Best Theistic Arguments

[pocaracas]

The bits I highlighted are the tricky ones.... everything else can flow from the typical Willing suspension of Disbelief that we commonly apply when watching certain movies or reading certain stories - like Superman.

Do we really have a soul?
Is there really a god? Is there really a son of that god?
How can one tell? Faith is just a word for what we can call "unwilling suspension of disbelief"... Somehow, you got convinced that those things are real. How? Looking back through your life, all the way to your childhood, how did you develop that faith? How did you develop that acceptance of something that rational people should naturally disbelieve?

You are just looking straight, you do not look side to side and behind you .. you only look through the science and formulas thanks to which you can solve everything (but it's ok this is your free will).... but you know that even in science, not everything is like mathematical formulas shows us... how many times the theorists should say yes and yes ... even the result is unambiguous, because the numbers are not wrong .. but the experiment goes its own way ... why? beacuse people sometimes are wrong!
we are not always able to predict, understand and prove everything ... sometimes it happens after years, decades ... and sometimes never in our lifetime..

What if I am looking also into what is known as Human Nature and see that most humans have a desire to live forever, while holding the full awareness that they will die, someday?
What if I further that with the desire to have their loved ones go on forever?
And top it off with the desire to see ill fall upon disagreeable people, like enemies and "others"?

I don't think so that's faith is just a word for what we can call "unwilling suspension of disbelief"... I could say the definition of faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that the something is true. A chair is often used to help illustrate this. I heard this explanations long time ago and i liked it, so.... intellectual assent is recognizing that a chair is a chair and agreeing that it is designed to support a person who sits on it. Trust is actually sitting in the chair. Trying to understand these two aspects of faith is crucial. Many people believe certain facts about Jesus Christ. Many people will intellectually agree with the facts the Bible declares about Jesus. But knowing those facts to be true is not what the Bible means by “faith.” The biblical definition of faith requires intellectual assent to the facts and trust in the facts. ..this only some part of these..

So... your intellectual assent informs you that souls and gods are real.... and then you trust that souls and gods are true?
Which facts are these that you mention?

And yes i believ i have a soul, i want to believe.  he "soul” in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ. The Hebrew word literally means “a creature that breathes,” and the Greek word means “a living being.” * The soul, then, is the entire creature, not something inside that survives the death of the body. Consider how the Bible shows that the human soul is the whole person: Adam, a living soul, at the time of his creation..  Adam was not given a soul—he “became a living soul”.  When Jehovah God created the first man, Adam, the Bible says that “man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7, King Jacob Version) Adam was not given a soul—he became a living soul, or person. The Bible says also that the soul can work, crave food, eat, obey laws, and touch a dead body. (Leviticus 5:2; 7:20; 23:30; Deuteronomy 12:20; Romans 13:1) Those activities involve the entire person. And Is the soul immortal? No, the soul can die. Dozens of Bible verses refer to the soul as being mortal. Here are some examples: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”(Ezekiel 18:4, 20, King Jacob Version.) and many many others example...

You know?.... you should be careful when you use external sources, like this one: http://www.questionsph.com/page/682599/... you need to attribute that text to the correct author. Plagiarism isn't nice.
Look at the rules:

Code:

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not allowed. We consider plagiarism to be the act of posting another person's words and trying to pass them off as original, or failing to properly cite their source. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here, and it is only fair to give credit where it is due. When members quote from a source other than themselves, they should use citations, links, and names / references where possible.

I understand that this person may have conveyed your idea of a soul much better than you think you can, but still.... credit where credit is due!



From what I understand after reading a book by Feser, a soul is a form of a human person, where a form is an immaterial perfect conceptual "description" of anything, the metaphysical part of the physical thing. This concept comes from Aristotle who got it from Plato and was turned into Christianity by Aquinas.

According to all these philosophers, these forms are completely immaterial and independent from a rational mind. Hence, they exist, even in the absence of the actual physical human.
Under this notion, existence itself is the most basic form, it's the form that lends support to all other forms. As such, existence becomes associated with god, the creator, that without which nothing can exist. How can something exist without existence?

I never convinced myself that these things are real...I received such education from my mother, I finished Catholic school, I learned about different religions in school ... I read the Bible,  I go to church and i just intellectually agree with these and i trust... that's my faith that's all  

Yes... that's a bit what Feser says... People don't need to concern themselves with the philosophy behind the great Church teachings... just trust that the Church got it right when they adopted Aquinas' works as a rational basis for the whole edifice. The people need only concern themselves with trusting in their elders, being confident that it all makes sense, even if they don't understand how.

