Best Theistic Arguments

[KevinM1]

I wanted to say something else on the subject of "faith".

I can have faith in a person, based on my past experiences with them. If they've always shown they know what they are doing in some regard, I'll have faith in them that they'll continue to be good at that particular thing. If, however, I witness them fouling it up, causing chaos and getting awful results, I would have no faith in them in the future.

Faith has different meanings in different contexts.

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's due to several factors, including:

A clear, consistent track record of the sun rising.
My understanding of the composition of the sun, and how its mass affects gravity.
My understanding of the earth, and how it rotates on its axis.

Similarly, my faith in certain people is due to:

What I've learned about their character.
Their past actions.
Etc.

An atheist's faith is really a comment on probability. Because of a combination of knowledge and past experiences with verifiable phenomena (it's uncontroversial to state that the sun, the earth, my family and friends all exist), we extrapolate what is likely to happen in the future. It's wholly different than religious faith, which isn't substantially different than wish-casting in the face of personal incredulity.

[Edwardo Piet]

The Universe had a beginning, therefore God.

So a mindless non-supernatural singularity can be labelled with the word "God"?

---

Why do you guys always trot out this "saved" business?
Saved from what?

saved us from death and of eternal damnation.... He gave us eternal life ..(after the death of the body)..

Seems to me like believers believe in the unknowable. And I don't just mean unknowable in any sense, even relatively, not just absolute knowledge. If something happens after we die there is no way of us possibly knowing while we're still alive.

And if our brain dies but some part of us lives on... is that really 'us' if our whole personality and all our memories have disintegrated? If we have past lives are they really 'our' lives if we have no memory of them? Similar sort of thing to me.

---

It's not that these things don't need evidence, it's that there can't ever be any evidence for or against them because they are untestable/unfalsifiable. That's exactly how religion gets away with all this. As soon as it tries to step into the realm of the testable, it fails immediately.

So it all comes down to a reverse of the burden of proof. And a whole "You can't prove God doesn't exist" thing. Well of course we can't, because God is defined in such a way that his existence and nonexistence seem to be exactly identical.

[Little Rik]

There is no evidence that uranium wants anything, and we do not need to invoke unevidenced wants to predict its behavior (see between hide tags below).  If rocks are not in any sense aware, then in what way are they like things that we know are conscious?  What is your evidence for this?

FOOL.

The only way to understand this point is to understand how evolution works which is something that you badly lack.
Matter is the last stage of creation and the first stage of evolution.
It goes in circle.
From pure consciousness to mind, space, air, light-energy, water and finally to matter.
Once the creation reach the bottom and turn into matter the evolution start in order to bring that now latent consciousness back to pure consciousness and to where all started from.
Why all this should be proven right by physical science?
Physical science is called such because she study physical phenomenon not what evolution in consciousness is all about so no if you expect any physical evidence you will not get any but if you engage in intuitional science you will.   

That's some interesting speculation.  So I take it that you're now admitting that you have no evidence that vibrations are alive, and it's just dogma.

Why speculations?
Even a demented fool knows that physical science is confined within the physical corral therefore is unable to understand what lie outside such as the consciousness but I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?
That of course make you foolish believe that vibrations are not alive.
Wrong once again.

How do you know that the things intuitional science tells you are true?

Because I do practice it and because the practice open the superconscious within where the real knowledge lie.  

2) There is no way that ketamine and other substances are able to allow the consciousness to leave or disconnect from the body.
An NDE is instead able to do that because that is not cheating.
The fact that people using the chemical way are able to see something big does in no way means that they experience an OBE.
These people also they never die as in a NDE.  

You have no evidence that consciousness is able to leave or disconnect from the body.  When I pointed this out in the evolution thread, you became obstinate and uncooperative and refused to answer further.  Nor do people die in the case of NDEs, as is obvious from the fact that we have the testimony of live NDE experiencers.  The rest of this is just more nonsensical dogma that you believe but have no evidence for.

Now you are very very dishonest.
The evidence is there that people really die during their NDE.
Both doctors and people who had an NDE confirm this fact.
Shame on you liar.  

Let's see what the legal definition of death is:

Most legal determinations of death in the developed world are made by medical professionals who pronounce death when specific criteria are met. Two categories of legal death are death determined by irreversible cessation of heartbeat and breathing (cardiopulmonary death), and death determined by irreversible cessation of functions of the brain (brain death).

Wikipedia || Legal death, Medical declaration


Do people who experience NDEs have an irreversible cessation of heartbeat, breathing, or brain function?  No they do not.  Therefore they have not died.  This is simply an example of you thinking that I am wrong simply because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Yes they do.
Doctors declare these people dead.
On top of that these people can see their dead body from above which it means that the consciousness is no more inside the body.

