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]?

[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.

Well that is sparse news to me.

I directly answered your question. Your thought process is different from mine and different from most people I come into contact with on this board and non-digitally. That’s not a bad thing, so please don’t hear that. I cannot always anticipate all of the other thoughts and questions you’ll have off of ones like this to better avoid possible confusions with a more detailed answer. For instance...

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.

There is no reason to jump to the belief that I must think the material world is made up of “densified” immaterial. Most people would not think that follows. I understand you saying that, from knowing a bit of you and your thoughts, but it’s certainly not what most people would infer about my beliefs. It would be helpful if we asked each other more questions in follow-up than we usually do. I’m trying to get better at that myself.

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

I do not think matter is “densified” immaterial ‘stuff’. I think matter is a completely new ‘thing,’ completely different stuff. Using Aristotle’s language that we’ve talked about recently, the non-physical (i.e., immaterial) is the efficient cause but not the material cause of physical things (i.e., material). There is no material cause of the physical/matter, so it’s not “densified” anything. Your belief is that what what we call the physical and The Creator is the same “stuff,” right?

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?

By the common definition, the immaterial has no spatial location, so it doesn’t technically exist within the same place. The Mind isn’t a place within which something can exist. I view the Mind of the Creator (i.e., the Creator) as a different thing than the material, completely different ‘stuff’.

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?

First, I think some immaterial beings were created, just not the Creator. Second, I think being eternal or created is different from being real, at least at the definitional level, even if all real things were eternal. So, it is strange to me for you to connect those two things and say something is more real because it is eternal and the cause of the other.

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?

First, I said “if that is the kind of thing you mean,” so I wasn’t sure. Second, I don’t think it’s a crazy attempt to understand what you might have meant and does share my thoughts that could possibly help you understand me better.

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?

On one hand you say I’m being too sparing, then when I offer an “if that is what you mean, then I believe this…,” sharing info on more than you specifically wanted, I get dinged as well. I feel like it’s lose-lose. I honestly don’t think I’m being sparing with my answers. I’m trying to answer your questions as directly as I can and will continue to explain it in more detail as our conversation goes on.

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.

No, we don’t have to conclude that. In fact, one shouldn’t conclude that. There is no material cause. There is no stuff that changes into a different kind of stuff. It’s the creation of new stuff.

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 physical stuff we interact with at this level is made up of quantum particles, but those quantum particles are still material. The quantum field is not immaterial. Thus, all the other conclusions you just made don’t follow.

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.

What we call a hole (i.e., where there used to be a wall) is occupied by air (or quantum particles), but it’s not the air (or quantum particles).

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.

That’s exactly what I said above! “If I’m not in the universe (just light is), how could I see anything?” I wasn’t saying I’d be outside the universe but that, as a human body, I 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.

They would not appear the same. To say they would be the same is to treat them as something they are not. A universe full of light would definitely be of a different nature than a universe where no light exists.

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

Position on what? It has nothing to do with me being a Christian, if that is what you mean. It was about understanding exactly what issue you were trying to address.

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

For the reason I already shared. I was addressing a specific view of yours that I didn’t think was illogical. I’ve addressed views of yours before in interactions that I do think are illogical. I wanted to make sure you didn’t think I was saying that I think all of your views are logical to avoid possible future confusions on that front. I always think making one’s thoughts as clear as possible is a thing worth including in the first place.

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.

Agreed.

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.

Sure, but whether this is true or not doesn’t matter for the point of the analogy, which was to note a possible distinction between how things could be dependent on something else.

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'.

This, I think, is illogical, when considering another of your views. How can holding [1] and [2] be harmful if there is no good or evil? Why should one let go of what is not true?

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?

It would be harmful if [3] is not the more complete position. It would not be harmful if [3] is more complete.

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?

If your view is true, then all ideas originate with The Creator Consciousness, and “some human created it” would be an incomplete statement. If my view is true, then all ideas do not originate with The Creator and, therefore, “some human created it” could be a complete statement.

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

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

I don’t see why you think it is vague. Is being complete more valuable than being incomplete, in any situation? What is a better state to be in, having complete knowledge or incomplete knowledge? What is better: to know you are The Creator or to think you and The Creator are eternally distinct?

If there is no good and bad/evil, then how is ignorance bad? Why should one strive for knowledge rather than striving for ignorance? And I mean the individual not accepting the data the universe is providing, your “willful ignorance”.

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.

I wouldn’t want to, but that’s because I think knowledge is better than, ‘good’ in comparison to, ignorance. But you don’t believe in good and evil, so assuming one does want to be willfully ignorant forever, that wouldn’t be a bad thing, right?

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?

God is putting Himself in harm’s way, although in a different way than we can be harmed. God doesn’t want people to harm themselves and others. It grieves God.

My daughter will be able to drive by herself, probably tomorrow if she passes the test. If I let her drive, even now, I am putting her in harm’s way, even if she was the best driver on the planet because there are other drivers on the road. I am automatically putting her in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in learning to drive. God is automatically putting us (and Himself, in a different way) in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in humans having free will.

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

She does want to. I don't know if she would try to find someone else if I didn't teach her. Probably so, eventually?

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?

Analogically, I guess you mean: did they want to have free will? Yes, God makes that choice for us. God would logically have to, for to even give us that choice is already given us free will in that choice. There is no one else who could give them free will. Are there other options you are thinking about?

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?

To be clear, I think it would be unloving to not teach her how to drive. She needs to know how to drive and have guidance on how to do it safely. But assuming the IF above, I would say she wouldn’t cause me true harm but only good that I would perceive as harm.

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?

As a reminder (or perhaps clarification for you), I think the Children wanted to decide for themselves what was good, already having knowledge of what was good and evil, so it would be really love to tell them not to do the action and it would really be rebellion to go against that omniscient wisdom.

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.

No, it’s not. They were told they shouldn’t eat from the fruit before the fact.

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!"

Telling them what is bad is not controlling their action.

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?

Neither. God puts them in harm’s way by giving them free will (so, you are right there) but this is the only way that any subsequent choices aren’t besides the point.

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?

Should what remain? What specific reasons or evidence would convince me? All reasons and evidence I’ve specifically seen don’t convince me, so I can’t say, specifically, what would convince me. Or should something else remain?

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".

If you are correct about that, then yes.

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.

All things that are hallucinations are all things that work off of already held beliefs but not all things that work off of already held beliefs are hallucinations. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats.

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

Their reports alone are not enough. You don’t accept every report someone tells you, right?

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?

It’s an 80 page report. I asked you to summarize it for me to consider and to see if it would be worth my time to read more in depth. You didn’t want to do that. Yes, I could read it on my own, but if the person offering it as good evidence won’t even summarize some points about it for someone asking for support to see, then why should I think it is worth my time, especially when other materials I’ve read that have talked about such things have fallen way short of reasonable evidence?

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

I’m glad to hear that. I am enjoying them as well.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #242]

I directly answered your question.

My point about that is that you do so sparingly, so directly answering a question in such a manner is not helpful to my understanding your position. In the past this has meant that I resort to assuming my own understanding as to what you are saying, and then responding to that, only to be informed by you that this was not what you were saying, or words to that effect.

Your thought process is different from mine and different from most people I come into contact with on this board and non-digitally.

I understand.

That’s not a bad thing, so please don’t hear that. I cannot always anticipate all of the other thoughts and questions you’ll have off of ones like this to better avoid possible confusions with a more detailed answer. For instance...

