the way you have made other claims that I have asked for support for, as well. If you don’t want me to ask for your support in making such claims, then don’t make those kinds of claims.

I now understand that I know very little about your beliefs because you are very frugal in sharing them in any comprehensive detail as you seem to prefer being the antagonist...but this is a Christian forum and as I wrote back in this post, I expect that Christians are the ones who should be trying to convince me that their beliefs are fat-based, here on a Christian forum, if indeed any imply as much.

I will answer any question you have of me in any length of detail you desire. If you want to know then ask, rather than making positive claims of your own or wording your comments in such a way as they look like you are making positive claims rather than asking questions. Like you have made clearer with the Resurrection thread. You could have written all of your posts in that thread about how the Resurrection is clearly faith-based rather than fact-based but you’ve asked more in that thread.

In this thread you made positive claims (or chose phrasing that matches positive claims) and I critiqued them. You responded at points with further support for your positive claims, rather than only saying something like “You misunderstood me, I was really just asking a question. I’m sorry for the confusion.” So, when your stop responding to the critiques and try to ask for support for my belief it clearly comes across as shifting the burden from where the conversation started.

At present, what I am interested in hearing more about from you, are the details of your asking your God re OOBE. Specifics are important as they help me understand your beliefs more clearly.

I’ve specifically asked God to show me the truth of beliefs based on OOBEs, if there is truth to find there, whether that is through having the experience myself or some other method. As you seemed to agree, though, people who have these still disagree on many of their views regarding reality, so I don't see how just having an OOBE (whatever their nature) would give us necessary truth. I'm still open to having my view changed on it, though.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #236]

Your view does require that the intuition that there is an ultimate distinction between the physical and non-physical is wrong. You think the distinction is not ultimate.

No. The distinction is unnecessary and based upon incomplete knowledge which has the one making the distinction, making a wrong distinction. It is not an established case of 'applied intuition', as you proport.

Intuition is the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

What I am talking about has to do with knowledge of something through conscious reasoning and why my position is [3].

It is more complex. My view is that there is one level of reality that contains both material and immaterial beings.

Are you saying that your view is that this universe is the only one which exists and the immaterial resides as an invisible reality within this universe?

Your view is that there is that level, which is really an illusion, and another level behind that appearance.

Tell me exactly and succinctly how you reached the conclusion that this is my view, given how I have exactly and succinctly explained the distinction between Creator [=real] and Creation [=not as real/illusionary in comparison].

So, the barrier I put up is not being convinced by your reasoning?

[See my prior post regarding my position as sharing information rather than trying to convince anyone the information is worth something to them.]

That’s just me following where I think the reasoning goes, in this case, against your claims. To call that me putting up a barrier makes it sound like I’m not even giving your view a chance, when I have clearly and substantially engaged every point of yours that I can understand, while asking you to clarify those I can’t.

I identified a possibly barrier.
Are we to argue whether an individuals beliefs system can actually create a barrier if the individual thinks there is something which threatens their belief?
And;
Are you here looking for something different to believe in than you already now have?

I don’t see how this supports light and darkness being two positive “things” versus one being the absence of another. I don’t see how my view results in an unreconciled Universe. Darkness, in my view, still rightly describes a state of part of the Universe, just like a hole does even though the hole is an absence and not a positive thing.

Only, as has been pointed out [and you have yet to acknowledge] the hole you perceive as 'nothing' does actually consist of something, so cannot rightly be referred to as a 'negative' or 'opposite'.

Have scientists informed us with accompanying evidence that what we see as 'Darkness' is absolutely nothing?

That doesn’t make sense to me at all. Could you rephrase it?

If the wall was the absence of darkness, [only light] then no gateway [hole] would be apparent.

Imagine a universe which only consists of light. What do you see?

I have never questioned the logical coherency of everything existing within the Mind of the Creator. I don’t think it is logically impossible.

Then why do we disagree?

You seemed to ignore the answer I gave anticipating your possible question which you shared here. While agreeing that your view is logically coherent, at least in its general sense), we don’t agree that your view is the most reasonable view of reality.

We? I agree that it is. You agree that it isn't.

They aren’t relevant to this specific discussion, though.

I did not think so. I am glad you have decided not to include them. It was a little saddening to see you attempt to do so.

I can write a computer program. It would be dependent on my thoughts, yet be distinct from my thoughts and myself.

Where are you going with that?

You seemed like you might be saying that your Idealistic view should follow from me saying I think the world is dependent on God’s thoughts. I’m noting that there are different kinds of dependence. An idea is dependent on a person in a different way than a product is.