That is bizarre yog.
Atheists always glorify science (physical science of course) but when this science contradict them they stupidly try to find some excuses that take them out their failure.
Shame on you yog.  

3) How we determine that something is real?

It is all about developing an high degree of awareness.
Physical science change continuously.
If you stick to what this science say today you will look like a fool tomorrow.
Everything move and change so what science say that is real today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow.

The only way to determine what is real is to look within because within there is the real truth but that is something that you will discover later on considering your stubbornness.

Out of one side of your mouth you claim that knowledge from inside is the determinant of the real, and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that evidence from dreams is not justification for believing something.  Apparently, looking within only works if you believe the right dogma.  You don't know what the fuck you believe, nor do you know how to determine what is real.  This is just more Ananda Marga dogma that has yielded bullshit like Sakar's Microvita.

If you think that looking inside through hard spiritual work and dreams are the same thing then you really need to see a mental doctor.
Going from bad to worse yog.

Do you believe that the things you can learn from your spiritual masturbation are more likely to be true than what you can learn from dreams?
Do you believe that other people exist?
Did you learn the details of Kathleen's NDE by looking within?

By spitting in the dish that feed you you will not go very far yog.
Spirituality is what keep the universe and all the creature alive.
At the moment you live in a fantasy dream so you still do not know this golden truth but in any case if I would be in your shoes so to speak I would be very very careful before you engage in these foolish comments.    

4) Vibrations in inanimate matter are alive as are alive in all other form of life.
The difference however lie in the wave length in which the vibration travel or how the energy is propagated.
The longer it takes to travel  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ the less awareness present and the less it takes to travel the more come closer to God wave which is flat___________________________.  

Oh look!  No evidence from NDEs, and no scientific evidence.  Little Rik runs away again.

Give some time yog.
One day you too will understand how the whole system works without banging your head on the wall.  

Not if I depend upon you for it.  All I get from you is repeated Ananda Marga dogma.  

You've had six weeks to show that your beliefs are not dogma and so far you've come up with squat.  I'm a patient woman, but my patience has its limits.

Oh, my God.  
I am so so sorry that I took advantage of your patience.
I didn't know that you gave me six weeks.
I thought I had until the next Christmas.  

Oh, by the way I am still waiting to see your evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain and that life end up with the physical death. (among of course all other atheists dogmas)  




(color and font size mine)

[surreptitious57]

Do people who experience NDEs have an irreversible cessation of heartbeat or breathing or brain function No they do not.  

Yes they do. Doctors declare these people dead

On top of that these people can see their dead body from above which it means that the consciousness is no more inside the body

Atheists always glorify science ( physical science of course ) but when this science contradict them they stupidly try to find some excuses that take them out their failure

You cannot be dead if you have only had a near death experience because nearly being dead and actually being dead are not the same

No NDE can be scientifically investigated as it is only a single person interpretation so there is no objective means of determining its claim

And all of science is physical because it is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else

[Angrboda]

That's some interesting speculation.  So I take it that you're now admitting that you have no evidence that vibrations are alive, and it's just dogma.

Why speculations?
Even a demented fool knows that physical science is confined within the physical corral therefore is unable to understand what lie outside such as the consciousness but I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?
That of course make you foolish believe that vibrations are not alive.
Wrong once again.

spec·u·la·tion
noun

   1.     the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

How do you know that the things intuitional science tells you are true?

Because I do practice it and because the practice open the superconscious within where the real knowledge lie.  

What you need is independent corroboration.  What you don't have is independent corroboration.  What you have is "a belief."  A belief by itself means nothing.

You're just another religious twat with claims that you can't back up.

2) There is no way that ketamine and other substances are able to allow the consciousness to leave or disconnect from the body.
An NDE is instead able to do that because that is not cheating.
The fact that people using the chemical way are able to see something big does in no way means that they experience an OBE.
These people also they never die as in a NDE.  

You have no evidence that consciousness is able to leave or disconnect from the body.  When I pointed this out in the evolution thread, you became obstinate and uncooperative and refused to answer further.  Nor do people die in the case of NDEs, as is obvious from the fact that we have the testimony of live NDE experiencers.  The rest of this is just more nonsensical dogma that you believe but have no evidence for.

Now you are very very dishonest.
The evidence is there that people really die during their NDE.
Both doctors and people who had an NDE confirm this fact.
Shame on you liar.  

