₦airaland Forum

Image123:
Good that you accept that we are both non-experts. My confidence is in Jesus who has been there, done that and awaits us all after death/rapture.

Good for you! I am waiting for more concrete information.

DeepSight:
Lets take out the word "randomly" . . .

Do material things combine to form minds.

Yes material things do combine to give rise to minds.

fredwill1357:
I am speculating out of my own free thoughts, being open-minded and giving myself possible answers to thoughts that I sometimes reflect on. I didn't say they didn't want us to know about their existence, they might just be indifferent or find it inconsequential.

In which case I find speculation of that nature to be irrelevant since it would have no real bearing on how we should live our lives.

fredwill1357:
Remember I said I think you are attaching too much importance to the human race, you really think they owe us an explanation on why they created us?
Humans can now create sentient robots with artificial intelligence that can feel emotions and even pain. If we get more technologically advanced we could move to mars or a more complicated planet, dump the robots on earth and play God in their existence.

I personally think our creators created us out of boredom, maybe watching us all run around in the name of survival is fun for them.

You aren't answering the question. I didn't say they owe us an explanation, it was you who said they don't want us to know they exist. The question then becomes what is the point of speculating about them if they don't want us to know? The question has nothing to do with the importance of the human race.

DeepSight:
So may I take it that you believe that material things may randomly combine in such a fashion as to produce minds, concepts and ideas.

No, material things do not randomly combine to have minds.

DeepSight:
While I have little to say on the specific matter of NDE's, I think its worthy to note that a significant proportion of such experiences do in fact recount some common denominators, such as a tunnel, a bright light, a feeling of floating or weightlessness. It would be unfair to say that these are not widespread common denominators.

In the analogy I gave there are 3 scouts giving 3 different reports. By way of analogy those people who report experiencing light at the end of a tunnel would be 1 scout report. If we look at all the reports of NDEs can we conclude that an afterlife exists or can we conclude that people are having subjective experiences? I think the latter is a more reasonable conclusion without further information on the matter since the experiences vary so widely.

DeepSight:
Perhaps the spiritual can be likened to the land of your dreams at night. Formed entirely by you, and events in your life. If it is true that man is made in the image of God, and God is said to be the creator of all things, it would not be a stretch to see how each human spirit could be the creator of its own unique spiritual reality or spiritual world. It would not be unheard-of to envision such unique spiritual worlds emanating from the spiritual being, and not the other way around.

Please note that the foregoing is only spoken "perhaps" . . .

Which is why I said the afterlife isn't an objective existing thing. I acknowledge the possibility that each person "creates" their own afterlife but so far all we have are subjective experiences that cannot be verified.

elated177:
Guy, I don't have the time for your utter rubbish. I have given you enough attention. Now, scram. I have serious business that I am taking care of on this platform.

LMFAO! Tell your your magic sky daddy to get me off. Bwahahahahaha!

DeepSight:
Thank you, most tempted to end my line of inquiry there, but it strikes one that by non-material, you might mean something entirely different from what I have in mind, or what the theist or spiritualist has in mind. Therefore you will pardon me but I am constrained to ask - what immaterial things do you believe exist - can you give examples and secondly -what is the immaterial aspect of man - is it to be likened to an inward dwelling spirit or do you simply mean for example, thoughts.

You are quite correct. What I have in mind as non-material may not be the spiritual or supernatural the theist or spiritualist thinks of. The things I refer to as non-material are primarily the mind, concepts and ideas.

TenQ:
I think the premise was set right?


If you want to put the motion that one can still get more information, what would be the position of a sensible Captain?

He would prepare for a defence while seeking for more evidence: Isn't it?

As per your question with respect to the equivalence with respect to NDE, a truthseeker will assume the possibility of the afterlife while still seeking for more evidence.

It is irrational to assume otherwise!

Continuing with our analogy, the captain has already assumed the possibility of an attack which is why he sent the scouts in the first place. Now that he still hasn't gotten concrete information is he supposed to just believe an attack is eminent or send another sent of scouts?

Relating this to NDEs would be the equivalent of saying where is the corroborating evidence that an afterlife exists even if we say there is a possibility of an afterlife. There are widely divergent NDEs which do not give credence to any objective afterlife experience. Do we simply say we believe in afterlife or do we say we need more information. In my case I have chosen the latter, I need more information. The information at my disposal does not lead me to conclude that an afterlife exists just like the captain cannot conclude that an attack is eminent.

DeepSight:
I don't believe I jumped to conclusions, nevertheless, to make things simple, lets assume I did. Now, to help us along with clarity, can you please tell -

1. Do you believe in the existence of non-material things
2. Do you believe that man has a non-material aspect to his being

Many thanks.