In relation to the idea that a Creator initiated the formation of this Universe, it is clear that the creation is still unfolding. It is not complete - it is an ongoing process. One could argue that it cannot even realistically be referred to as a 'creation' but only as a work in progress, perhaps heading toward an ultimate completion. [A creation of something through a process]

Re your computer program analogy, if the algorithm is set to run to that conclusion independent of any more programing from the programmer, then this still does not mean that the program is independent of the programmer, because it would not exist and function as it does without the programmer fist having initiated said program.

I know that I have spent much time writing words in my attempt to explain my position. I have even stated possible reasons why you are having problems with my position [3] such as it is because of your beliefs. You do not seem to agree with that assessment.

Yes, for the (seemingly to me) logical reasons I always share in my responses.

That you are not 'convinced'? So what?

But Jack Sparrow is really something else, not a being of his own. He is a creation of one (or more) individuals who are ultimate beings (or, if your view is true, creations of the Ultimate Being). Jack isn’t a being that freely does anything. Jack isn't a real being.

From what I understand, "The Individuate Will" is like unto "The Eternal Spirit".

As such, one might assume that an Eternal Spirit would be free. In the grand scheme of things, yes - one is free to be Eternal - to have existed always - to never not have existed...so therein, one can identify where such an entity would not be 'free' - in that it would not be free to cease existing.

But it would be free to create landscapes which allow for it to experiencing not existing, or to experiencing dying or to experience being less powerful than it truly is, and allow for the unreal [Ego-personality/actor/] to "boss it around" - while at the same time include the proviso that any time the Ego-personality chooses to stop pretending that it is the Captain of the vessel and let the Eternal Spirit have the Wheel, said personality in turn becomes that little bit more real than it was...

Do you know with any certainty that this is not what went on [and continues to go on] in The Creators Mind, which produced this Universe?

No.
The lack of certainty is no big deal.

Therefore, you could agree that position [3] - while potentially could be seen as a threat by those in positions [1] & [2], is actually not.

In that, you could allow for [3] to perhaps actually being the case, without the allowing creating any reason for you to be concerned if it is indeed the case.

[3] can be believed without damaging faith or imperiling souls.

First, I don’t believe that things come from no things, as I’ve already shared. A new substance comes from the Creator in creatio ex nihilo which is a thing coming from a thing.

In that case, I can agree that "Creation is within The Mind of The Creator" is the same thing as "creatio ex nihilo."

But it seems like it’s not the same thing because “within the Mind of The Creator” rejects the ultimate distinction between Creator and creation that creatio ex nihilo asserts is true. These are two different views that both have a thing coming from a thing.

Did the one who invented creatio ex nihilo believe he existed within a creation and that there is a Creator? Did he engage at all with the idea that we might possibly exist within the Mind of said Creator? If so, what evidence did he present which showed that making a distinction between Creator and Creation is truthful, and thus warranted?

So, it’s not bad to be ignorant, right?

No. It is incomplete. A work in progress. If anything, where it fails the individual [or the individual fails it] is when the ignorance is willful.

Why, then, in your view, would the Creator only create if coming to full knowledge is guaranteed in the end, as you have said before?

To experience said creation in that format.

In this case, it is to do with losing oneself in order to find ones self through a different medium [this particular creation]. Not losing ones self in order to never again know ones self.

Ones Mind is not ones self. Rather it is the medium in which one projects ones self upon. The medium of ones mind is an aspect of ones self. Not the complete self on its own.

So, you agree that performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things, right? You are at least conceding that point, correct?

I never argued that point so don't see any reason to concede it.

Would I be a loving Dad if I took my child’s freedom away in order to protect her?

Yes. Unless you were doing it for unloving [other than to protect her] reasons.

If I physically restrained her from any hand movement or decision I disagreed with while she was driving? Say, if I forced her to scoot over so that I was actually driving the car, while she was just forced to follow my movements with her hands touching the wheel and her foot under mine, while I press the gas and brake?

Yes. If she was not listening and placing herself and you in harms way, that would be an act of love.

The analogy has veered away from the Garden Story though. I advise you correct that or you will drive into the wall.

In the Garden Story, the Parent has not given the Children that option...He did not force them to scoot over and show them how it should be done.

Indeed, He wasn't even in the same vehicle, so was in no danger himself. So your analogy needs correcting.

Were you specific in the asking? It is hard to tell from your answer. Often it is the way with you to share very sparsely.

I have asked both generally and specifically, yes.

Am I therefore to conclude I am a buffoon for having to ask?

Even your answer to my question is sparse, adding evidence that my observation is correct.

I did not create this thread to make a claim that [3] position [or for that matter [1]&[2] positions] are true. I made it to show that there are scripts in the Bible which can be interpreted and used to support all those positions [1] [2] & [3].

So, you tried to convince me and others that those were good interpretations of Scripture, that this view that you hold is true. How is that not trying to convince us of anything?

I did not create this thread to make a claim that [3] position [or for that matter [1]&[2] positions] are true. I made it to show that there are scripts in the Bible which can be interpreted and used to support all those positions [1] [2] & [3].
That is clearly not a statement which tells anyone I am trying to convince them of anything.
I can show you a picture of something for the purpose of having that action become a part of your data of experience. Whether you are convinced that the picture is true of what it represents or not, is irrelevant to that end.

Along the way you have made other claims that I have asked for support for, as well. If you don’t want me to ask for your support in making such claims, then don’t make those kinds of claims.

This is not what is actually occurring here. I have given support for said claims and have continued to do so as I come across biblical references which can be interpreted to support position [3].
In doing so, it was not for the purpose of convincing anyone that position [3] is true. I can only show the picture. Other processes are involved in relation to how and why those who see the picture I show, respond to said picture in terms of 'true/false'.

If - for example - someone was to say to me, "Yes William! I see what you are saying and think that it is true!", that would not change the fact that I did not write what I did, in order to convince them. Rather, they used the data I gave to them, and did their own homework.

I now understand that I know very little about your beliefs because you are very frugal in sharing them in any comprehensive detail as you seem to prefer being the antagonist...but this is a Christian forum and as I wrote back in this post, I expect that Christians are the ones who should be trying to convince me that their beliefs are fat-based, here on a Christian forum, if indeed any imply as much.

I will answer any question you have of me in any length of detail you desire.

Okay. I desire something better than a one line answer. Detail is important if you want me to understand where you are coming from in your beliefs.

Also, it allows for the guesswork to be taken out of the equation. My mistake has been in not seeing that this is what has been occurring in the course of our ongoing conversation. You have offered a frugal snippet and I have accepted that and returned an argument, only to be informed that I have presumed something - which indeed I had done. This tactic always allows you to be on a higher ground and have advantage.

In order to prevent that from occurring anymore, I have seen the problem of the approaching wall, and corrected my steering accordingly. In that, whatever that you offer which has the potential to steer things in that direction, will be notified as insufficent data in which to make an unassuming retort.

If you want to know then ask, rather than making positive claims of your own or wording your comments in such a way as they look like you are making positive claims rather than asking questions. Like you have made clearer with the Resurrection thread. You could have written all of your posts in that thread about how the Resurrection is clearly faith-based rather than fact-based but you’ve asked more in that thread.

Thanks for the Dad-advice my Friend. Hopefully my explanation has made things clearer to you re how I have chosen to handle the driving.

So, when your stop responding to the critiques and try to ask for support for my belief it clearly comes across as shifting the burden from where the conversation started.

Nonetheless, it has been established that my asking you for support for your beliefs has to do with my attempting to establish what they are in order to try and understand why you are using them against my position [3].

So it has always been a form of asking. You have, for whatever reason, assumed that it is merely an expression attempting to shift some perceived burden.

Point being, if you perceive a burden and say so, you have to be less frugal with your argument, coming from your belief. Why is [3] seen as a burden that I carry, to you?

At present, what I am interested in hearing more about from you, are the details of your asking your God re OOBE. Specifics are important as they help me understand your beliefs more clearly.

I’ve specifically asked God to show me the truth of OOBE, if there is truth to find there, whether that is through having the experience myself or some other method.

Q: Given what we have talked about already, if your god were to grant you an OOB experience, how would you conclude truth in that, when you see such a possibly being nothing more than 'hallucination'?
And;
Q: What 'other method' could you example which you think would sufficiently "show you the truth", - even - where an OOBE wouldn't?

To end this then, I feel to say that I am enjoying our ongoing interactions - so much more than ever before.



LINK - "Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based?"

[The Tanager]

Are you saying that your view is that this universe is the only one which exists and the immaterial resides as an invisible reality within this universe?

Yes.

Your view is that there is that level, which is really an illusion, and another level behind that appearance.

Tell me exactly and succinctly how you reached the conclusion that this is my view, given how I have exactly and succinctly explained the distinction between Creator [=real] and Creation [=not as real/illusionary in comparison].

