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]

Well we have agreement.

No thing=nothing.

Now we can examine the nature of The Creators Mind.

I have the impression you once argued The Creator was immaterial...I assume that you also believe that The Creator exists as a real being, therefore you do not think an immaterial being is made of no thing.

Would that be correct?

Yes.

[William]

Well we have agreement.

No thing=nothing.

Now we can examine the nature of The Creators Mind.

I have the impression you once argued The Creator was immaterial...I assume that you also believe that The Creator exists as a real being, therefore you do not think an immaterial being is made of no thing.

Would that be correct?

Yes.

So therefore, the idea that all things are created within The Creators Mind allows for the more logical 'something is created from something' rather than having to force the illogical idea that "something is created from nothing"...when there is no logical necessity to have The Creator create things from 'nothings'

[The Tanager]

So therefore, the idea that all things are created within The Creators Mind allows for the more logical 'something is created from something' rather than having to force the illogical idea that "something is created from nothing"...when there is no logical necessity to have The Creator create things from 'nothings'

Do you believe the “physical” is real or do you think it is the illusory name given to our experience of the truly non-physical? If it is the latter, then you may be correct in this claim that your view is more logical. But if that is the case, then you need to support that everything is truly non-physical. And if that support is something like “everything I’ve been arguing so far,” then I simply don’t find it convincing.

Aristotle talked about the four causes: formal, material, efficient, final. Creatio ex nihilo is the view that something [the physical world] has no material cause. It still has a formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. There is nothing obviously illogical there. If you think there is, then give a supported argument. In fact, if the physical world is real, then it would be illogical to think that its material cause was the non-physical Creator.

[William]

So therefore, the idea that all things are created within The Creators Mind allows for the more logical 'something is created from something' rather than having to force the illogical idea that "something is created from nothing"...when there is no logical necessity to have The Creator create things from 'nothings'

Do you believe the “physical” is real or do you think it is the illusory name given to our experience of the truly non-physical?

It is not about belief. I attempt to identify belief and purge it as unnecessary.

What I think and then convey, is based upon a substantial cross-section of evidence.

As I have said in relation to your questions above, is that the only [thing] which can be said to be real, is that which is having the experience [consciousness] not the experience itself.

If it is the latter, then you may be correct in this claim that your view is more logical.

"Physical" is simple an expression used to acknowledge the nature of the experience being had.
Do you think that alternate realms are somehow "less physical" than this universe, that they perhaps cannot be regarded as 'real'?

But if that is the case, then you need to support that everything is truly non-physical.

Why should it have to be 'proved' that we exist within the Mind of The Creator?

Even given that, we are informed by science that when all is said and done, at quantum levels - 'physical' appears to lose all logical meaning.

It is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences, that there are 'plains' which are less dense that this Universe [plain] but are still able to be interacted with [experienced as real] and furthermore it is noted [again - from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences] that when an individuate consciousness is free from the human body, it can experiences things [frequencies] which it otherwise cannot experience when within the human form...because the human form operates within a very narrow set parameter of the vast spectrum of frequency which actually exists. Even in this present Universe experience.

And if that support is something like “everything I’ve been arguing so far,” then I simply don’t find it convincing.

Aristotle talked about the four causes: formal, material, efficient, final. Creatio ex nihilo is the view that something [the physical world] has no material cause. It still has a formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause. There is nothing obviously illogical there. If you think there is, then give a supported argument. In fact, if the physical world is real, then it would be illogical to think that its material cause was the non-physical Creator.

The above isn't overly clear to me, but seems to be agreeing that my argument [we exist within the Mind of The Creator], has merit because it is logical. Obviously that cannot be what you are attempting to convey, so I am unsure as to what you are trying to point out...where Aristotle apparently disagrees with William.

Where does a great philosopher [and his supporters] get his evidence from that concludes everything derives from no thing? [and that all that is required is a magical entity who can make that so.]

Logically it is far more prudent to understand that all things exist to be experienced in the Mind of The Creator by consciousness itself which is also of The Creator.