1. Yes

2. Yes

fredwill1357:
Yeah, I said somewhere in this thread that life goes on however we came to be. Their existence is not completely irrelevant, depending on the angle you look at it.

What would be their relevance if they don't want us to know they exist?

elated177:
Rubbish.

Homos cannot bear to hear their perversion being condemned. They know the anguish they feel inside them. They know what they are doing is wrong and evil. They just don't want to hear it. The homos should be ashamed of their shameful act and not resort to emotional blackmail.

Are you sure you don't know where they are carrying you, Reed?

LMFAO! We have given examples of vehement condemners of homosexuality who turned out to be secret homosexuals themselves. You fit the bill to a tee. Bwahahahahaha!

jimmynauty:
Hehehe the usual tactics the ape evolutionary cousins use.

Okay since hitchens is your apostle of disbelief, from whom you made referenced to, do us a favor, ask him or check his memoir on the definitions of the following

1. supernatural beings

2. supernatural dimension


3. supernatural nonentities

I asked you. If you want a conversation you can provide an answer, if not its the end of the road.

DeepSight:
I am not so certain. There is something about arriving at a personal conviction on any given matter which bequeaths a definition to one's trajectory of action that cannot be otherwise summoned. And for the man interested in the meaning of his life at an existential level of truth, nothing but conviction will suffice. This is what gives religion such a magnetic pull for many people.

The true seeker however, can pursue this without the constraints of religion. But not without pondering those eternal questions - What really is out there? What am I? What am I doing here. Why am I here?

And the existence or non-existence of God or gods is intricately tied up with these questions.

You made reference to being wild and free, one can be wild and free without pondering the existence of otherworldly beings.

Being wild and free has nothing to do with seeking answers to such questions.

Image123:
That remains your subjective opinion. You have never even experienced one before, neither are you an expert in any way.

Neither have you nor are you an expert.

Image123:
Why do you assume that they all went the same direction and distance? i guess that's why you have that opinion that they must experience same thing. Ordinary vaccine that is the same dose and exactly same composition doesn't work the same experience in people. So you think it's life and death that will be the same. All humans come to Earth in life but still definitely not the same destination or experience. Same life, same Earth but all different birth experiences. Why do you suppose that afterlife which is far greater and bigger must be the same? Are you among those that wrote the laws of afterlife?

Whether you are a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist or atheist, you must walk on ground, breathe air, see the sun and feel breeze. These are basic objective experiences of any human been on the planet regardless of location or subjective experience. What is the equivalent for NDEs?

TenQ:
Let's assume your divergent scenarios are the only report available. The most STUPID assumption the captain can believe is that there is NOBODY!

The first and second scout show that people exist in the location. The only problem is that one is not sure whether they are civilians or advancing combatants.

It could even be that the two are correct where enemy soldiers are perfectly executing a deceptive manoever. (The combatants could be dressed as farmers).

A sensible Captain will prepared a DEFENSIVE position with his troops based on these information as he loses precious lives of his men if the enemy end up attacking. If at the end, the enemy refused to attack, he has still lost NOTHING in preparing for a defence!

A more sensible captain will look for more information since he has widely divergent reports.

In any case give your prepare a defense response, what would be the equivalent with regards to NDEs?

DeepSight:
I am afraid the phrase "methodological naturalist" will not suffice to dodge the exact question as to whether you believe in a non-material aspect to our reality. At first take, the phrase certainly suggests that you are a materialist. It will be unhelpful to equivocate on this.

Methodological naturalist is not strict materialist so there is no equivocation or dodge going on. You jumped to false conclusions about my position simple.

DeepSight:
@ L-Reed,

Over the last couple of days, each time I attempt to quote you and respond to your last revert on this thread, I am instantly banned by the spambot, regardless of how I edit or re-word. So I will not quote here, and hope it turns out different. Reference is to your last query to me.

You asked how I arrived at individual intention of cells from what you said.

You see my friend, the strict materialist must contend more stringently with the hard problem of consciousness than anyone else: since he asserts that all things are material only, he must perforce locate consciousness in physical matter.

And this physical matter consists of cells, neurons and the chemical interaction of such, which the materialist must imbue with individual and collective intention and motivation, if he is to derive consciousness and personality therefrom.

You asked how your worldview eliminates personal responsibility?

Here goes -

If we consist entirely of chemicals, you cannot hold chemicals responsible for moral or ethical decisions as chemicals lack moral agency: and therefore you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything morally or ethically. Indeed you cannot hold anyone responsible for anything, period.

You would have to say that everything is simply just always the chemicals at work, nothing more.