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.

There is no reason to jump to the belief that I must think the material world is made up of “densified” immaterial. Most people would not think that follows. I understand you saying that, from knowing a bit of you and your thoughts, but it’s certainly not what most people would infer about my beliefs. It would be helpful if we asked each other more questions in follow-up than we usually do. I’m trying to get better at that myself.

I do not think that is the source of the problem. Rather it is as I said, a matter of your being sparse to begin with. If you were more informative in relation to statements of belief, then I would not have to ask questions which interrupt a better communicative flow.

The problem is that you leave me to try and work out what you mean, and then when I have done this, you respond with 'That is not what I believe." or words to that effect.
I want to find another way in which we can proceed so that this does not occur.

Also I should note that my response above had to do with known facts regarding the idea of an invisible reality which is nonetheless physical in nature. The quantum particles do indeed densify and this is why we have objects to acknowledge the existence of.
So I am taking what is known fact and coupling that to what little you have shared regarding the immaterial and the material, and since you said that you believed these existed in the same universe, I can only trace that back to the quantum field as being that which you are speaking of in regard to the immaterial.

Now [by your answer] I am left wondering if you are saying there is still something which exists within this universe which is behind the quantum field.
BUT.

Since you have also informed me that your position doesn't have an extra layer, I have no choice but to stop at the quantum field and presume that this is what you are referring to as the immaterial.

What other logical conclusion can I draw from the sparsity of your information? Information which your claim is WHY you believe what you do.

I do not think matter is “densified” immaterial ‘stuff’. I think matter is a completely new ‘thing,’ completely different stuff. Using Aristotle’s language that we’ve talked about recently, the non-physical (i.e., immaterial) is the efficient cause but not the material cause of physical things (i.e., material). There is no material cause of the physical/matter, so it’s not “densified” anything.

Then I have no choice but to observe that you do indeed have another layer behind Creation. So it becomes a possible double standard that you critique my having an extra layer [which make things more complex] when your own model has that extra layer as well.

Your belief is that what what we call the physical and The Creator is the same “stuff,” right?

No. You should know by now that I do not use the word 'belief' in relation to any of my claims.

My position is that there is no need to add the extra layer which separates the Creator from The Creation.

In relation to position [3] this amounts to the understanding that we are 'the same stuff' as The Creator in that we are Enteral Spirit [individuate spirits] experiencing being Human and will do so until our Human forms give up that ghost.

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?

By the common definition, the immaterial has no spatial location, so it doesn’t technically exist within the same place.

So? What do those who provide common definitions know about such things?

The Mind isn’t a place within which something can exist.

How do you know that this is the case?

I view the Mind of the Creator (i.e., the Creator) as a different thing than the material, completely different ‘stuff’.

Why? What reasons do you have for this view of The Creators Mind?

[To simplify, bullet points are acceptable to me as answers, as these are at least less spare than no explanations at all. Any further questions which come from said bullet points, I will ask.]

My view of the Mind of The Creator comes about by observing the Universe as it currently is, in its state of unfolding [being created] and thus I see no option but to understand that the Mind of The Creator simply cannot be limited to whatever retardations we assume about it. The better way to view this, is to assume that there is nothing that The Creator cannot do with in Its Mind, and make that the default position. The position to work all other things off of.

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?

First, I think some immaterial beings were created, just not the Creator.

Do you think that The Creator was also created? If so, what do you think created The Creator?

Why do you think other immaterial beings were created and do you mean those other beings were created by The Creator. Please explain their purpose. Also, since these other beings are immaterial, do you think they are created from 'the stuff' of The Creator, who is also immaterial? If not, why not?

Second, I think being eternal or created is different from being real, at least at the definitional level, even if all real things were eternal.

That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

So, it is strange to me for you to connect those two things and say something is more real because it is eternal and the cause of the other.

My best answer is to repeat what I have already said about that. Since I would only be repeating myself, and since I have no other way of saying it, I have to conclude that there is no point in repeating something which seem to be ill-equipped to understand.

First, I said “if that is the kind of thing you mean,” so I wasn’t sure.

Thus we both need to reign in the horses so that this chariot ride runs smoother. Shall we agree that if we do not know what the other is meaning that we just ask for clarification. That way, we can avoid having to waste words in the future.

First, I said “if that is the kind of thing you mean,” so I wasn’t sure. Second, I don’t think it’s a crazy attempt to understand what you might have meant and does share my thoughts that could possibly help you understand me better.

The mystery to me has to do with what you were referring to as "something you once accepted that you now think is untrue". The statement on its own gives me no information regarding that, so I do not see its relevance to our overall conversation re the subject.

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?

On one hand you say I’m being too sparing, then when I offer an “if that is what you mean, then I believe this…,” sharing info on more than you specifically wanted, I get dinged as well.

Fortunately for you there is no fine invoked.

I feel like it’s lose-lose. I honestly don’t think I’m being sparing with my answers.

Even though I point those out to you?

I’m trying to answer your questions as directly as I can and will continue to explain it in more detail as our conversation goes on.

Therein, having made the complaint, you fail to answer the question ["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?"] anyway, other than to say that you know of no other way.

So we are here to perhaps help each other, if indeed our apparent motivation for doing so is the same - that we each want to learn and might have an opportunity to do so if we can agree to the best way forward in achieving this.

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.

No, we don’t have to conclude that. In fact, one shouldn’t conclude that. There is no material cause. There is no stuff that changes into a different kind of stuff. It’s the creation of new stuff.

I say again;
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

I gave my reason why I think what I think. "Given that the immaterial is personified [through Theism] as a conscious Creator Being," [that is agreed upon yes?] and "the material is made of the same 'stuff' [quantum particles/immaterial] as the Creator Entity."

This is because, otherwise we have to add that naughty "extra layer" if we include your belief that there is a difference.

So yes - if you are going to make statements, please bullet point why you think it is the case that you are allowed to have that extra layer but also claim that my view adds an extra layer [which hasn't been established anyway] and should be 'logically' dismissed on account of that.

Double standards are unhelpful, but perhaps further explanation on your part might show this is not a double standard on your part, at all.

The physical stuff we interact with at this level is made up of quantum particles, but those quantum particles are still material. The quantum field is not immaterial. Thus, all the other conclusions you just made don’t follow.

Are you therefore claiming that the quantum field from which the particles form, is immaterial? If so, then my question still hasn't been answered. How is that any different to my saying that the material exists within The Mind of The Creator? Obviously we can deduce that the immaterial quantum field can represent "The Mind of The Creator" because it has the qualities necessary to form such conclusion.

1: It is immaterial
2: From it, the material is formed [quantum particles]
3: From the material, shapes are created which involves densification.

What we call a hole (i.e., where there used to be a wall) is occupied by air (or quantum particles), but it’s not the air (or quantum particles).

I say again;
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

What is the hole if it is not those things you say it is not?

That’s exactly what I said above! “If I’m not in the universe (just light is), how could I see anything?” I wasn’t saying I’d be outside the universe but that, as a human body, I would not exist within it, in order to view it.

And my point is, that we can still imagine what it would be like - perhaps not intricately, but enough to 'get the gist.'

They would not appear the same. To say they would be the same is to treat them as something they are not. A universe full of light would definitely be of a different nature than a universe where no light exists.

And again,
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

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

Position on what?