William's question is to the great philosophers followers "Did Aristotle [or you his follower] ever consider the possibility that we exist within The Creators Mind?"

And IF not THEN why not?

After, all we have strong evidence that what we refer to as "imagination" we all have playing upon the screens of our own minds, is a real enough phenomena - why would we think The Creator is any different [but of course can make it to be experienced as real] which then dovetails smoothly and effortlessly into the idea of [3], namely;

[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.

I question why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...perhaps it has something to do with your Freudian Slip. [Post #75 in the "Is it Important to Have Knowledge of Good&Evil?" thread] - after all, my argument is strong enough to warrant some intelligent consideration.

[The Tanager]

As I have said in relation to your questions above, is that the only [thing] which can be said to be real, is that which is having the experience [consciousness] not the experience itself.

Yes, but is that thing having the experience physical or non-physical, in the normal sense of those words?

"Physical" is simple an expression used to acknowledge the nature of the experience being had.
Do you think that alternate realms are somehow "less physical" than this universe, that they perhaps cannot be regarded as 'real'?

I think the physical and non-physical are both real; that they both exist. Not just that people experience them as though they are real but that they correspond to reality. I’m trying to figure out if you think all is truly non-physical, physical, or that both categories exist in the same sense of ‘exist’.

Why should it have to be 'proved' that we exist within the Mind of The Creator?

Because many of your claims rest on this being true.

Even given that, we are informed by science that when all is said and done, at quantum levels - 'physical' appears to lose all logical meaning.

Why do you think quantum science tells us this?

It is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences...

Do you mean that some theists (like yourself) claim to have experiences of this being true? If so, then other theists and non-theists have different experiences, so why trust one ‘experience’ of reality over another?

The above isn't overly clear to me, but seems to be agreeing that my argument [we exist within the Mind of The Creator], has merit because it is logical. Obviously that cannot be what you are attempting to convey, so I am unsure as to what you are trying to point out...where Aristotle apparently disagrees with William.

I agree with you that “nothing can come from nothing” but you seem to think that is only about material cause, rather than the various senses of causation that Aristotle talked about. In creatio ex nihilo, the universe comes from nothing in a material cause sense (the physical universe existed where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form) but the universe does not come from nothing in an efficient cause sense because the immaterial Creator is the efficient cause of the material universe. I don’t see anything illogical about an efficient cause creating a new material where that material didn’t exist before. “Nothing can come from nothing” isn’t about a new material coming to exist.

William's question is to the great philosophers followers "Did Aristotle [or you his follower] ever consider the possibility that we exist within The Creators Mind?"

I have and am doing that. I see no good reason to think it is true.

After, all we have strong evidence that what we refer to as "imagination" we all have playing upon the screens of our own minds, is a real enough phenomena - why would we think The Creator is any different [but of course can make it to be experienced as real]

We also experience things outside of our imagination. If you want to use this kind of reasoning (I don’t, but if you do) then you should conclude that something exists outside of the Creator and the Creator’s imagination.

I question why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...perhaps it has something to do with your Freudian Slip.

I’m not sure what Freudian slip you see in that post. Help me see it so that I can respond. As to why I don’t find your arguments compelling, I explain why in every one of my responses to you.

[William]

As I have said in relation to your questions above, is that the only [thing] which can be said to be real, is that which is having the experience [consciousness] not the experience itself.

Yes, but is that thing having the experience physical or non-physical, in the normal sense of those words?

What "normal sense"? That the wording exists because of the way in which we are led to believe things 'are'?
[One will find no resolve in belief based only upon words and their meanings.]
Consciousness is what it is. It is that which creates things for the purpose of experiencing those things. It is that which makes things appear to be real.
Therefore;
That which makes things appear to be real is that which is real. Not the things which appear to be real.

"Physical" is simple an expression used to acknowledge the nature of the experience being had.
Do you think that alternate realms are somehow "less physical" than this universe, that they perhaps cannot be regarded as 'real'?