Indeed this hacks back to your first question and also answers it - because if you insist that we are strictly material and also insist on personal responsibility, then you are automatically imbuing cells with intentionality and motivation - because we otherwise know that mere chemicals cannot have moral agency.

If you place moral agency on them, you have placed intentionality and motivation on them.

Capisce?

First off, I didn't say I was a strict materialist. I said I was a methodological naturalist and I gave a summary of what that meant to me. If you are assuming I am a strict materialist then you are wrong. You'll need reassess your statements in the light of the foregoing.

DeepSight:
It could give one living context and thus potential freedom.

For example, if one concluded from the pieces of knowledge and experience available to you that this world is say, a reality show for an invisible audience or a social experiment in consciousness and psychology for a science class of extra-terrestrials, one may just abandon all pretenses to conscience and propriety and live wild and free.

But you can do that without thinking of some otherworldly audience.

fredwill1357:
I think you are attaching too much importance to the human race, if a creator or creators exist, we are more like toys, robots and lower beings compared to them. If they don't want you to know about their existence or don't need your association, how do you get proof of their existence?

If that is the case why do you believe then? Their existence is then irrelevant so what is the point of speculating?

TenQ:
They don't have to come back with anything. A report is sufficient when pictures, hard paper, documents ...are not available.

Many times, they don't even have an exact number of tanks, artillery, infantrymen located in a position but their judgement of estimates are still regarded as credible enough for the captain's to work upon.

So a captain sends out 3 scouts in a particular direction and distance. They all reach the same spot and come back. 1st one says there are enemy combatants advancing on our position. 2nd says I didn't see anybody. 3rd says I only saw farmers working. Which of the 3 is the captain supposed to believe?

jimmynauty:
Looool yet you posted this




Looool so you are blindly posting what you have no idea?

Are you blind? Can you not see I am quoting someone? It is obvious you aren't prepared for a conversation.

TenQ:
Don't you think that you have narrowed down the definition of EVIDENCE to strictly mean exactly reproducible and repeatable.?

Soldiers send spies to check out a position. The report of the spies form the basis of the army's move because the TESTIMONY of the spies are treated as CREDIBLE. Don't you think your definition of Evidence will disregard the testimony of the spies?

I have never been to Russia and Ukraine, but I treat news coming from there as noteworthy. I don't disregard them because I can't perform a physical experiment on them.

In a case were two opposing views lack your kind of evidence, the one who can give useful information should be treated more seriously. Do you disagree?

Spies come back with evidence, they don't come back with word of mouth.

Evidence needs to be corroborative, you can't call contradictory evidence to your narrative evidence.

Image123:
The point is obvious, the two plants don't grow the same way or length. Despite many similarities, we can't all have the same experiences. This is the reality of life. Your opinion that life should be the same is unrealistic. Having different NDEs is very normal and expected just like other experiences in life. It doesn't invalidate the experience, we don't live in a laboratory.

It's not about having the same experiences but about having the same baseline. Having different NDEs means there is no objective "afterlife".

jimmynauty:
Clap clap

You have brought your argument against morality, law and now supernatural.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and supernal nature; so that they are without excuse:


My simple question to you is

what is your definition of the supernatural power vs natural power_?

Let's start this way.

I don't know what supernatural is since no one has been able to explain what exactly it is. Can you give a coherent definition of what supernatural is?

TenQ:
Since the man actually died by verifiable medical evidence AND the dead should be totally unconscious, the man's experience is not real.
In other words, the man had just fabricated a story.

Please note that even your position of insisting that there is no afterlife is WITHOUT ANY IOTA of verifiable EVIDENCE.

Why should we believe your position and not his?

What part of "no need to explain away the man's experience" is hard for you to understand? You have a poor habit of strawmanning my statements. It makes for very poor conversations if I have to first address your strawmans before clarifying my point. I would appreciate it if in our further conversations you make an effort to stop strawmanning me.

Yes there is no evidence there isn't an afterlife just as there is no evidence there is therefore I lack belief in an afterlife.

Image123:
The two plants in the same place planted same day don't grow the same way both give out oxygen and take in CO2. Doesn't stop them from being different in other aspects. Don't know if that or different DNAs, blood groups, body temperature and blood pressure count as dodges for you, they are the obvious reality of life.

The two plants are planted in the same ground, take in the same CO2 and give off the same oxygen. There consistency in the environment in which they thrive. There is no consistency in NDEs, well not in any way that can lead to the conclusion that there is an objective afterlife. One set of NDEs have people who see dead relatives while another set only see light at the end of a tunnel, neither which represents anything like what Christians are lead to believe would happen in death. It is quite clear these are not subjective experiences of an objective "realm".