Now I would have to scroll back to the post your quote me from, if I want to know what it is you are referring to because you have not included that.

But my question was not about what position I think you hold. But what position you know you hold. I was therefore asking you the question based on the assumption that you understood what position you hold.

It has nothing to do with me being a Christian, if that is what you mean.

I have no idea as to what position you hold or whether being a Christian makes any difference to that.

It was about understanding exactly what issue you were trying to address.

My reply was related to my ongoing attempt to find a way in which you can understand my position. So far my attempts consisting of literally thousands of words, and many pictures, has apparently not done the trick. I preserver on the grounds that you claim you want the challenge of possibly learning new things.

For the reason I already shared. I was addressing a specific view of yours that I didn’t think was illogical. I’ve addressed views of yours before in interactions that I do think are illogical. I wanted to make sure you didn’t think I was saying that I think all of your views are logical to avoid possible future confusions on that front. I always think making one’s thoughts as clear as possible is a thing worth including in the first place.

I am still asking for you to identify the specifics. Bullet points will do. This is necessarily if I am to be enabled to help you understand my position. I would do the same for you, only I don't know enough detail about your beliefs, so "shrugs".

Agreed.

I have decided that whenever we agree on something, I will document that for future reference. Such a thing might be useful down the line...to help me with that, it might be useful if I can now identify off hand what things we have already agreed with...but none pop-to-mind at present...oh - hang on - we do agree on the fundamental one. We exist within a Creation, therefore there is a Creator.
The branching off from that truck, into specifics is where we [appear to] part company.

Sure, but whether this is true or not doesn’t matter for the point of the analogy, which was to note a possible distinction between how things could be dependent on something else.

I am not sure what it is you are saying here. Can you reword it?

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'.

This, I think, is illogical, when considering another of your views. How can holding [1] and [2] be harmful if there is no good or evil?

I never said [1]&[2] were harmful.
In fact, I said they were benficial as they allow for a safe place for the individual to dwell [albeit temporarily].

Why should one let go of what is not true?

Because it becomes another step toward freedom, if Biblical Jesus is to be believed. Isn't that what you mean when you state that you want the challenge of new information which might help change your current views?

That is specifically why I also made mention of "Soul Retrievers". These represent the carriers of new information re interacting with those in positions [1]&[2].

Further to that idea, this is why I freely give my information to you. Not necessarily because it might help you adjust your beliefs in our current phase of experience, but more realistically, that my words become part of the data of your experience which you will carry with you into the next phase, and which may turn out to be quite helpful to you therein.

Win/Win.

It would be harmful if [3] is not the more complete position.

That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

It would not be harmful if [3] is more complete.

Agreed.

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?

If your view is true, then all ideas originate with The Creator Consciousness, and “some human created it” would be an incomplete statement.

Not so fast. I clearly said that all SUCH ideas come from The Creator. You should also be aware by now that I understand that ideas are also filtered by human belief systems, so while everything [and thus ideas] originate from The Creator, these are still subjected to the filters humans then put them through.

If my view is true, then all ideas do not originate with The Creator and, therefore, “some human created it” could be a complete statement.

Unless the processes involved were themselves considered complete, which I do not think either of us would agree to, but certainly I don't agree to that.

Is being complete more valuable than being incomplete, in any situation?

Is placing value conditions upon it, the best way of accessing any situation?

If position [3] allows for more freedom of movement and access to fuller knowledge than do positions [1]&[2], would you consider that 'more valuable'?

What is a better state to be in, having complete knowledge or incomplete knowledge?

That is something I am not arguing, because it is focusing on extremes. in relation to [3], clearly the individual has better access to more knowledge than positions [1]&[2] so it is not about having "complete knowledge". So if the question was "What is a better state to be in, having access to more knowledge [3] or remaining in a state of having less knowledge?", what would your answer be?

What is better: to know you are The Creator or to think you and The Creator are eternally distinct?

[3] makes no distinctions on that. What [3] does is acknowledge that there are no distinctions which are real regarding the individual and the collective. [3] does not make images of The Creator which allow for one to then declare that "I and The Creator are eternally distinct."

This is what I think the idea that "The Creator and Man are One" points to. Same goes for "We are children of The Creator" or, as Biblical Jesus say's "I and The Father are One." etc. Those able to express such, signify that they have placed aside images which denote separation and acknowledge that understanding as allowing access to more knowledge, because the imagery has been seen to be false. [Created through incomplete knowledge in relation to that subject.]

If there is no good and bad/evil, then how is ignorance bad?

Did I claim that ignorance was bad/evil?

Why should one strive for knowledge rather than striving for ignorance?

Considering that the human individual is born ignorant, and that the nature of nature is a constant flow of information which humans have the capacity to experience and learn from, I see no logic in the way you framed your question, as it does not take into account the human situation as it is.

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.

I wouldn’t want to, but that’s because I think knowledge is better than, ‘good’ in comparison to, ignorance. But you don’t believe in good and evil, so assuming one does want to be willfully ignorant forever, that wouldn’t be a bad thing, right?

I couldn't say because you haven't provided any example of what being "willfully ignorant forever" would have to consist of in terms of how such a state could be successfully maintained, should anyone want that. You also would need to supply a logical reason as to why any individual would want that.
I would suppose that one would want to be somehow enclosed within a box which contained only light or dark so that information was inaccessible to them.
Even so, since they have a mind, this may not work either. So one would have to have their mind removed in order for that to be possible, which of course means that the person would no longer be a person, so could not want anything.

So I do not see how being willfully ignorant forever can be an option IF one also has to exist as an individual entity who has the option.

So - please expand on your reasons for asking such a question "assuming one does want to be willfully ignorant forever, that wouldn’t be a bad thing, right?" as to what you are relating this to.

God is putting Himself in harm’s way, although in a different way than we can be harmed. God doesn’t want people to harm themselves and others. It grieves God.

Are you saying that The Creator is harmed by grief?

My daughter will be able to drive by herself, probably tomorrow if she passes the test. If I let her drive, even now, I am putting her in harm’s way, even if she was the best driver on the planet because there are other drivers on the road. I am automatically putting her in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in learning to drive. God is automatically putting us (and Himself, in a different way) in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in humans having free will.

Free will hasn't been establish as being a real thing.
Also - when I frame what you wrote with the words "I am automatically putting my child (and myself, in a different way) in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in humans having will." I see no evidence that this is the case, therefore I should not accept that the god in the story [or any God] could possibly be harmed.

She does want to. I don't know if she would try to find someone else if I didn't teach her. Probably so, eventually?

In that, is the analogy accurate to the biblical story? Because you are saying there are things you do not know about your daughter. Is that also the case with the parent-figures in the story re the children-figures?

Analogically, I guess you mean: did they want to have free will?

Correct.

Yes, God makes that choice for us. God would logically have to, for to even give us that choice is already given us free will in that choice. There is no one else who could give them free will.

"Free Will" has not been established as actually existing.

If one is given will, then what exactly is will? I think it is to do with being an Eternal Entity within individuate structure(s). How is that different from The Creators position? Will is an inherent attribute of being an Entity. It is part of what being an Entity is.
Therefore, this would signify that what is given by The Creator is an attribute of The Creator. Thus, why I hold the view that we are aspects of The Creator, placed within individuate landscapes.

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?

To be clear, I think it would be unloving to not teach her how to drive. She needs to know how to drive and have guidance on how to do it safely. But assuming the IF above, I would say she wouldn’t cause me true harm but only good that I would perceive as harm.