Let's see what the legal definition of death is:

Most legal determinations of death in the developed world are made by medical professionals who pronounce death when specific criteria are met. Two categories of legal death are death determined by irreversible cessation of heartbeat and breathing (cardiopulmonary death), and death determined by irreversible cessation of functions of the brain (brain death).

Wikipedia || Legal death, Medical declaration


Do people who experience NDEs have an irreversible cessation of heartbeat, breathing, or brain function?  No they do not.  Therefore they have not died.  This is simply an example of you thinking that I am wrong simply because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Yes they do.
Doctors declare these people dead.
On top of that these people can see their dead body from above which it means that the consciousness is no more inside the body.

That is bizarre yog.
Atheists always glorify science (physical science of course) but when this science contradict them they stupidly try to find some excuses that take them out their failure.
Shame on you yog.  

The funniest part of this is that you actually believe that you're correct!  No, neither a doctor's declaration nor an OBE necessarily entail the person has died.



Apparently the word 'near' in near death experience wasn't a clue to you.   Do you even know what the word 'irreversible' means?

3) How we determine that something is real?

It is all about developing an high degree of awareness.
Physical science change continuously.
If you stick to what this science say today you will look like a fool tomorrow.
Everything move and change so what science say that is real today will be cast in the rubbish bin of history tomorrow.

The only way to determine what is real is to look within because within there is the real truth but that is something that you will discover later on considering your stubbornness.

Out of one side of your mouth you claim that knowledge from inside is the determinant of the real, and out of the other side of your mouth you claim that evidence from dreams is not justification for believing something.  Apparently, looking within only works if you believe the right dogma.  You don't know what the fuck you believe, nor do you know how to determine what is real.  This is just more Ananda Marga dogma that has yielded bullshit like Sakar's Microvita.

If you think that looking inside through hard spiritual work and dreams are the same thing then you really need to see a mental doctor.
Going from bad to worse yog.

Do you believe that the things you can learn from your spiritual masturbation are more likely to be true than what you can learn from dreams?
Do you believe that other people exist?
Did you learn the details of Kathleen's NDE by looking within?

By spitting in the dish that feed you you will not go very far yog.
Spirituality is what keep the universe and all the creature alive.
At the moment you live in a fantasy dream so you still do not know this golden truth but in any case if I would be in your shoes so to speak I would be very very careful before you engage in these foolish comments.    

More moronic drivel from the king of moronic drivel.  I notice you didn't answer the questions.  Probably for the best, anyway.

4) Vibrations in inanimate matter are alive as are alive in all other form of life.
The difference however lie in the wave length in which the vibration travel or how the energy is propagated.
The longer it takes to travel  /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ the less awareness present and the less it takes to travel the more come closer to God wave which is flat___________________________.  

Oh look!  No evidence from NDEs, and no scientific evidence.  Little Rik runs away again.

Give some time yog.
One day you too will understand how the whole system works without banging your head on the wall.  

Not if I depend upon you for it.  All I get from you is repeated Ananda Marga dogma.  

You've had six weeks to show that your beliefs are not dogma and so far you've come up with squat.  I'm a patient woman, but my patience has its limits.

Oh, my God.  
I am so so sorry that I took advantage of your patience.
I didn't know that you gave me six weeks.
I thought I had until the next Christmas.  

Oh, by the way I am still waiting to see your evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain and that life end up with the physical death. (among of course all other atheists dogmas)  

You've already seen it, but what else can we expect from a moron like you.  If you had any evidence for your beliefs, you'd have presented it by now.

[Little Rik]

Yes they do. Doctors declare these people dead

On top of that these people can see their dead body from above which it means that the consciousness is no more inside the body

Atheists always glorify science ( physical science of course ) but when this science contradict them they stupidly try to find some excuses that take them out their failure

You cannot be dead if you have only had a near death experience because nearly being dead and actually being dead are not the same

No NDE can be scientifically investigated as it is only a single person interpretation so there is no objective means of determining its claim

And all of science is physical because it is the study of observable phenomena and nothing else

There are a lot of fools that really believe that physical science is the panacea for all real knowledge.
Unfortunately for these fools that is not the case.

Everything in this universe move and change all the time.  
Physical science try his best to follow these changes and that is ok., but that is not enough because not everything can be understood by this science.
This is something that you will understand later on.  
In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body.
You can't be alive without your consciousness.
It would be a vehicle without the driver.
It would be just a piece of metal.
With the driver gone the vehicle has no life in it.

For atheists must be very very hard to digest the fact that life can come back in a lifeless body and life pop up once again.
It would wreck a life time of beliefs.
Beliefs in pure and simple BS.  