TenQ:
Interestingly,
1. It's not an evidence of the Christian God or any other God/god
2. It however shows that life seems to be able to survive death
3. He was neither in heaven nor hell as well as his father
4. When he woke up, the experience was too real enough to affect his views about life and death.
5. It is scientifically impossible that from his out of body experience, that he'll be able to describe what the doctors were doing to resuscitate him.

Atheists may need to find an explanation to explain away this man's story. I'm not sure he is now a Christian but I'm sure he doesn't believe that death is annihilation.

Finally, I think that dying and the differences in NDE can be likened to a person coming to the planet earth for the first time. His experience depend on WHERE on earth he landed in. I'm sure you'll agree with me that a first timers experience in Sahara desert or Alaska in the North pole, New York city or Sambisa Village, North Korea or South Korea would be different even though it's the same earth. A day on earth isn't even enough to get to one's final destination whatever the initial landing spot is

There is no need to explain away the man's experience. He had a profound experience is all that can be said with any kind of certainty. It is however simply not evidence for an afterlife, mostly because it is not consistent with any other experience nor can it be independently verified in any way.

NNTR:
Matthew 26:59
Now the chief priests and the whole Council (Sanhedrin, Jewish High Court)
tried to get false witnesses to testify against Jesus,
so that they might [have a reason to] put Him to death.

Mark 14:53-65
53Jesus was led off to the high priest.
Then the chief priests, the nation's leaders, and the teachers of the Law of Moses all met together.
54Peter had followed at a distance, and when he reached the courtyard of the high priest's house,
he sat down with the guards to warm himself beside a fire.
55The chief priests and the whole council tried to find someone to accuse Jesus of a crime,
so they could put him to death. But they could not find anyone to accuse him.
56Many people did tell lies against Jesus, but they did not agree on what they said.
57Finally, some men stood up and lied about him. They said,
58 “We heard Him say He would tear down this temple that we built.
He also claimed that in three days He would build another one without any help.”
59But even then they did not agree on what they said.
60The high priest stood up in the council and asked Jesus,
“Why don't You say something in Your own defense?
Don't You hear the charges they are making against You?”
61But Jesus kept quiet and did not say a word.
The high priest asked Him another question,
“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the glorious God?”
62 “Yes, I am!” Jesus answered.
“Soon you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right side of God All-Powerful,
and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
63At once the high priest ripped his robe apart and shouted,
“Why do we need more witnesses?
64 You heard Him claim to be God! What is your decision?”
They all agreed He should be put to death.
65Some of the people started spitting on Jesus.
They blindfolded Him, hit Him with their fists, and said,
“Tell us who hit You!”
Then the guards took charge of Jesus and beat Him.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

The charge was he claimed to be equal to the god, were they wrong or not?

jimmynauty:
I would have ignored because it was generalized. My comment is for Christianity only.

Another ape quote.... How would an app reason beyond it's caged enclosure? I doubt it.

When the heir of the throne is not made aware of his future prospect, do you expect him to be any differently from his surrkundings who are "mean, selfish and stupid"? That is what differentiate a man who was CREEATED in the image and likeness of exalted One and animals like ape which ape hitchens feels all ought to be.

Try making a child see the glories that follows the sufferings of Yahshua the Christ, you did marvel.

But an ape, which is an animal, no matter how close you are to it, the animal will feed on you. They call it survival of the fittest. I

This is the life ape cousins want us to live, sub animal life.

“About once or twice every month I engage in public debates with those whose pressing need it is to woo and to win the approval of supernatural beings. Very often, when I give my view that there is no supernatural dimension, and certainly not one that is only or especially available to the faithful, and that the natural world is wonderful enough—and even miraculous enough if you insist—I attract pitying looks and anxious questions. How, in that case, I am asked, do I find meaning and purpose in life? How does a mere and gross materialist, with no expectation of a life to come, decide what, if anything, is worth caring about?

Depending on my mood, I sometimes but not always refrain from pointing out what a breathtakingly insulting and patronizing question this is. (It is on a par with the equally subtle inquiry: Since you don't believe in our god, what stops you from stealing and lying and raping and killing to your heart's content?) Just as the answer to the latter question is: self-respect and the desire for the respect of others—while in the meantime it is precisely those who think they have divine permission who are truly capable of any atrocity—so the answer to the first question falls into two parts. A life that partakes even a little of friendship, love, irony, humor, parenthood, literature, and music, and the chance to take part in battles for the liberation of others cannot be called 'meaningless' except if the person living it is also an existentialist and elects to call it so. It could be that all existence is a pointless joke, but it is not in fact possible to live one's everyday life as if this were so. Whereas if one sought to define meaninglessness and futility, the idea that a human life should be expended in the guilty, fearful, self-obsessed propitiation of supernatural nonentities… but there, there. Enough.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir