I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:10 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 10:06 am)Riketto Wrote: What you say is very strange indeed.
Yes. Hypothetically he could prefer those who never believe in him versus those who believe in him but look back in history.
Have you ever seen someone who rewarded his detractors and tell his followers that they are idiots?

But this is hypothetical Rik, we aren't talking about anything real here. You're doing the same thing to us.

Hypothetically god could be an interdimensional squid monster who has no vested interest in our world at all. Hypothetically god could be a giant perfectly-formed human being in whose belly button we currently live. Hypothetically god could be the mouse under your fridge, and just likes to keep a low profile as to avoid meddling in free will. Hypothetically I could be god and judging your salvation based on your spelling an grammar.


"Hypothetically" is a pretty useless starter if you're trying to make a point about what actually is.

Yes, Hypothetically he could be anything and not interested in us but my OP was directed toward the Hypothetical idea of a God as a supreme divine essence that care about us.
So i have to apologize if i didn't mention this in the OP.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

It's useful as a thought experiment, but Rikky is obviously using it as a form of Pascals wager, which makes it inane.

Especially if his responses to our responses are just more apologetics. We could've started there.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

I do not assert but i do believe that God can communicate with you whether you have a body or nor provided that your consciousness is developed enough.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:27 am)Riketto Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

I do not assert but i do believe that God can communicate with you whether you have a body or nor provided that your consciousness is developed enough.

You believe it to be true that your consciousness can survive without a body. Where is your evidence?

(November 19, 2014 at 10:27 am)Riketto Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

I do not assert but i do believe that God can communicate with you whether you have a body or nor provided that your consciousness is developed enough.

So then I don't understand. If it wasn't developed enough during my lifetime, it will still not be developed when I'm dead and I won't hear God, so your scenario doesn't work?

(November 19, 2014 at 9:59 am)Riketto Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 9:48 am)pocaracas Wrote: How can I say anything, if I'm dead?
Speaking requires vocal chords... and air displacement.
How would this communication take place if I'd be unable to interact with air?

It is true if you have a body but what about if you are only consciousness?
How can you dismiss the idea that a consciousness can not communicate in any other way?

As long as we're in never-ever-land, anything is possible, I guess.
Conscience-to-conscience telepathy seems like a possible method for communication. But, under such a method, it would be far more efficient to communicate via images... moving imagery.
Unless you wanted to communicate some abstract concept, like nothing... like never...
like I never got any real hint that the book was actually from a divine source....
like it always seemed much more plausible that the book and all the stories about the book were made up and worked upon by people...

[imagery begins] torah, bible, qur'an, vedas, aztecs, animism, shamanism, budhism, vikings, egyptians, celts, ancient greek, ancient romans (there admittedly just copied from the greeks), just from the christians, there were the gnostics, the catholics, the coptics, the orthodox, then came the protestants...
[back to abstracts]like how was I supposed to know that one of those was not made up?!

(November 19, 2014 at 9:09 am)Riketto Wrote: Ok. this is just an hypothetical question so keep cool and calm.
No need to get excited.
WHAT WOULD YOU THINK OR SAY IF YOU DIE AND FIND OUT THAT YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS IS STILL ALIVE AND WELL AND GOD IS THERE?

Your body is left behind to rot but your body is not you anymore.
You are there facing God.
1) Would you say.........oh, well there was no evidence that you existed that is why i never believe that you exist.
2) I was wrong in not looking at all options.
3) I never thought that by refusing to consider that you exist i could not expect that you manifest in my consciousness.

If none of these options come closer to your thinking then please express your thought.
I am curious to know what you would say to this HYPOTHETICAL God in this HYPOTHETICAL case.
Thanks.

I would say hey, so what's the deal now I'm dead? Can I be like casper or what? Is it like beatlejuice? Or Bill and Ted's bogus adventure? Maybe i watch too many 80s films.

Of course if the god was saying that he was the Islamic or Christian or Jewish god then I'd probably be thinking "Oh crap" And prepare to have my skin roasted repeatedly by the all forgiving one.

It's sort of like if you imagine I'm stood on a road with my friend Trevor, he says he knows our friend Robert is around the corner because an angel came and told him, in addition to this he also believes the theory of evolution is false, and that sticks can turn into snakes and that virgins can be impregnated.

I would simply say Ok well maybe Robert is around the corner but the rest of the stuff you're talking about is pure jibberish Trevor, you need to get your head sorted out.

Plus I've been round that corner before and Robert wasn't there then.

All the evidence points to Robert not being around the corner.

God not existing. Before I was alive I didn't see god. I can only remember being alive, not being conscious while being dead. And in fact I can only remember being alive since my brain developed enough. When I sleep I dream, when I take drugs my consciousness changes, so I can only imagine say for example a shotgun blast fragments the brain matter inside my skull, I would be unconscious forever, or until the brain matter gets put back together which I can't imagine ever happening.

But if he exists and he isn't as much of a maniac as the usual religions describe it wouldn't effect my outlook much.

(November 19, 2014 at 10:26 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 10:23 am)Alex K Wrote: I don't quite understand the problem you all have with a specific hypothetical scenario. Assume you, i.e. your consciousness is not tied to your physical body, and god can talk to it directly.

It's useful as a thought experiment, but Rikky is obviously using it as a form of Pascals wager, which makes it inane.

Especially if his responses to our responses are just more apologetics. We could've started there.

As far as i know about this Pascals wager theory is that it is all about consequences of what would happen in this or that case while my asking is what would you think or say if you are found to be wrong.
Is this so hard to understand?

(November 19, 2014 at 10:34 am)Riketto Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 10:26 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: It's useful as a thought experiment, but Rikky is obviously using it as a form of Pascals wager, which makes it inane.

Especially if his responses to our responses are just more apologetics. We could've started there.

As far as i know about this Pascals wager theory is that it is all about consequences of what would happen in this or that case while my asking is what would you think or say if you are found to be wrong.
Is this so hard to understand?

I've already told you what I would say, aand you responded with justifications and apologetics. What point are you trying to make? Or is this just a kind of "Shoot the shit" goofy thread?