And in that, are you saying this then is how the biblical God saw things? That He has misidentified what actually occurred?

I don't see that myself. That is why I think your driving analogy is incorrect.

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?

As a reminder (or perhaps clarification for you), I think the Children wanted to decide for themselves what was good, already having knowledge of what was good and evil, so it would be really love to tell them not to do the action and it would really be rebellion to go against that omniscient wisdom.

That would be correct if the story did not say that they were forbidden from eating that which would allow them to know good and evil. Your argument above is based on the premise that they already have knowledge of what was good and evil before the disobedient act.
As such, I have no reason to accept what you argue as being true or even logical.

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.

No, it’s not. They were told they shouldn’t eat from the fruit before the fact.

Before what fact? Before the fact that the tree was placed there along with the Serpent? Because that would have been the better time to tell them, logically speaking.
Which of course ties directly in with my saying that if you don't want your Child to be harmed, then your should have prevented her from being born.

Assuming you don't see that as a suitable option, your abilities are not the same as The Creators.

That is why I think it logical that we are Eternal Spirits and as such, we were given the option to experience being in harms way, and forewarned, chose to become human anyway.

Thus, no blame for harm need be meted out, either on us, or The Creator.

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?

Should what remain?

The information between you and your God regarding that.

What specific reasons or evidence would convince me? All reasons and evidence I’ve specifically seen don’t convince me, so I can’t say, specifically, what would convince me.

Then why are you asking your God for an OOBE experience? Or "what exactly" are you asking your God for?

All things that are hallucinations are all things that work off of already held beliefs but not all things that work off of already held beliefs are hallucinations. All cats are mammals but not all mammals are cats.

Okay, so that ought to help you formulate how best request from your God, an OBBE.

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

Their reports alone are not enough.

Why not?

You don’t accept every report someone tells you, right?

Yes I do. I accept it in as far as it is information. Just like I accept that there is information regarding the resurrection.

As you should know by now, I process said information and in that, arrange it in a way that offers me a better understanding as to what is most likely happening.
That is specifically WHY I am an Agnostic THEIST. Because the information I have processed to date, convinces me enough that we exist within a Creation, and therefore this implies that a Creator exists.

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?

It’s an 80 page report. I asked you to summarize it for me to consider and to see if it would be worth my time to read more in depth. You didn’t want to do that. Yes, I could read it on my own, but if the person offering it as good evidence won’t even summarize some points about it for someone asking for support to see, then why should I think it is worth my time, especially when other materials I’ve read that have talked about such things have fallen way short of reasonable evidence?

The way I handle the information is as logically as possible. None of us as individuals have the time to process all the information available let alone present our findings in such a way as that everything becomes totally apparent to anyone who might care to view it.

So my pointing you to the information was not my asking you to read all the information.
I haven't read all the information in that document, and do not need to in order to regard it as evidence which supports other information.

The way I have found is that when presented with supporting evidence such as that link I gave, is to check it out by using simplified steps.

1: Remember The Premise. In this case it is my claim that we are Eternal Spirits experiencing a particular reality.
2: Look For Key Words. Most often this will be subject matter [re supporting evidence.] In this case the subject matter is "An Evaluation of The Remote Viewing Program"
3: Look for other clues. For example, the address is https://www.cia.gov/ so the evidence is sanctioned by government as suitable for public disclosure of subject matter.
4: Search for information on subject matter which will give a quick summary. Often Wikipedia is a good place to start.

In this case the definition and accompanying overview text end with;

"Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s upon the declassification of certain documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program that had started in 1975 and was sponsored by the U.S. government, in an attempt to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was terminated in 1995 after it failed to produce any actionable intelligence information.[n 1][12]"

[LINK]

Further text adds;

Early background
In early occult and spiritualist literature, remote viewing was known as telesthesia and travelling clairvoyance. Rosemary Guiley described it as "seeing remote or hidden objects clairvoyantly with the inner eye, or in alleged out-of-body travel."[13]

And:

Based upon both of their studies, which recommended a higher level of critical research and tighter controls, the CIA terminated the $20 million project in 1995.[12] Time magazine stated in 1995 that three full-time psychics were still working on a $500,000-a-year budget at Fort Meade, Maryland, which would soon be closed.[12]

The AIR report concluded that no usable intelligence data was produced in the program.[n 1] David Goslin, of the American Institute for Research said, "There's no documented evidence it had any value to the intelligence community".[12]

So if the Wiki information can be taken by you as adequate evidence that such things cannot happen, would this be enough to convince you to withdrawn your request to your God, to assist you in experiencing an OOBE?

So you see, the act of investigating does not require you read 80 pages of stuff, but that you do a little bit of tapping on the keyboard and use the search-for-information, read a summary and add that to your compilation. What picture forms for you?

And I do the same, only from a different platform, as I have experienced OOBE so for me it is not an alleged thing.

[The Tanager]

My point about that is that you do so sparingly, so directly answering a question in such a manner is not helpful to my understanding your position. In the past this has meant that I resort to assuming my own understanding as to what you are saying, and then responding to that, only to be informed by you that this was not what you were saying, or words to that effect.

But you don’t have to resort to doing that. If you have a clarification or follow-up question that clarifies what you originally meant with the first question, then ask that instead of assuming any answer to a question you haven’t clearly asked, even if the lack of clarity was my fault.

The problem is that you leave me to try and work out what you mean, and then when I have done this, you respond with 'That is not what I believe." or words to that effect.
I want to find another way in which we can proceed so that this does not occur.

I think the way to proceed is to realize our different backgrounds, different circles, different terminologies and be ready to ask many clarifying questions rather than assuming the other is holding back information and being “sparse” with their details.

The quantum particles do indeed densify and this is why we have objects to acknowledge the existence of.

So I am taking what is known fact and coupling that to what little you have shared regarding the immaterial and the material, and since you said that you believed these existed in the same universe, I can only trace that back to the quantum field as being that which you are speaking of in regard to the immaterial.

No, that’s not all you can do. Without other information already given and without a willingness to directly ask a question that would clear my view up for you, if you want to assume my view on a matter, you should assume I hold the normal scientific understanding, which is that the quantum field is material.

Now [by your answer] I am left wondering if you are saying there is still something which exists within this universe which is behind the quantum field.

What do you mean by “behind” the quantum field? I believe the immaterial is separate from the quantum field. God created it but the quantum field isn’t made up of the immaterial, it’s not a transformation of the immaterial into the quantum field.

Since you have also informed me that your position doesn't have an extra layer, I have no choice but to stop at the quantum field and presume that this is what you are referring to as the immaterial.

You are misunderstanding what I mean about an extra layer. I believe in one layer (that layer contains the material (which itself contains the quantum field) as well as the immaterial). You believe that layer exists but is an simulation/illusion (please pardon me for forgetting the term you wanted to use) and that it all is the transformation of The Creator and will transform back into The Creator when the illusion/simulation goes away.

You have the real layer (The Creator) and the second layer (our illusory selves, the not-ultimate Earth, etc.).

No. You should know by now that I do not use the word 'belief' in relation to any of my claims.

My position is that there is no need to add the extra layer which separates the Creator from The Creation.

In relation to position [3] this amounts to the understanding that we are 'the same stuff' as The Creator in that we are Enteral Spirit [individuate spirits] experiencing being Human and will do so until our Human forms give up that ghost.