---

Why speculations?
Even a demented fool knows that physical science is confined within the physical corral therefore is unable to understand what lie outside such as the consciousness but I guess you never thought about that yog, did you?
That of course make you foolish believe that vibrations are not alive.
Wrong once again.

spec·u·la·tion
noun

   1.     the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Because I do practice it and because the practice open the superconscious within where the real knowledge lie.  

What you need is independent corroboration.  What you don't have is independent corroboration.  What you have is "a belief."  A belief by itself means nothing.

You're just another religious twat with claims that you can't back up.

Yes they do.
Doctors declare these people dead.
On top of that these people can see their dead body from above which it means that the consciousness is no more inside the body.

That is bizarre yog.
Atheists always glorify science (physical science of course) but when this science contradict them they stupidly try to find some excuses that take them out their failure.
Shame on you yog.  

The funniest part of this is that you actually believe that you're correct!  No, neither a doctor's declaration nor an OBE necessarily entail the person has died.



Apparently the word 'near' in near death experience wasn't a clue to you.   Do you even know what the word 'irreversible' means?

By spitting in the dish that feed you you will not go very far yog.
Spirituality is what keep the universe and all the creature alive.
At the moment you live in a fantasy dream so you still do not know this golden truth but in any case if I would be in your shoes so to speak I would be very very careful before you engage in these foolish comments.    

More moronic drivel from the king of moronic drivel.  I notice you didn't answer the questions.  Probably for the best, anyway.

Oh, my God.  
I am so so sorry that I took advantage of your patience.
I didn't know that you gave me six weeks.
I thought I had until the next Christmas.  

Oh, by the way I am still waiting to see your evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain and that life end up with the physical death. (among of course all other atheists dogmas)  

You've already seen it, but what else can we expect from a moron like you.  If you had any evidence for your beliefs, you'd have presented it by now.

My previous answer to Surr cover all your mad drivel.

In the meantime can you please reply to my questions such as why the consciousness should be a product of the brain and why  
the death of the body should mean our death?

Is until Christmas enough time for you to answer these questions?
If you really need more time I can extend the time.
After all LR is here to help.
Isn't it yog?  

[Angrboda]

My previous answer to Surr cover all your mad drivel.

No, it actually doesn't, if for no other reason than among said 'drivel' was the point that you had not presented any actual evidence for the four dogmas I listed earlier, chief among them being that vibrations are alive. So, no, you didn't answer everything. But let's deal with what you did answer (below).

In the meantime please note that as the consciousness leave the body that is death so people who saw their body from above saw their dead body.
You can't be alive without your consciousness.
It would be a vehicle without the driver.
It would be just a piece of metal.
With the driver gone the vehicle has no life in it.

This is unsatisfactory for several reasons:
1) It's not clear that consciousness "leaves the body" in an OBE, both for reasons discussed and some not (see quote below for example);
2) Even if consciousness is displaced during an OBE, it's not clear that the relationship between consciousness and the body has in any significant sense been disrupted or ended by that displacement. In particular, you claim both that consciousness is not physical and that it resides in the pineal gland. What it means for something that is not physical to have a location I'll leave up to you, but regardless, from the putative position in the pineal gland, consciousness is not directly in contact with sufficient nerves to control the body, so according to your view, we are constantly "remotely controlling" the body/brain anyhow, so what does the actual distance matter?
3) It's not clear in what sense consciousness does constitute the "you," nor is it true that an absence of consciousness equals death. We go to sleep each night without "dying";
4) As you can determine by looking up the relevant definitions, death is a permanent condition, not merely a transitory change in the relationship of one or more of a living organism's systems. In particular, death entails the continuous loss of homeostasis, which is of particular note as the cells in the brain and the brain itself maintains relative homeostasis even in the absence of blood and oxygen for a considerable time. At the very least, irretrievable loss of functional homeostasis does not occur.

So for these and undoubtedly other reasons, you are wrong in claiming that an OBE during an NDE is evidence that the person has died and is at that time "dead."

OBErs who do not lose consciousness before their experiences often report watching their bodies continue to perform coordinated actions—as if they were still in control of their bodies—while nevertheless apparently viewing them from above. Recalling an OBE while on patrol for the first time, chasing an armed suspect, a police officer reported:

I promptly went out of my body and up into the air maybe 20 feet above the scene. I remained there, extremely calm, while I watched the entire procedure—including watching myself do exactly what I had been trained to do (Alvarado 183).