I think the physical and non-physical are both real; that they both exist. Not just that people experience them as though they are real but that they correspond to reality. I’m trying to figure out if you think all is truly non-physical, physical, or that both categories exist in the same sense of ‘exist’.

That which is truly real is Consciousness [The Creator]. How is it that you are "trying to figure out" something which I have not been saying?
You believe that things are real and also that things can be categorized as "physical" and "non-physical". I don't, and have not claimed otherwise.

Why should it have to be 'proved' that we exist within the Mind of The Creator?

Because many of your claims rest on this being true.

And why do you think it is untrue?
Because "love" would not make it true?
How is that true?

Even given that, we are informed by science that when all is said and done, at quantum levels - 'physical' appears to lose all logical meaning.

Why do you think quantum science tells us this?

I observe what quantum scientists say about the science, because I am interested in what they discover about the foundation material of the Universe. From all accounts it is the 'stuff' of which the entire Universe consists of...only it doesn't appear to be physical itself...

It is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences, that there are 'plains' which are less dense that this Universe [plain] but are still able to be interacted with [experienced as real] and furthermore it is noted [again - from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences] that when an individuate consciousness is free from the human body, it can experiences things [frequencies] which it otherwise cannot experience when within the human form...because the human form operates within a very narrow set parameter of the vast spectrum of frequency which actually exists. Even in this present Universe experience.

Do you mean that some theists (like yourself) claim to have experiences of this being true? If so, then other theists and non-theists have different experiences, so why trust one ‘experience’ of reality over another?

In what way have I claimed in the above [or anywhere else] that one should [or need to] trust one reality experience over another? Indeed, position;
[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.]

...incorporates all reality experiences as valid and necessary...but not [necessarily] permanent.

The above isn't overly clear to me, but seems to be agreeing that my argument [we exist within the Mind of The Creator], has merit because it is logical. Obviously that cannot be what you are attempting to convey, so I am unsure as to what you are trying to point out...where Aristotle apparently disagrees with William.

I agree with you that “nothing can come from nothing” but you seem to think that is only about material cause, rather than the various senses of causation that Aristotle talked about. In creatio ex nihilo, the universe comes from nothing in a material cause sense (the physical universe existed where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form) but the universe does not come from nothing in an efficient cause sense because the immaterial Creator is the efficient cause of the material universe. I don’t see anything illogical about an efficient cause creating a new material where that material didn’t exist before. “Nothing can come from nothing” isn’t about a new material coming to exist.

What then? Is Aristotle simply playing with words?

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing and
IF
The Creator is "immaterial"

THEN there is a problem with the logics, which can be identified in the premise that "The Creator is "Immaterial"."

in other words

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing
THEN
The Creator is not "immaterial"

{b} tells us that.

IF
(the physical universe exists where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form)
THEN
There is the problem of identifying as nothing, a place which, exists as something, and into which a universe was 'put'.

It is not logical to identify something as "nothing" [creatio ex nihilo] simply because, prior to something being placed there, it contained nothing.

William's question is to the great philosophers followers "Did Aristotle [or you his follower] ever consider the possibility that we exist within The Creators Mind?"

I have and am doing that. I see no good reason to think it is true.

Considering the false premise - [ creatio ex nihilo - which makes any other explanation appear to be illogical ] - until you can see your way through that apparent solid thing of logic and accept it is false premise, you will continue to see "no good reason" to think what I am saying is truth.

After, all we have strong evidence that what we refer to as "imagination" we all have playing upon the screens of our own minds, is a real enough phenomena - why would we think The Creator is any different [but of course can make it to be experienced as real]

We also experience things outside of our imagination. If you want to use this kind of reasoning (I don’t, but if you do) then you should conclude that something exists outside of the Creator and the Creator’s imagination.

Not necessarily, but in this case, probably - for we are dealing with the existence of this particular Universe and our [temporary] place within it.
So yes - I think of Russian Dolls as a handy analogy in relation to this idea.
Furthermore - I attempt to bring it to the table as a possibility in a thread I created for that very purpose - I named the thread "Sorry. It Was Me. I Did It."