So, this universe (i.e., that level), which is “not as real”/“illusionary” (i.e., really an illusion) and the Creator, which is real, (i.e., another level behind that appearance). I see those identities in our wordings.

Are you here looking for something different to believe in than you already now have?

I’m not looking for a belief to replace something I once accepted that I now think is untrue, if that is the kind of thing you mean, but I’m always looking to challenge my current beliefs.

Only, as has been pointed out [and you have yet to acknowledge] the hole you perceive as 'nothing' does actually consist of something, so cannot rightly be referred to as a 'negative' or 'opposite'.

What does the hole consist of? I don’t think it consists of anything or has been shown to consist of anything.

Have scientists informed us with accompanying evidence that what we see as 'Darkness' is absolutely nothing?

I didn’t say what we call darkness is absolutely nothing. I said that what we call darkness is absent of light. The spatial location we call a hole in the wall isn’t absolutely nothing, it’s full of air. The hole doesn’t consist of air, though, as though you could take that air and move it somewhere else and there would be a hole in that new spatial location.

If the wall was the absence of darkness, [only light] then no gateway [hole] would be apparent.

Imagine a universe which only consists of light. What do you see?

If I’m not in the universe (just light is), how could I see anything? If it’s just me and light, then there are no other objects for light waves to bounce off of to enter my eyes. So, I honestly don’t understand the question.

You seemed to ignore the answer I gave anticipating your possible question which you shared here. While agreeing that your view is logically coherent, at least in its general sense), we don’t agree that your view is the most reasonable view of reality.

We? I agree that it is. You agree that it isn't.

Yes, we don’t agree with each other.

They aren’t relevant to this specific discussion, though.

I did not think so. I am glad you have decided not to include them. It was a little saddening to see you attempt to do so.

I never attempted to include those specifics. This is akin to being saddened that I didn’t stop beating my wife sooner.

Re your computer program analogy, if the algorithm is set to run to that conclusion independent of any more programing from the programmer, then this still does not mean that the program is independent of the programmer, because it would not exist and function as it does without the programmer fist having initiated said program.

If I died, then my idea no longer exists. Yes, someone else may have an idea about the same kind of thing but that’s still not my idea. If I died, the computer program could still continue to exist. An idea and a computer program are dependent upon me in a different way in this sense.

That you are not 'convinced'? So what?

I was agreeing with what you said! If you thought “so what?” about this statement, then why did you offer it in the first place?

Therefore, you could agree that position [3] - while potentially could be seen as a threat by those in positions [1] & [2], is actually not.

In that, you could allow for [3] to perhaps actually being the case, without the allowing creating any reason for you to be concerned if it is indeed the case.

[3] can be believed without damaging faith or imperiling souls.

I don’t think it’s a serious threat to positions [1] and [2], but if true, it does mean [1] and [2] are false. You’ll think “incomplete” but you are really changing what [1] and [2] truly mean as “true but incomplete” statements to do so. I’m always concerned with what is the truth. If it is true, then, of course, it won’t damage one’s soul.

Did the one who invented creatio ex nihilo believe he existed within a creation and that there is a Creator? Did he engage at all with the idea that we might possibly exist within the Mind of said Creator? If so, what evidence did he present which showed that making a distinction between Creator and Creation is truthful, and thus warranted?

Either the Creator invented creatio ex nihilo (and your questions then have obvious answers) or some human created it but we have no idea who it was (and, as a human invention rather than God’s invention, it won’t be true).

No. It is incomplete. A work in progress. If anything, where it fails the individual [or the individual fails it] is when the ignorance is willful.

Being incomplete is equally as valuable as being complete, though? And if ignorance isn’t bad, then why is willful ignorance a failure?

In this case, it is to do with losing oneself in order to find ones self through a different medium [this particular creation]. Not losing ones self in order to never again know ones self.

But it wouldn’t be wrong or bad to lose one’s self in order to never again know one’s self? The Creator could have done that and it would have been equal in value to what you think The Creator did?

So, you agree that performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things, right? You are at least conceding that point, correct?

I never argued that point so don't see any reason to concede it.

Okay, I’m sorry for my misunderstanding there. But you agree that performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things, right? I just want to be clear on your answer there. That God could put Adam and Eve in harm’s way without being evil to them?

If I physically restrained her from any hand movement or decision I disagreed with while she was driving? Say, if I forced her to scoot over so that I was actually driving the car, while she was just forced to follow my movements with her hands touching the wheel and her foot under mine, while I press the gas and brake?

Yes. If she was not listening and placing herself and you in harms way, that would be an act of love.

She is automatically placing us in harm’s way, not by any purposeful neglect but by simply not knowing how to drive. She has to put us in harm’s way in order to learn how to drive at all. To keep her from harm means never letting her learn how to drive. So, is keeping her from driving (or even riding in a car or doing just about anything) loving simply because it keeps her out of harm’s way?

The analogy has veered away from the Garden Story though. I advise you correct that or you will drive into the wall.

In the Garden Story, the Parent has not given the Children that option...He did not force them to scoot over and show them how it should be done.

Indeed, He wasn't even in the same vehicle, so was in no danger himself. So your analogy needs correcting.

It hasn’t veered at all. God did guide the humans into what they should have done. In order to keep them from harm, guaranteed, God would have had to control every action of theirs that went against what was best for them. He would have to take away their free will. He would have to, analogically, never let them drive or ride in a car or have any free choice because that would be putting them in harm’s way.

Am I therefore to conclude I am a buffoon for having to ask?

No, of course not.

So, you tried to convince me and others that those were good interpretations of Scripture, that this view that you hold is true. How is that not trying to convince us of anything?

I did not create this thread to make a claim that [3] position [or for that matter [1]&[2] positions] are true. I made it to show that there are scripts in the Bible which can be interpreted and used to support all those positions [1] [2] & [3].

Look back at my quote above. I didn’t say you tried to convince me that position [3] was true but that “you tried to convince me and others that [[3] was a] good interpretation[s] of Scripture”. Surely, you aren’t arguing that the Bible can be interpreted to support [3] (and [1] and [2], of course) but that interpreting it to support [3] is a very bad interpretation, right?

Why is [3] seen as a burden that I carry, to you?

Because you think good interpretations of Scripture can lead to [3]. I disagree with that positive assertion. Positive claims carry a burden of proof.

Q: Given what we have talked about already, if your god were to grant you an OOB experience, how would you conclude truth in that, when you see such a possibly being nothing more than 'hallucination'?

Yes, God would also need to grant me the reasoning that shows the OOBE is not a hallucination. Hallucinations, for instance, don’t provide new content, they work off of already held beliefs. Hallucinations don’t occur to groups of people at the same time with the same content.

Q: What 'other method' could you example which you think would sufficiently "show you the truth", - even - where an OOBE wouldn't?

Logic, historical argument, scientific argument, mathematical argument, those kinds of reasonings.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #238]

Are you saying that your view is that this universe is the only one which exists and the immaterial resides as an invisible reality within this universe?

Yes.

Well that is sparse news to me.

This implies that the immaterial [including your god who you say is immaterial] is part of this universe.
Given the sparse information re belief you hold, on the face of it, this informs me that you as think the immaterial created the material, and that the material did not really come from 'nothing' but rather from the immaterial, that the material is made up of densified immaterial.

How is that any different than my understanding that the material exists within The Mind of The Creator?

Your view is that there is that level, which is really an illusion, and another level behind that appearance.

Tell me exactly and succinctly how you reached the conclusion that this is my view, given how I have exactly and succinctly explained the distinction between Creator [=real] and Creation [=not as real/illusionary in comparison].

So, this universe (i.e., that level), which is “not as real”/“illusionary” (i.e., really an illusion) and the Creator, which is real, (i.e., another level behind that appearance). I see those identities in our wordings.

What about the words "in comparison", do you have difficulty in comprehending?
If you're saying the material universe was formed/caused by the immaterial , and it exists within the same place as the immaterial exists, then how is that any different that my saying that the material exists within The Mind of The Creator?

If you think that the immaterial has always existed, and was not created, but that the material has not always existed and was created, why would you have concerns that I understand the immaterial as being more real in comparison to the material?

Are you here looking for something different to believe in than you already now have?

I’m not looking for a belief to replace something I once accepted that I now think is untrue, if that is the kind of thing you mean,

Why would you get that meaning from my question? How does your answer help me to understand your position more fully?

but I’m always looking to challenge my current beliefs.

Beliefs which I know so very little about so cannot really engage in any meaningful way. One cannot 'challenge' what one does not have much data about.
So how is your tactic of being sparing regarding your beliefs, helpful to your process of getting the challenge you claim you are looking for?

Only, as has been pointed out [and you have yet to acknowledge] the hole you perceive as 'nothing' does actually consist of something, so cannot rightly be referred to as a 'negative' or 'opposite'.

What does the hole consist of? I don’t think it consists of anything or has been shown to consist of anything.

It consists of that which replaced what was once not a hole. Mainly "gas", which itself consists of quantum particles.

Have scientists informed us with accompanying evidence that what we see as 'Darkness' is absolutely nothing?

I didn’t say what we call darkness is absolutely nothing. I said that what we call darkness is absent of light.

Yes. I am beginning to understand that Creatio ex nihilo is not a process which claims material is created from nothing, [like magic] but rather is explaining a process whereby material is created from immaterial.

Given that the immaterial is personified [through Theism] as a conscious Creator Being, we would have to conclude that the material is made of the same 'stuff' [quantum particles/immaterial] as the Creator Entity.
Where, in what science has so far revealed, can we see something of the evidence for this process?

We are informed that material is densified quantum particles. Are we therefore deducing that The immaterial quantum field from which material derives, is "The Creator"?

And, since The Creator is said to be self aware and intelligent , are we to conclude that the quantum field [immaterial] is self aware and intelligent and indistinguishable from The Creator - as in - the Quantum Field IS The Creator?

How is that any different to my saying that the material exists within The Mind of The Creator?

The spatial location we call a hole in the wall isn’t absolutely nothing, it’s full of air. The hole doesn’t consist of air, though, as though you could take that air and move it somewhere else and there would be a hole in that new spatial location.

A hole can be said to be the absence of a part of a material object [like a gateway in a wall] which appears to become occupied by air.
The truer explanation is that both the wall and the gateway occupy a 'hole' which was once air, which is gas, which is condensed quantum particles.
Also, the wall and the gateway consist of the same quantum particles, and are just arranged differently, which allows for rock to be, which is a more condensed version of the same quantum particles as gas. [Indeed, gas can be extracted from rock.]

If the wall was the absence of darkness, [only light] then no gateway [hole] would be apparent.

Imagine a universe which only consists of light. What do you see?

If I’m not in the universe (just light is), how could I see anything?

You could at least stick with your current belief that the immaterial and the material coexist in the one and only universe, rather than place yourself 'outside' of it, because 'outside' cannot exist.

If it’s just me and light, then there are no other objects for light waves to bounce off of to enter my eyes.

Specifically, this reasoning does not come from position [3]. Positions [1]&[2] would likely answer it in the that way you have.
Also specifically, I did not ask the question you answered. My question involved the premise that the universe was just light. Thus, a human body would not exist within it, in order to view it.

However [by some strange reason] we can still perhaps imagine what a universe consisting of 'just light' would 'look like'.

It would appear the same as if the universe consisted of 'just dark', in that both would be analogous to 'blank slate' - as no 'thing' [apart from itself] would appear to exist.

So, I honestly don’t understand the question.

Would you agree with me that you didn't understand the question because of the current position you hold?

You seemed to ignore the answer I gave anticipating your possible question which you shared here. While agreeing that your view is logically coherent, at least in its general sense), we don’t agree that your view is the most reasonable view of reality.

We? I agree that it is. You agree that it isn't.

Yes, we don’t agree with each other.

I am not convinced that is the actual case. It is appearing to be more a case of we are [at least potentially] approaching the same answer through different positions.
So for the time being [if the above sentence is true] it is more a case identifying which of the three position offered in the OP is the best one to adopt, because it best reflects everything else.

I say "[3]" and you disagree.

I never attempted to include those specifics.

Really. How is mentioning the overall not to be considered a primary step in an attempt to introduce specifics?

This is akin to being saddened that I didn’t stop beating my wife sooner.

If it were not your intent to introduce specifics, why mention it [beat your wife] at all?

We can now at least agree to drop what you made mention of, as being something which was not worth including in the first place.

Agreed?

Re your computer program analogy, if the algorithm is set to run to that conclusion independent of any more programing from the programmer, then this still does not mean that the program is independent of the programmer, because it would not exist and function as it does without the programmer fist having initiated said program.

If I died, then my idea no longer exists.

Only if you no longer exist, or if you do still exist but somehow did not retain memory of having said idea.

Yes, someone else may have an idea about the same kind of thing but that’s still not my idea.

My suspicion is that no idea can be possessed by a Human Being and that all such ideas derive from The Creator Consciousness.

For example, the Human known as "Albert Einstein" acted as a channel for The Creator to bring those things into the material aspect of the universe, whereby Humans could create from the knowledge the idea gave to Humans.

Or - Just like the knowledge biblical Jesus claimed he was channeling 'from the Father", as another example, from an even earlier position than Albert Einstein's.

Therefore, you could agree that position [3] - while potentially could be seen as a threat by those in positions [1] & [2], is actually not.