Yes, that is what I mean. That is different than my view, where we aren’t the same “stuff,” but distinct ultimate “stuffs”.

So? What do those who provide common definitions know about such things?

When you say things like “I can only conclude such-and-such” and then base your conclusion on abnormal definitions of terms, even if your definition should be the one understood and used, and don’t ask a clarifying question, then we have a rational problem.

I view the Mind of the Creator (i.e., the Creator) as a different thing than the material, completely different ‘stuff’.

Why? What reasons do you have for this view of The Creators Mind?

Ultimately this rests on the historicity of the Resurrection but even without considering that, with all else equal, simplicity and universal human intuition point to a true distinction existing.

My view of the Mind of The Creator comes about by observing the Universe as it currently is, in its state of unfolding [being created] and thus I see no option but to understand that the Mind of The Creator simply cannot be limited to whatever retardations we assume about it. The better way to view this, is to assume that there is nothing that The Creator cannot do with in Its Mind, and make that the default position. The position to work all other things off of.

But you are limiting it just as much as I am! If I am limiting it by saying it’s distinct, then you are limiting it by saying it’s not distinct. You are assuming the Creator can’t create a new “stuff” with Its Mind, though. Why is your view not limiting? It’s just a different kind of limitation.

First, I think some immaterial beings were created, just not the Creator.

Do you think that The Creator was also created? If so, what do you think created The Creator?

I think the Creator is eternal and uncreated.

Why do you think other immaterial beings were created and do you mean those other beings were created by The Creator. Please explain their purpose. Also, since these other beings are immaterial, do you think they are created from 'the stuff' of The Creator, who is also immaterial? If not, why not?

In short, my view there rests on the historicity of the Resurrection and Jesus’ teaching that this is true. Yes, they were created by God. Their purposes include glorifying God, loving each other, providing messages to humans. They aren’t the same stuff as the Creator. They are immaterial, like God, but it’s not a transformation of God’s immaterial ‘stuff’ into their ‘stuff’. It’s new immaterial ‘stuff’.

Second, I think being eternal or created is different from being real, at least at the definitional level, even if all real things were eternal.

That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

This assumes a definition of “real” to be something like: “actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.” Both eternal and created things can, conceivably, be an actually existing thing or occurrence in fact, not imagined or supposed.

Thus we both need to reign in the horses so that this chariot ride runs smoother. Shall we agree that if we do not know what the other is meaning that we just ask for clarification. That way, we can avoid having to waste words in the future.

Yes, I agree. I do understand stuff like: IF you mean this, THEN…, as another way to address whether you mean what you just said in this way but I will try to break that habit here.

The mystery to me has to do with what you were referring to as "something you once accepted that you now think is untrue". The statement on its own gives me no information regarding that, so I do not see its relevance to our overall conversation re the subject.

You asked if I was looking for something different to believe in than I already now have. I meant the following with those words: that I haven’t rejected a belief on an issue and am looking on what belief to replace that with.

No, we don’t have to conclude that. In fact, one shouldn’t conclude that. There is no material cause. There is no stuff that changes into a different kind of stuff. It’s the creation of new stuff.

I say again;
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

I gave my reason why I think what I think. "Given that the immaterial is personified [through Theism] as a conscious Creator Being," [that is agreed upon yes?] and "the material is made of the same 'stuff' [quantum particles/immaterial] as the Creator Entity."

How is that given a reason for why you think the way you do? You stated the equivalent of “IF the Creator is immaterial, THEN material stuff is made out of immaterial stuff.” But what reason do you have to believe that?

On the other hand, I’m saying that the Creator can be immaterial and create material which is different ‘stuff’. For your “if...then” to be true, you must show my example to be logically impossible.

This is because, otherwise we have to add that naughty "extra layer" if we include your belief that there is a difference.

So yes - if you are going to make statements, please bullet point why you think it is the case that you are allowed to have that extra layer but also claim that my view adds an extra layer [which hasn't been established anyway] and should be 'logically' dismissed on account of that.

Double standards are unhelpful, but perhaps further explanation on your part might show this is not a double standard on your part, at all.

Even worded this way, you still have two layers: the immaterial and an ‘illusory’ (again, please remind me of the word you think is correct for your view) material level, while I have an immaterial and a material level.

The context of my claim was comparing how we both have level A (I think it is real, you think it is a simulation by the second layer) and you have an additional level B (that does the simulation). To You the Creator is in level B, while I put God in level A.

The physical stuff we interact with at this level is made up of quantum particles, but those quantum particles are still material. The quantum field is not immaterial. Thus, all the other conclusions you just made don’t follow.

Are you therefore claiming that the quantum field from which the particles form, is immaterial?

No, the quantum field is not immaterial.

I say again;
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

What is the hole if it is not those things you say it is not?

(As I previously said) take the air (or quantum particles), move their spatial location, say from my house to yours. Do you now have a hole? If not, then the air (or quantum particles) aren’t the hole.

They would not appear the same. To say they would be the same is to treat them as something they are not. A universe full of light would definitely be of a different nature than a universe where no light exists.

And again,
That statement alone is insufficient for me reply because it does not include WHY you think that.

In our universe can you tell the difference between an area of light and an area of darkness? If so, then how would they look the same as each other in your scenario?

I am still asking for you to identify the specifics. Bullet points will do. This is necessarily if I am to be enabled to help you understand my position. I would do the same for you, only I don't know enough detail about your beliefs, so "shrugs".

You weren’t asking me to identify the specifics before. You were saying it would be an underhanded move to do so since they are irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Sure, but whether this is true or not doesn’t matter for the point of the analogy, which was to note a possible distinction between how things could be dependent on something else.

I am not sure what it is you are saying here. Can you reword it?

I was saying things could be distinct in (at least) two different ways. Something can be materially dependent on X and dependent on X for its efficient causation. A gold statue is materially dependent on gold, but not dependent on gold for its efficient causation. Gold doesn’t make the statue a statue; a person forms the gold into a statue.

Because it becomes another step toward freedom, if Biblical Jesus is to be believed. Isn't that what you mean when you state that you want the challenge of new information which might help change your current views?

But, on your view, is freedom more valuable than slavery?

If your view is true, then all ideas originate with The Creator Consciousness, and “some human created it” would be an incomplete statement.

Not so fast. I clearly said that all SUCH ideas come from The Creator. You should also be aware by now that I understand that ideas are also filtered by human belief systems, so while everything [and thus ideas] originate from The Creator, these are still subjected to the filters humans then put them through.

Sure. This still means “some human created it” is an incomplete statement, right?

If my view is true, then all ideas do not originate with The Creator and, therefore, “some human created it” could be a complete statement.

Unless the processes involved were themselves considered complete, which I do not think either of us would agree to, but certainly I don't agree to that.

Your view is irrelevant here. “If my view is true…,” right? In my view, humans can be responsible for creating an idea (say, that God doesn’t exist). God didn’t create that idea.

Is being complete more valuable than being incomplete, in any situation?

Is placing value conditions upon it, the best way of accessing any situation?

I’m not asking that question. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t, as far as my question is concerned. Do you think being complete is more valuable than being incomplete

What is a better state to be in, having complete knowledge or incomplete knowledge?

That is something I am not arguing, because it is focusing on extremes. in relation to [3], clearly the individual has better access to more knowledge than positions [1]&[2] so it is not about having "complete knowledge". So if the question was "What is a better state to be in, having access to more knowledge [3] or remaining in a state of having less knowledge?", what would your answer be?

I think having access to more knowledge is more valuable. Now, which do you think is a better state to be in?

What is better: to know you are The Creator or to think you and The Creator are eternally distinct?

[3] makes no distinctions on that. What [3] does is acknowledge that there are no distinctions which are real regarding the individual and the collective. [3] does not make images of The Creator which allow for one to then declare that "I and The Creator are eternally distinct."

This is what I think the idea that "The Creator and Man are One" points to. Same goes for "We are children of The Creator" or, as Biblical Jesus say's "I and The Father are One." etc. Those able to express such, signify that they have placed aside images which denote separation and acknowledge that understanding as allowing access to more knowledge, because the imagery has been seen to be false. [Created through incomplete knowledge in relation to that subject.]

So, how does [3] not make this distinction, yet you talk about putting aside images of separation which allows access to more knowledge? You say the separation imagery is false. Is the oneness imagery just as false? Is that what you are saying? Don’t you think the oneness imagery is true?

Considering that the human individual is born ignorant, and that the nature of nature is a constant flow of information which humans have the capacity to experience and learn from, I see no logic in the way you framed your question, as it does not take into account the human situation as it is.

Is it better to experience and learn from the flow of information or to ignore the flow of information and stay stuck with what you knew before?

I couldn't say because you haven't provided any example of what being "willfully ignorant forever" would have to consist of in terms of how such a state could be successfully maintained, should anyone want that. You also would need to supply a logical reason as to why any individual would want that.
]I would suppose that one would want to be somehow enclosed within a box which contained only light or dark so that information was inaccessible to them.
Even so, since they have a mind, this may not work either. So one would have to have their mind removed in order for that to be possible, which of course means that the person would no longer be a person, so could not want anything.

So I do not see how being willfully ignorant forever can be an option IF one also has to exist as an individual entity who has the option.

So - please expand on your reasons for asking such a question "assuming one does want to be willfully ignorant forever, that wouldn’t be a bad thing, right?" as to what you are relating this to.

Why wouldn’t being closed off in a box that only contained darkness work? Their mind gains no new information, so it would seem to work.

Are you saying that The Creator is harmed by grief?

I’m saying “grieved” is an instance of being “harmed”. If you are grieved, then you are harmed. Thus, God is harmed by some of our choices.

Free will hasn't been establish as being a real thing.
Also - when I frame what you wrote with the words "I am automatically putting my child (and myself, in a different way) in harm’s way because harm is inherently possible in humans having will." I see no evidence that this is the case, therefore I should not accept that the god in the story [or any God] could possibly be harmed.

In this specific context, we aren’t discussing if free will exists, we are discussing the logic of my view here, which includes free will existing. Neither should you substitute words like you just did here to get at the point I’m making. The point is that putting X in harm’s way is not always an unloving act. The driving example supports that as true. We then apply this principle in the second situation, God giving humans free will (which puts them in harm’s way). The conclusion is that this is not necessarily an unloving act.

In that, is the analogy accurate to the biblical story? Because you are saying there are things you do not know about your daughter. Is that also the case with the parent-figures in the story re the children-figures?

Analogies are analogies, not identities. They focus on one point or principle.

Yes, God makes that choice for us. God would logically have to, for to even give us that choice is already given us free will in that choice. There is no one else who could give them free will.

"Free Will" has not been established as actually existing.

It doesn’t have to for this point. That is irrelevant to this point. You were dinging the God of the story for not taking their desire for/against free will into account. To have their desire decide whether they get free will or not is on par with having a square circle. They can’t decide without already having free will. Thus, it is logically impossible to give humans a say in whether they will have free will or not. Thus, a God who gives humans free will cannot be dinged on this account.

If one is given will, then what exactly is will? I think it is to do with being an Eternal Entity within individuate structure(s). How is that different from The Creators position? Will is an inherent attribute of being an Entity. It is part of what being an Entity is.

Unless you are using “Entity” as a synonym for “a being with a will,” then why can’t an entity have a determined will? Why couldn’t a robot, with no will, still be called an entity?

Therefore, this would signify that what is given by The Creator is an attribute of The Creator. Thus, why I hold the view that we are aspects of The Creator, placed within individuate landscapes.

You seem to make a hidden assumption about what kind of aspects we are, though. You jump immediately from “we share an attribute” to “we are the same thing.” On this level of reality (forgetting whether this is an illusion/simulation or not), you and I both share some attributes but we are distinct beings.

And in that, are you saying this then is how the biblical God saw things? That He has misidentified what actually occurred?

I don't see that myself. That is why I think your driving analogy is incorrect.

No, I am not saying this is how God saw things in the story. That has nothing to do with the analogy (remember it’s not an identity).

That would be correct if the story did not say that they were forbidden from eating that which would allow them to know good and evil. Your argument above is based on the premise that they already have knowledge of what was good and evil before the disobedient act.
As such, I have no reason to accept what you argue as being true or even logical.

What verse says that? Genesis 2:9 names the tree. Gen 2:17 says if you eat of it, then you will die. Gen 3:5 has the snake saying “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” but doesn’t directly explain what kind of knowledge that is. Gen 3:6 says the woman “saw that the tree was good for food,” “a delight [good] to the eyes” “desired [good] to make one wise”. How could she think these things were good if she didn’t have knowledge of good and evil?

Before what fact? Before the fact that the tree was placed there along with the Serpent? Because that would have been the better time to tell them, logically speaking.

Before they ate from the fruit, but they are also told before the serpent talks to them.

Which of course ties directly in with my saying that if you don't want your Child to be harmed, then your should have prevented her from being born.

Assuming you don't see that as a suitable option, your abilities are not the same as The Creators.

I think there are greater goods then mere comfort (i.e., not being harmed). Being in a community of love is worth the risks of being harmed.

That is why I think it logical that we are Eternal Spirits and as such, we were given the option to experience being in harms way, and forewarned, chose to become human anyway.

Thus, no blame for harm need be meted out, either on us, or The Creator.

This view isn’t illogical on this point, for sure. I just see no good reason to think it is true. But, aren’t we all one eternal spirit in your view, The Creator, and it’s that one being that gave itself this option and chose to do it? There is only one ultimate being in your view, right?

Then why are you asking your God for an OOBE experience? Or "what exactly" are you asking your God for?.

Because I realize that I don’t know everything. I am always open to truth and ask God to grant it even if I don’t think truth will come from it.

You don’t accept every report someone tells you, right?

Yes I do. I accept it in as far as it is information. Just like I accept that there is information regarding the resurrection.

As do I. I was talking about accepting them as speaking truth about the things I currently disagree with.

"Remote viewing was popularized in the 1990s upon the declassification of certain documents related to the Stargate Project, a $20 million research program that had started in 1975 and was sponsored by the U.S. government, in an attempt to determine any potential military application of psychic phenomena. The program was terminated in 1995 after it failed to produce any actionable intelligence information.

And the bolded is supposed to be support for it? They wouldn’t have cancelled the program if it worked. I asked for support and you offered this report in support of OOBE being real and giving us truth about The Creator, right?

So if the Wiki information can be taken by you as adequate evidence that such things cannot happen, would this be enough to convince you to withdrawn your request to your God, to assist you in experiencing an OOBE?