After the suspect had been restrained and the danger was over, the officer returned to normal consciousness. Another OBEr, who had been running for over 12 miles training for a marathon, reported:

I felt as if something was leaving my body, and although I was still running along looking at the scenery, I was looking at myself running as well (184).

This ability to simultaneously 'hover' above the scene and continue to function as if 'in' the body strongly suggests the hallucinatory nature of these experiences. In some sleep disorders, for instance, subjects are able to exhibit "directed" behavior—e.g., sleepwalking and sleep eating—even though they are evidently not normally conscious. Taking on an extraordinary new perspective while functioning normally otherwise makes much more sense if such experiences are occurring 'in' the body all along, rather than in some remote discarnate entity detached from the physical body.

Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences

Regardless of whether one accepts the author's interpretation of hallucination or not, it's evident that merely experiencing oneself as being conscious and viewing things from a perspective outside the body does not necessarily entail that consciousness is not still in contact with the body, still in control, and that life continues on more or less as normal, ignoring the specific weirdness of the perspective.

In the meantime can you please reply to my questions such as why the consciousness should be a product of the brain and why the death of the body should mean our death?

No, I don't believe that I will be doing that, and I'll tell you why. I have presented the reasons multiple times in the past and with each time, you simply dismissed the evidence without providing specific logical reasons for doing so. If you are not going to actually engage with the material, I see no point in having the discussion. Beyond that, it's really irrelevant, as I have never maintained that the evidence for the brain based nature of consciousness is conclusive, so that would make the discussion even more pointless given your ostensible goals. What is worth noting, however, is that you have repeatedly maintained that you have conclusive reasons for believing that consciousness transcends the body. Your dogmatic adherence to certain beliefs has been the main point or points of contention, and that is the main matter before us.

Beyond that, it's clear from arguing with you these many months that it is a favorite tactic of yours to deflect from scrutiny of your beliefs and worldview by changing the subject and making the subject about the other person's beliefs and worldview. Since we have an important question at issue here, I'd just as soon we finish with that before we turn our attention to other matters (if at all). In this thread and the evolution thread, you have continued to maintain that your beliefs are not dogma, and moreover that they have the backing of science. You've utterly failed at the latter claim, and your reasons for the former have so far been shown to be without basis. Instead, what has become apparent is that your worldview in general, and specifically the evolution of consciousness, are beliefs that are built upon dogma and articles of faith conscerning the value and efficacy of intuitional science. If you're willing to concede that "how the system works" according to you and yoga is a matter of dogma and faith, rather than reasons and evidence, then we can rest on that and perhaps turn to other matters. Otherwise I suggest you get busy and start providing some actual reasons and evidence for the four propositions discussed earlier. (Repeated here for your convenience.)

Since the following dogmas are foundational to your "system," it is obvious that you practice a religion.

1. Vibrations are alive/conscious.
2. Energy is alive/conscious.
3. Inanimate matter is conscious.
4. Life cannot come from non-life.

[Edwardo Piet]

The best and worst theist arguments are identical in their bestness and worstness.

When everything is 0% accurate it's all equally the best and worst.

[Little Rik]

Since  the following dogmas are foundational to your "system," it is obvious that you practice a religion.

1. Vibrations are alive/conscious.
2. Energy is alive/conscious.
3. Inanimate matter is conscious.
4. Life cannot come from non-life.

Let us deal a bit at the time as the page is getting full so let us now deal with these last points.

As usual you vandalize my words and that is rather evil if done on purpose or stupid if done without understanding what i said.

1) I didn't say that inanimate matter is conscious.
I rather say that matter has got consciousness or it is made of consciousness and this consciousness is in a latent form which means that matter can not be aware of who she is.

To say ............Inanimate matter is conscious.......is like to say that matter can express herself which is not the case.

2) The same goes for vibrations.

Also vibrations like everything in this universe has life in it.
Unlike matter which can not express herself because she reach the very bottom of creation vibrations express themselves with the movement and movement means life.
If on the other hand you may believe that this movement is cused by the creator then you can well kiss goodby to all atheistic ideas.
In any case you fail badly.

3) Energy - consciousness are the two sides of the same sheet.
One can not exist without the other.
Also energy move so like vibrations must have life in it.
The atheist idea that some sort of energy within the universe keep the system going and going is void of any evidence while the idea that energy has life in it make 100% sense.
Physical science sooner or later will come to this conclusion.

4) Life in this universe always come from life.
This is science yog.

There is no such a thing as anything void of life.
Even matter has life in it even if it is in a latent form.  

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I might see where riks circuit got fried. Since all chocolate comes from trees...trees must be made of chocolate.