In that, you could allow for [3] to perhaps actually being the case, without the allowing creating any reason for you to be concerned if it is indeed the case.

[3] can be believed without damaging faith or imperiling souls.

I don’t think it’s a serious threat to positions [1] and [2], but if true, it does mean [1] and [2] are false. You’ll think “incomplete” but you are really changing what [1] and [2] truly mean as “true but incomplete” statements to do so. I’m always concerned with what is the truth. If it is true, then, of course, it won’t damage one’s soul.

Even if [1] & [2] being incomplete, ones soul should not be damaged by a transition to [3]. A little bruised perhaps...but no real harm done right? After all, your claim is that you want to get to the truth right? Sometimes that involves letting go of that which is not true, and that can be a bit harrowing, depending on what exactly one is holding onto as 'information accepted as truth'.

But in realty, how difficult [in terms of harm which might be caused] would it be for those in positions [1]&[2] to let go and accept position [3] as the more complete position to be?

I would say "No more difficult or harm-causing than what the gif below portrays".



I will answer the rest of your post next.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #238]

Either the Creator invented creatio ex nihilo (and your questions then have obvious answers) or some human created it but we have no idea who it was (and, as a human invention rather than God’s invention, it won’t be true).

I disagree. [=sparse]

The reasoning why [=more data in which to understand why I disagree]

The concept is an idea [like E = mc. 2] and all such ideas originate with The Creator Consciousness. Do you agree?

So that the impression we get which has us saying "some human created it" is incomplete.

As the impression is incomplete, "it won't be as true as a more complete impression would be". Do you agree?

The universe is incomplete. A work in progress. If anything, where it fails the individual [or the individual fails it] is when the ignorance is willful.

Being incomplete is equally as valuable as being complete, though?

Too vague a question for me to bother attempting an answer. Please use specifics.

And if ignorance isn’t bad, then why is willful ignorance a failure?

In relation to the subject [the universe as a current work in progress];

One can fail through ignorance and it would be ethically understandable.

One can fail in 'working on being less ignorant' if one refuses to incorporate new data into their 'working on being less ignorant' state of being. Can this failure be understood as ethical?

Does;

1 The Universe fail the individual by not providing the data?
or;
2 Does the individual fail the universe by not accepting the data that is provided?

If 2 then 'Willful ignorance"

If 1 then "What is being hidden from us by the Universe [immaterial/material] which is causing the failure?"

Why, then, in your view, would the Creator only create if coming to full knowledge is guaranteed in the end, as you have said before?

To experience said creation in that format.

In this case, it is to do with losing oneself in order to find ones self through a different medium [this particular creation]. Not losing ones self in order to never again know ones self.

Ones Mind is not ones self. Rather it is the medium in which one projects ones self upon. The medium of ones mind is an aspect of ones self. Not the complete self on its own.

But it wouldn’t be wrong or bad to lose one’s self in order to never again know one’s self?

Why would one want to be willfully ignorant of a prior existence forever? Rather, it might add something to incorporate the old with the new by extending upon ones understanding of self from both perspectives.

The solid state of Being Omni-Omni could allow for this movement of dance to occur.

The Creator could have done that and it would have been equal in value to what you think The Creator did?

Too vague a question for me to bother attempting an answer. Please use specifics.

you agree that performing evil and putting a child in harm’s way are two different things, right? I just want to be clear on your answer there. That God could put Adam and Eve in harm’s way without being evil to them?

As I explained. Your analogy veers away significantly from the story. The god [God] in the story, is not in any way sharing being in harms way. The "good human parenting skills" analogy is different.

She is automatically placing us in harm’s way, not by any purposeful neglect but by simply not knowing how to drive.

Which was not the position the biblical god was in. "Us" [as in "the man is become as one of Us"] are not in harms way due to Adams decision. We can presume that neglect was involved [on the part of the "Us" in the story] but whether it was purposeful [willful] or not, can we know?
We can see neglect in Adams attentiveness re Eve, but again, whether it was purposeful [willful] or not, can we know?

She has to put us in harm’s way in order to learn how to drive at all.

Does she want to learn how to drive? Would she find someone else to teach her if you chose not to?

Did Adam and Eve have those options, or did the "Us" in the story withhold those options from them? Whether it was purposeful [willful] withholding or not, can we know?

To keep her from harm means never letting her learn how to drive.

More to the point, never letting her be born.

It is probably too late for you to prevent her if she actually wants to learn how to drive. The issue of your love becomes redundant in that regard if she is going to do it anyway.