But focusing on the Russian Dolls idea ...


... that we also experience things outside of our imagination does not mean that the things we experience are not sourced from the same Consciousness as our imaginations...inside/outside are simply labels we place onto things.
The is why I argue that:
IF
"The brain created Consciousness' and
IF
All alternate experiences had are the product of the brain
THEN
One should conclude that what we experience as 'Our Universe' is also a "product of the brain" BECAUSE
many alternate experiences are positively as real [and in some case even more real] as/than this Universe.

[Russian Dolls as in "Minds Within Mind"] Individuate consciousnesses within the overall Consciousness of The Creator.

I question why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...perhaps it has something to do with your Freudian Slip.

I’m not sure what Freudian slip you see in that post. Help me see it so that I can respond.

The thing about having a mind and being consciousness, is that one can learn to think for themselves rather than simply be spoon-fed...[waited upon].
So I direct your mind to find the place where you gave an answer to my question "What evil is spoken of in Genesis?"

As to why I don’t find your arguments compelling, I explain why in every one of my responses to you.

I question your responses with my own - and am still left wondering why you don't find my arguments at all compelling...which is why we are having this ongoing conversation...and why I wondered whether your Freudian Slip was a possible clue to my finding the answer to my question.
I [reasonably] assume you went back through what you wrote, and still didn't see it.

All in all, if we look at it from another perspective [in our imaginations] we can see that we are no longer coming from the premise that the Universe is "natural" because we are viewing it as a product of [so-called] "Supernatural" and thus the Universe is only referred to as 'natural' because we within it - are making that the foundational premise, and then adding 'The Creator" as a reason for why it exists.

However, if we first understand that The Creator is what is "natural" [as the foundational premise] then there is no necessity for distinction. The Universe is natural. because The Creator is Natural. [First Cause. First Source. The reason why everything (including - most importantly - Itself) exists]

Not "magic" - but natural attribute.

[The Tanager]

What "normal sense"? That the wording exists because of the way in which we are led to believe things 'are'?
[One will find no resolve in belief based only upon words and their meanings.]
Consciousness is what it is. It is that which creates things for the purpose of experiencing those things. It is that which makes things appear to be real.
Therefore;
That which makes things appear to be real is that which is real. Not the things which appear to be real.

The normal sense of a physical body vs. a non-physical mind; things you can touch with a finger versus things you cannot touch with a finger. It seems to me that you believe the real thing is non-physical; that the physical is an illusion. That me touching my keyboard is really just an imagination, a dream, not some solid substance touching another solid substance. But I don’t want to put words in your mouth.

You believe that things are real and also that things can be categorized as "physical" and "non-physical". I don't, and have not claimed otherwise.

If those terms mean the above, then those are mutually exhaustive categories under which reality could be classified, even if everything that actually exists fits under only one of those categories. To say reality can’t even be truly classified in those ways (not as the only way to classify, but a valid classification among many other non-competing categorizations) is simply illogical on par with saying rectangles can't be classified into squares and non-squares.

And why do you think it is untrue?
Because "love" would not make it true?
How is that true?

Stop shifting the burden. You made the claim. If you want me to consider it, then you need to support it.

I observe what quantum scientists say about the science, because I am interested in what they discover about the foundation material of the Universe. From all accounts it is the 'stuff' of which the entire Universe consists of...only it doesn't appear to be physical itself...

Perhaps I have misunderstood the things I have read concerning quantum science. Can you give some quotes where these scientists are claiming this for me to consider?

It is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences, that there are...

Do you mean that some theists (like yourself) claim to have experiences of this being true?

In what way have I claimed in the above [or anywhere else] that one should [or need to] trust one reality experience over another?

The basis you provided for what followed (e.g., various ‘plains’ that interact, an individuate consciousness being free from a human body experiencing different frequencies) was that “it is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences.” That seems to be appealing to their thinking about their experiences (in contrast to counter thinking based off other experiences of the same reality) having some weight in my consideration of the claims that follow.

What then? Is Aristotle simply playing with words?

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing and
IF
The Creator is "immaterial"

(a) and (b) correctly identify my view if “come from” refers to efficient causation. The third statement correctly identifies my view.

THEN there is a problem with the logics, which can be identified in the premise that "The Creator is "Immaterial"."

in other words

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing
THEN
The Creator is not "immaterial"

Now, however, “come from” has switched to refer to material causation. Thus, “in other words” is not an accurate phrase. The conclusion fails because of that equivocation. Definitions of words are very important and we would do well to avoid equivocations of terms.

{b} tells us that.

IF
(the physical universe exists where nothing existed before and is not the changing of a substance already present into a new form)
THEN
There is the problem of identifying as nothing, a place which, exists as something, and into which a universe was 'put'.

It is not logical to identify something as "nothing" [creatio ex nihilo] simply because, prior to something being placed there, it contained nothing.

In creatio ex nihilo the container is part of the universe that was made. The universe isn’t put into a place identified as “nothing” but the coming into being of the place and the stuff in the place.

The thing about having a mind and being consciousness, is that one can learn to think for themselves rather than simply be spoon-fed...[waited upon].
So I direct your mind to find the place where you gave an answer to my question "What evil is spoken of in Genesis?"

I see it now. That one would think this typing error gives insight into my mind is silly, whether you think I'm saying something about women being evil and not men, or that this shows I think humans are all evil or anything else. I have never blamed only Eve. Neither have I claimed humans are all evil. If you keep the context clear, then this should be obvious. Your grasping at a critique here is uncharitable and baseless unless you have actual support to back it up.

However, if we first understand that The Creator is what is "natural" [as the foundational premise] then there is no necessity for distinction. The Universe is natural. because The Creator is Natural. [First Cause. First Source. The reason why everything (including - most importantly - Itself) exists]

This equivocates on how the argument you are analyzing uses the term ‘natural’. Conclusions based on the equivocation fallacy (intended or not) are bad conclusions.

[Eloi]

Scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. God is the Source of infinite power/energy so it was not very difficult for Him to use all that vast energy to produce the Universe and everything it contains.

Is. 40:25 “To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One.
26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing.

He not only created the Universe but also sustains and controls it. That is why the Universe follows laws that it never violates.

Psal. 148:3 Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #198]

The normal sense of a physical body vs. a non-physical mind; things you can touch with a finger versus things you cannot touch with a finger.

Things you cannot touch with a finger. Can you touch The Creator with your finger?

It seems to me that you believe the real thing is non-physical; that the physical is an illusion.

No. I have explained it as clearly as I am presently able to. Thought constructs things. If I believed that things didn't exist I would have said so.
Indeed, I am puzzled as to why "it seems to you that I believe that the physical is an illusion". I know I have used the word 'illusion' in the past, to compare The Creator with the creation, but saw that this caused confusion so dropped the use of it.

Do you suppose that temporal things [such as this Universe and your life experience within it] cannot exist within the mind of The Eternal?

How is it you think that I appear to be saying reality experiences are not real, where I wrote;
It is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences, that there are 'plains' which are less dense that this Universe [plain] but are still able to be interacted with [experienced as real] and furthermore it is noted [again - from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences] that when an individuate consciousness is free from the human body, it can experience things [frequencies] which it otherwise cannot experience when within the human form...because the human form operates within a very narrow set parameter of the vast spectrum of frequency which actually exists. Even in this present Universe experience.

What is it that you don't understand about the comparison of Consciousness in relation to objects [things we call physically and can acknowledge as 'real']? You cannot physically touch Consciousness, yet it is nonetheless real.
What is it that acknowledges 'things'?
Is it not Consciousness itself?
Without Consciousness, how is anything which exists, able to be acknowledged as real?

So the comparison comes with the realization that without Consciousness being real, there would be nothing real to acknowledge.

If those terms mean the above, then those are mutually exhaustive categories under which reality could be classified, even if everything that actually exists fits under only one of those categories. To say reality can’t even be truly classified in those ways (not as the only way to classify, but a valid classification among many other non-competing categorizations) is simply illogical on par with saying rectangles can't be classified into squares and non-squares.

In purely scientific terms [where the physical can be studied and utilized] I can agree with this. However, we are not speaking only of physical objects of the Universe.
When terms denoting things which cannot be examined purely by scientific method, [such as alternate experiences within alternate Universes] in relation to The Creators creations, said creations are only "non physical" in relation to our own dominant reality experience in this current Universe. This realization is why I wrote;

You believe that things are real and also that things can be categorized as "physical" and "non-physical". I don't, and have not claimed otherwise.

If you were a non-theist I would not have worded it that way, but since you believe that we exist within a creation [therefore there is a Creator] I think my language is appropriate.
What do you expect [re you beliefs] to be experiencing in the next phase? A non-physical reality?
It appears to me that by your use of the words 'non-physical' you are suggesting one is real while the other is not. However, this cannot be the case, so why use the word at all?
This universe is one reality experience. That in itself does not mean alternate Universes are somehow unable to be experienced as real.
Look at it another way. If someone in an alternate Universe briefly experienced our Universe and reported what they experienced to another of their kind, and the one being told suggested that the teller of the story go get his head checked out, would you - knowing that our Universe is real, think that the one from the other universe who experience ours, had an over-active imagination which needed reigning in?

So 'valid classifications' only work in relation to our universe being the only Universe which exists to experience. Theists such as yourself who believe there is more that exists than this universe, have no choice but to find better ways in which to express this than simply using words like 'physical' and 'non physical', because 'non physical' does not convey adequately what 'alternate' is far more capable of doing.

And why do you think it is untrue?
Because "love" would not make it true?
How is that true?

Stop shifting the burden. You made the claim. If you want me to consider it, then you need to support it.

I am not shifting anything. I am asking for information. You claim that your idea of The Creator being separate from the creation is an act of love and you also claim my idea that The Creator is not separate from the creation is NOT an act of love.

If you want me to consider this, then I can expect you to clarify why you think this is the case. Likewise, I can be expected by you to do the same.

The basis you provided for what followed (e.g., various ‘plains’ that interact, an individuate consciousness being free from a human body experiencing different frequencies) was that “it is noted from theist thinking wrought through individual experiences.” That seems to be appealing to their thinking about their experiences (in contrast to counter thinking based off other experiences of the same reality) having some weight in my consideration of the claims that follow.

It seems logical to conclude that all experience regardless of how different they are from one another, are legitimate.

"Same reality - and different experiences of said reality."

Just as The Hub of The Hologram Dimensions is different from many of the uncountable Universes which surround it.

(a) and (b) correctly identify my view if “come from” refers to efficient causation. The third statement correctly identifies my view.

Partially correctly identifies your view, I would agree. Your view also incorporates the belief that the immaterial is separate from the material.

{a}&{b} correctly identifies my view in relation to efficient causation as I see The Mind of The Creator as being " working in a well-organized and competent way." [which is how the universe created is also seen to be working].

{c} is meaningless.

IF:
{a} No thing can come from no thing and
IF
{b} Some thing can only come from some thing
THEN
The Creator is not "immaterial"

Now, however, “come from” has switched to refer to material causation. Thus, “in other words” is not an accurate phrase. The conclusion fails because of that equivocation. Definitions of words are very important and we would do well to avoid equivocations of terms.

Incorrect. The word 'immaterial" derives from equivocation [a form of prevarication] because it is largely based upon guesswork and superstition than on data gathering and sorting.

We know that Consciousness is invisible except through form, where it becomes measurable to some degree.
We cannot truly say that it is "immaterial" simply because it is invisible because we know that - invisible of not, it is real. For we are it.