No, you need more than one source and I never rely on Wikipedia except for to point me to the real material if they use notes. My request to God for knowledge, no matter the source, will always remain.

And I do the same, only from a different platform, as I have experienced OOBE so for me it is not an alleged thing.

The views, what you think is true about reality, from OOBE is still an alleged thing.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #244]

No, that’s not all you can do. Without other information already given and without a willingness to directly ask a question that would clear my view up for you, if you want to assume my view on a matter, you should assume I hold the normal scientific understanding, which is that the quantum field is material.

As is evident, I originally read what you wrote regarding the Quantum Filed, incorrectly.

But since then you have corrected me in regard to your position, and I have gone with that.

Now [by your answer] I am left wondering if you are saying there is still something which exists within this universe which is behind the quantum field.

What do you mean by “behind” the quantum field?

The immaterial.
As I so far understand you, you think that the immaterial exists as part of the universe.

I asked you if you were 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, to which you answered that this is what you are saying.

This implies that the immaterial [including your god who you say is immaterial] is part of this universe, NOT separate from this universe.

Thus, the immaterial is "behind" the physical part of the universe and the reason the physical part exists.

I believe the immaterial is separate from the quantum field.

You will need to explain then, as to why you believe that the immaterial is separate from the material, IF both exist as parts of the same universe.
As I wrote earlier on in or conversation, I think it has to be logically accepted that neither dark or light are "positive" or "negative". They are different manifestations of the same thing.

By your reasoning, the immaterial is the 'positive' aspect of the universe while the material is the 'negative' aspect, [or the other way around if you prefer] but you have yet to explain why we should observe the universe in this manner.

You think of dark as 'nothing' - a "hole" in something [presumably a hole in light?], because you agree there is light and dark in our universe but you see this as different than saying both are positively existing things like a wall.

Do you think that dark is immaterial [like the hole in the wall] and if so, are you saying that the dark is that which creates the material?

I obviously do not regard darkness as immaterial as I think that it is part of the Quantum Field - perhaps a less densified form of material, but material nonetheless. I am certainly open to being shown that is not the actual case.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #244]

But you don’t have to resort to doing that. If you have a clarification or follow-up question that clarifies what you originally meant with the first question, then ask that instead of assuming any answer to a question you haven’t clearly asked, even if the lack of clarity was my fault.

As I informed you already, I have spent some time working on our interactions in this thread, by sorting out the responses in a more conversational manner.

For now - I suspect that the reason we do not agree has to do with our particular foundational premises as to how The Creator bought the Creation into being.

Neither of us argue that there is NOT a Creator involved.
We both have different views of the nature of The Creator, but I think that these too, can be sourced at that "particular foundational premises as to how The Creator bought the Creation into being."
So it should be clear to you that I am making the effort to identify how to better interact with you.

I think the way to proceed is to realize our different backgrounds, different circles, different terminologies and be ready to ask many clarifying questions rather than assuming the other is holding back information and being “sparse” with their details.

So do you agree with me when I suggested that in relation to that, bullet points are helpful in fleshing out statements? To simplify, bullet points are acceptable to me as answers, as these are at least less spare than no supporting explanations accompanying statement.
I wrote most recently that any further questions which come from said bullet points, I will ask.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #244]

Then why are you asking your God for an OOBE experience?

Because I realize that I don’t know everything. I am always open to truth and ask God to grant it even if I don’t think truth will come from it.

What exactly are you asking your God for?

How will you reach the conclusion that no truth will come from having such an experience?

Are you saying that if your God does not grant you the experience, that you can conclude no such experience can show you truth?

I was talking about accepting them as speaking truth about the things I currently disagree with.

I don't approach it in that manner [through that filter].

I take this path;

1: Remember The Premise [re subject matter]
2: Look For Key Words. Most often this will be subject matter [re supporting evidence.]
3: Look for other clues.
4: Search for information on subject matter which will give a quick summary.
5: Search for other sources.
6: Correlate findings
7: Have a nana nap
8: Continue compiling information...

None of the above has me supposing something is true/speaking of the truth about something, but does have me forming a picture of "a most likely explanation as to why we are here, what got us here and where we might be going after we have finished being here".

Thus in dealing with information I am not supposing "truth or lie" so much as I am looking for "more likely given the overall evidence to date."

The views, what you think is true about reality, from OOBE is still an alleged thing.

In my telling them to you, yes they are. In them happening to me, no they are not.

Which is why I remain open minded to other peoples stories, no matter that they are not all sourced in the bible.

And off course, I give that much credence to the stories in the bible which are similar in respect to my own experience...such as Jesus in the desert being tempted by Satan, and Johns revelation, and Moses on the mountain receiving rules carved in stone, Saul's encounter with the light with the voice inside it, Adams encounter with the disincarnate voice in the garden...stuff like that.

Of course, Saul claims everyone with him witnessed the same, but I have not yet been presented any evidence which those with him at the time have themselves presented as support for Saul's claim, so will leave his experience on that list in the mean time.

They wouldn’t have cancelled the program if it worked.

Why not?

I asked for support and you offered this report in support of OOBE being real and giving us truth about The Creator, right?

I was under the impression that you were asking for an example of outside-the-bible sources which could be used to help support the idea that we are Eternal Spirits, not supply outright evidence but pointing the way. This, because I am aware that I have already informed you recently that I get my information from a variety of outside-the-bible sources and use said information to help me in forming a picture, which itself clearly enough implies this is the more likely truth.

[The Tanager]

This implies that the immaterial [including your god who you say is immaterial] is part of this universe, NOT separate from this universe.

Thus, the immaterial is "behind" the physical part of the universe and the reason the physical part exists.

Well, conceivably, the material could be what caused the immaterial. I don’t believe that is true. I also don’t believe the immaterial (all things in that set) created the material (all things in that set). I think one immaterial being caused all other immaterial beings and all material beings. I believe that based on:
- Cosmological arguments
- teleological arguments
- the moral argument
- Argument from reason
- Historicity of the Resurrection
- Reliability of the Biblical writings
- etc.

You will need to explain then, as to why you believe that the immaterial is separate from the material, IF both exist as parts of the same universe.

- Existing in the same universe and being the same being, or even made of the same ‘stuff’ are different issues.
- There is nothing logically making them the same thing.
- It could be true that everything that exists in the universe is the same thing but that isn’t necessarily the case.

As I wrote earlier on in or conversation, I think it has to be logically accepted that neither dark or light are "positive" or "negative". They are different manifestations of the same thing.

By your reasoning, the immaterial is the 'positive' aspect of the universe while the material is the 'negative' aspect, [or the other way around if you prefer] but you have yet to explain why we should observe the universe in this manner.

I don’t see why you think that is my reasoning. You seem to be trying to put my thoughts into these categories that you think in but that I don’t.
- I don’t think immaterial is to material as darkness is to light.
- Immaterial is not just the absence of material but the lack of material and some other ‘positive’ characteristic or ‘stuff’ that makes up one’s nature.
- The absence of material (or immaterial) alone, would both be ‘nothing’.

You think of dark as 'nothing' - a "hole" in something [presumably a hole in light?], because you agree there is light and dark in our universe but you see this as different than saying both are positively existing things like a wall.

Do you think that dark is immaterial [like the hole in the wall] and if so, are you saying that the dark is that which creates the material?