We can then ask a question based on the fact that;

IF her desire to learn how to drive means that she will ignore your argument that you love her which is why you don't want her to learn how to drive, and learn how to drive regardless of your feelings and position on the matter;
THEN
Has she caused any harm to you or herself or anyone else?

In the Garden story, is there any contrast between the above and it? If the Children wanted knowledge which they were told by the Parent would harm them, is it really love which is telling them not to desire that knowledge? Is it really rebellion that the Children did it anyway?

The analogy has veered away from the Garden Story though. I advise you correct that or you will drive into the wall.

In the Garden Story, the Parent has not given the Children that option...He did not force them to scoot over and show them how it should be done.

Indeed, He wasn't even in the same vehicle, so was in no danger himself. So your analogy needs correcting.

It hasn’t veered at all. God did guide the humans into what they should have done. In order to keep them from harm, guaranteed, God would have had to control every action of theirs that went against what was best for them. He would have to take away their free will.

Free will [and its variants] is not an established real thing.

However, I can still work with what you wrote if the word 'free' was removed from the word "will".

In that;

1 God did guide the humans into what they should have done.

Rather, the story tells it that the guiding was in what they shouldn't desire to have.
'What they should have done' is an expression after the fact, not before.

2 In order to keep them from harm, guaranteed, God would have had to control every action of theirs that went against what was best for them.

As the story has it, there was an attempt made to do that, by instilling the knowledge of fearful results into them. Like you would do to try and convince your daughter not to learn how to drive. "Don't learn to drive or you will be in harms way!"

3: He would have to take away their will.

Thus, rendering them incapable of making any decision. We are hereby rendering them unanimated, unless we can provide an example of something animated which was directly created through the immaterial Creator. Robots wouldn't count, as these are indirectly created through the material medium.

4: He would have to, analogically, never let them drive or ride in a car or have any free choice because that would be putting them in harm’s way.

Since they are already in harms way, even without the forbidden fruit existing, if it is assumed that they were given no choice in the matter of existing in that landscape, the subsequent choices they can make is a matter of first being made, and then placed in harms way. Thus, such was forced upon them without prior consent and any subsequent choices they make are besides the point.

or;

Since they are already in harms way, even without the forbidden fruit existing, if it is assumed that they were given the choice in the matter of existing in that landscape, the subsequent choices they can make is a matter of first being made, and then placed in harms way, because the were given the choice and desired to be in harms way through there own choice, then all subsequent choices are part of that process. No one need be to 'blame' as 'being in harms way' is done through the choice of all involved.

Which way does the Garden story tell us it happened, and why should that be believed?

Look back at my quote above. I didn’t say you tried to convince me that position [3] was true but that “you tried to convince me and others that [[3] was a] good interpretation[s] of Scripture”. Surely, you aren’t arguing that the Bible can be interpreted to support [3] (and [1] and [2], of course) but that interpreting it to support [3] is a very bad interpretation, right?

I will hold off on replying to that question for the time being.

Q: Given what we have talked about already, if your god were to grant you an OOB experience, how would you conclude truth in that, when you see such a possibly being nothing more than 'hallucination'?

Yes, God would also need to grant me the reasoning that shows the OOBE is not a hallucination.

It would have to be reasonable for you to come to that conclusion? Should that remain between you and your god, or will you elaborate further?

Hallucinations, for instance, don’t provide new content, they work off of already held beliefs.

Since [for the most part] my experience [told to you in other threads] was not something which 'worked off already held beliefs', by your standard, I cannot class it as strictly an "Hallucination".

Also - in line with your definition of Hallucination - positions [1]&[2]&[3] are that which "work off of" [are created through] "already held beliefs"
In that, all three positions can be regarded as Hallucination.

Hallucinations don’t occur to groups of people at the same time with the same content.

Unless positions [1]&[2]&[3] can be classed as hallucinations under your current definition of what an hallucination is. Then all three positions can represent altogether, "Group Hallucination".

Q: What 'other method' could you example which you think would sufficiently "show you the truth", - even - where an OOBE wouldn't?

Logic, historical argument, scientific argument, mathematical argument, those kinds of reasonings.

What about data from other sources, such as reports from those who have experienced OOBEs?

What about the data in the link to the CIA website I gave a while back regarding remote viewing, in response to your asking me for support for my assertions, to which you dismissed at the time, by not following up on it. [= an example of an expression of willful ignorance]. Why demand supporting evidence if you are not going to follow it up?


To end this then, I feel to say that I am enjoying our ongoing interactions - so much more than ever before.

[William]