When comparing "material" with "immaterial" we are really actually speaking of two different states which interact - one [perhaps] passively and the other purposefully.

The "material" is that which is built from that which already exists -and that which already exists, I refer to as "Mind of The Creator." and you refer to as "creatio ex nihilo"

In creatio ex nihilo the container is part of the universe that was made.

This is also the case with many scientific theories of the make up of the Universe.

The universe isn’t put into a place identified as “nothing” but the coming into being of the place and the stuff in the place.

However, we cannot categorically claim that the self contained Universe just magically happened, from either a theist or a non-theist platform.
We simply do not know if the self contained Universe is not itself, contained in another Universe...like how The Realm of Judgement [ a group of Universes] is contained within the walls of The Twelve Judges Mountain Range, itself contained within the never-ending scope of The Holographic Realms...which itself is contained within something even vaster...[See my prior comments on Russian Dolls]

Overall point being, when we can acknowledge what we don't know, we can gracefully drop the notions defining 'material' from 'immaterial' as a legitimate way to proceed with theistic thinking.

In doing so, we have no requirement to believe "creatio ex nihilo" in relation to the idea of The Creator being separate from Its creation.
As Wiki tells it;
Creatio ex nihilo (Latin for "creation out of nothing") refers to the belief that matter is not eternal but had to be created by some divine creative act, frequently defined as God.[1] It is a theistic answer to the question of how the universe comes to exist.

It is simply saying that it is a base logical assumption. When differing images [as further assumption and not necessarily logical] of The Creator are superimposed upon this base assumption, then the wheels get wobbly, and non-theists [quite rightly] shake their heads and shrug and Ex nihilo nihil fit becomes the better option as it is less confused by the superimposing theist thinking has brought to the table.

I see it now. That one would think this typing error gives insight into my mind is silly, whether you think I'm saying something about women being evil and not men, or that this shows I think humans are all evil or anything else. I have never blamed only Eve. Neither have I claimed humans are all evil. If you keep the context clear, then this should be obvious. Your grasping at a critique here is uncharitable and baseless unless you have actual support to back it up.

Freud has a point. It isn't just about slips, but about proclamations from positions. You have yet to convince me that The Creator is separate from the creation or what we refer to as 'good' and 'evil' are static., and I am unconvinced that the biblical account of how humans came to be and consider the story of the Garden of Eden to be fictional. Fireside Metaphor at best. Wretched in its portrayal of The Creator of this Universe. Steeped in superstitious nonsense of an Entity who blames and shames and curses the unfortunate critters. Such come from minds unacquainted with higher/broader learning. It leaves the masses with a collective psyche of feelings of worthlessness and abandonment and being imprisoned in this Universe, for wrongdoing.

Freud speaks of the inner workings of the human mind [as does Jung] - the unconscious which exists and operates behind the scenes of most conscious human awareness.

I know this to be the case through my interactions with ideomotor phenomena. [see the thread "Christians and Message Boards"] because what this enables an individual to do is come into conscious contact with those aspects of oneself which one has previously been unconscious of.

Therefore, while I certainly appreciate that you feel I am being uncharitable in my wondering if there is a connect between the goings on within you which you are unaware of, I still have to consider it may have something to do with why you don't find my arguments at all compelling.

[William]

Scientists have learned that energy can be converted into matter. God is the Source of infinite power/energy so it was not very difficult for Him to use all that vast energy to produce the Universe and everything it contains.

Is. 40:25 “To whom can you liken me to make me his equal?” says the Holy One.
26 “Lift up your eyes to heaven and see.
Who has created these things?
It is the One who brings out their army by number;
He calls them all by name.
Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,
Not one of them is missing.

He not only created the Universe but also sustains and controls it. That is why the Universe follows laws that it never violates.

Psal. 148:3 Praise him, sun and moon. Praise him, all shining stars.  4 Praise him, O highest heavens And waters above the heavens.  5 Let them praise the name of Jehovah, For he commanded, and they were created.  6 He keeps them established forever and ever; He has issued a decree that will not pass away.

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]?