- I don’t think a hole is immaterial, I think it is a convention of language to denote a lack of something that had once been there.
- I don’t think darkness is immaterial. I think dark is also a convention of language that denotes the lack of light
- although it’s not tied to light having once been in a place (i.e., an area of the universe could have always lacked light).
- I don’t think all immaterial creates the material.
- I think one immaterial thing created all other immaterial and all material things.

I obviously do not regard darkness as immaterial as I think that it is part of the Quantum Field - perhaps a less densified form of material, but material nonetheless. I am certainly open to being shown that is not the actual case.

I am unaware of any scientist saying that darkness is a material just like light is. I’m not sure this disagreement is where our focus should be in our discussion, though, so I would vote for not hashing out the evidence there but if you think it is vital for our disagreement, then I guess we could.

So it should be clear to you that I am making the effort to identify how to better interact with you.

- Yes, it is clear.
- That is why, when you say things like “I had to resort to concluding…” when you didn’t, logically, have to resort to that conclusion, I am sharing the reasons why I don’t think you had to resort to that conclusion
- expecting you to be open to that (possible) correction or,
- if you still think you were correct, me being open to you correcting me through proper reasoning.

So do you agree with me when I suggested that in relation to that, bullet points are helpful in fleshing out statements? To simplify, bullet points are acceptable to me as answers, as these are at least less spare than no supporting explanations accompanying statement.
I wrote most recently that any further questions which come from said bullet points, I will ask.

I don’t think bullet points are necessarily more helpful than prose but I tried to do what I think you are talking about in this post. Please correct where I have misunderstood what you mean about writing in bullet points.

What exactly are you asking your God for?

- That, if OOBE’s can occur and that it would be helpful for me to have one, then to give me one.
- That even if He doesn’t give me one, then grant me access to the data and reasoning that would show OOBE’s, and the views that people claiming to have them believe follows, truly do occur and give us truth about reality.
- That, if I’m missing asking the right question, that God will still grant me knowledge on questions I haven’t even thought of asking, should there be truth there and it be beneficial for me to have them.

How will you reach the conclusion that no truth will come from having such an experience?

I will always remain open-minded, so I can’t say no truth will ever come from having such an experience.

Are you saying that if your God does not grant you the experience, that you can conclude no such experience can show you truth?

No, I am not saying that as, I think, the above makes clear.

None of the above has me supposing something is true/speaking of the truth about something, but does have me forming a picture of "a most likely explanation as to why we are here, what got us here and where we might be going after we have finished being here"

Thus in dealing with information I am not supposing "truth or lie" so much as I am looking for "more likely given the overall evidence to date.".

In the terminology I have grown up in, those mean the same thing.
- To say “I think/believe/view X is true or false, means “X is more likely given the overall evidence to date”
- unless we are talking about pure mathematics, definitions of words, and possibly a few other things.

In my telling them to you, yes they are. In them happening to me, no they are not.

That they are what you think they are, and that whatever “more likely views” you hold to because of them, are still alleged things. They are faith-based views, according to your definition.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #248]

Well, conceivably, the material could be what caused the immaterial.

Emergence Theory. If it is the case, then this still does not mean there is not a Creator, only that the Creator was created.

I don’t believe that is true.

I have no reason to think it is necessary to believe or disbelieve it. I think it possible.

I also don’t believe the immaterial (all things in that set) created the material (all things in that set). I think one immaterial being caused all other immaterial beings and all material beings. I believe that based on:
- Cosmological arguments
- teleological arguments
- the moral argument
- Argument from reason
- Historicity of the Resurrection
- Reliability of the Biblical writings

The story for the above as I understand it, can be found in the thread I created for that purpose. Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It.

I have no reason to think it is necessary to believe or disbelieve information. Why do you think it is necessary?

- Existing in the same universe and being the same being, or even made of the same ‘stuff’ are different issues.

Why?

- There is nothing logically making them the same thing.

Do you think it is logical that a material object [human brain] can create an immaterial phenomena [human consciousness]?

- It could be true that everything that exists in the universe is the same thing but that isn’t necessarily the case.

Even so, that 'it could be true' signifies the best position to be on the matter, is the Agnostic one.
Holding belief that the immaterial is separate from the material,[when both exist as parts of the same universe] is a seemingly unnecessary further step to take and allows one the ability to then argue from a presumptuous position. "It could be true but isn’t necessarily the case" does not allow for presumption either way.

None of the above has me supposing something is true/speaking of the truth about something, but does have me forming a picture of "a most likely explanation as to why we are here, what got us here and where we might be going after we have finished being here"

Thus in dealing with information I am not supposing "truth or lie" so much as I am looking for "more likely given the overall evidence to date.".

In the terminology I have grown up in, those mean the same thing.

Have you ever questioned [tested] the validity of the terminology you have grown up in?

- To say “I think/believe/view X is true or false, means “X is more likely given the overall evidence to date”

To say

"I think X is true or false, means “X is more likely given the overall evidence to date"

or;

"I believe X is true or false, means “X is more likely given the overall evidence to date"

or;

"I view X as true or false, means “X is more likely given the overall evidence to date"

is not what I am saying of my position on "X".

X is information, and as such is a type of living document. Information provides one with an ever-growing data-base to work with. Answers re the immaterial have to remain in the "might be/might not be" folder, and consistently treated as such.
The "more likely" analysis only has to do with comparing said data from within that folder.

I don’t think bullet points are necessarily more helpful than prose

We agree. I never said otherwise.

but I tried to do what I think you are talking about in this post. Please correct where I have misunderstood what you mean about writing in bullet points.

You are on the right track. The bullet points are the first step re supporting any statements made. Prose can follow if it is asked for clarification re bullet points.

I’m not sure this disagreement is where our focus should be in our discussion, though, so I would vote for not hashing out the evidence there but if you think it is vital for our disagreement, then I guess we could.

My reason for pursuing it is that I presently see your explanations re your position on the subject offers me no other choice but to observe that you do indeed have another layer behind Creation. So it becomes a possible double standard that you critique my having an extra layer, [your critique being that my view goes against our intuition and is a less simple answer -as in - I have to explain there being a reality and an illusory reality, more levels of reality that need explanation compared to the alternative view)] when your own model has that extra layer as well, also require explanation and hence, why it has to be hashed out.

[The Tanager]

I have no reason to think it is necessary to believe or disbelieve information. Why do you think it is necessary?

I don’t think it is logically necessary. I do think it is reasonable to do so, though.

Existing in the same universe and being the same being, or even made of the same ‘stuff’ are different issues.

Why?

Because they ask different questions.

Do you think it is logical that a material object [human brain] can create an immaterial phenomena [human consciousness]?

I do not think that consciousness can be the product of a material object.

Have you ever questioned [tested] the validity of the terminology you have grown up in?

Yes.

My reason for pursuing it is that I presently see your explanations re your position on the subject offers me no other choice but to observe that you do indeed have another layer behind Creation. So it becomes a possible double standard that you critique my having an extra layer, [your critique being that my view goes against our intuition and is a less simple answer -as in - I have to explain there being a reality and an illusory reality, more levels of reality that need explanation compared to the alternative view)] when your own model has that extra layer as well, also require explanation and hence, why it has to be hashed out.

I’ve explained why I don’t think it is a double standard. My view is that the “reality” level consists of material and immaterial beings. It seems to me that you have that level (but call it the illusory reality level, where it contains both illusory material and immaterial beings) and you have the “reality” level behind that.

[William]

DP