I do think that the notion of forms has a particular flaw that, if actual, can make the whole thing tumble... but the religion prefers to totally ignore it... obviously.

[vorlon13]

The LDS Church notes specifically it's members are 'covered' in case of church doctrinal error, God won't hold it against them.

[robvalue]

I question everything, and scrutinize every assumption I make. I want to know the truth, because the truth leads to informed actions which is best for those around me. I don't even care about myself anymore, but I care about those that my actions affect.

I could turn to the bottle or drugs; it's amazing that I haven't and I am proud of myself. I am extremely frequently finding all different forms of escapism, but I'm always very aware of what is real and what I'm fantasizing. What I want to be true is irrelevant; in fact, I've come to see adult life being a matter of coming to terms with how things are and making the best of it.

I don't even know what point I'm making anymore. Anyhow, the idea of "souls" does not even slightly hold up to any sort of scrutiny, neither do "afterlives". They're not even coherent concepts. I can totally understand some people being unable to cope with the idea of these things not being real, although it's my opinion that this dependence is imposed on children along with these ideas, when the mind is vulnerable. I've never been made these promises, so I didn't have them to lose. Ironically, I wouldn't want them now, even if they were offered. God has jaded me that much with his casual sadism.

[KittyAnn]

You are just looking straight, you do not look side to side and behind you .. you only look through the science and formulas thanks to which you can solve everything (but it's ok this is your free will).... but you know that even in science, not everything is like mathematical formulas shows us... how many times the theorists should say yes and yes ... even the result is unambiguous, because the numbers are not wrong .. but the experiment goes its own way ... why? beacuse people sometimes are wrong!
we are not always able to predict, understand and prove everything ... sometimes it happens after years, decades ... and sometimes never in our lifetime..

What if I am looking also into what is known as Human Nature and see that most humans have a desire to live forever, while holding the full awareness that they will die, someday?
What if I further that with the desire to have their loved ones go on forever?
And top it off with the desire to see ill fall upon disagreeable people, like enemies and "others"?

I don't think so that's faith is just a word for what we can call "unwilling suspension of disbelief"... I could say the definition of faith contains two aspects: intellectual assent and trust. Intellectual assent is believing something to be true. Trust is actually relying on the fact that the something is true. A chair is often used to help illustrate this. I heard this explanations long time ago and i liked it, so.... intellectual assent is recognizing that a chair is a chair and agreeing that it is designed to support a person who sits on it. Trust is actually sitting in the chair. Trying to understand these two aspects of faith is crucial. Many people believe certain facts about Jesus Christ. Many people will intellectually agree with the facts the Bible declares about Jesus. But knowing those facts to be true is not what the Bible means by “faith.” The biblical definition of faith requires intellectual assent to the facts and trust in the facts. ..this only some part of these..

So... your intellectual assent informs you that souls and gods are real.... and then you trust that souls and gods are true?
Which facts are these that you mention?

And yes i believ i have a soul, i want to believe.  he "soul” in the Bible is a translation of the Hebrew word neʹphesh and the Greek word psy·kheʹ. The Hebrew word literally means “a creature that breathes,” and the Greek word means “a living being.” * The soul, then, is the entire creature, not something inside that survives the death of the body. Consider how the Bible shows that the human soul is the whole person: Adam, a living soul, at the time of his creation..  Adam was not given a soul—he “became a living soul”.  When Jehovah God created the first man, Adam, the Bible says that “man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7, King Jacob Version) Adam was not given a soul—he became a living soul, or person. The Bible says also that the soul can work, crave food, eat, obey laws, and touch a dead body. (Leviticus 5:2; 7:20; 23:30; Deuteronomy 12:20; Romans 13:1) Those activities involve the entire person. And Is the soul immortal? No, the soul can die. Dozens of Bible verses refer to the soul as being mortal. Here are some examples: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.”(Ezekiel 18:4, 20, King Jacob Version.) and many many others example...

You know?.... you should be careful when you use external sources, like this one: http://www.questionsph.com/page/682599/... you need to attribute that text to the correct author. Plagiarism isn't nice.
Look at the rules:

Code:

Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not allowed. We consider plagiarism to be the act of posting another person's words and trying to pass them off as original, or failing to properly cite their source. Academic integrity is important to many of the members here, and it is only fair to give credit where it is due. When members quote from a source other than themselves, they should use citations, links, and names / references where possible.

I understand that this person may have conveyed your idea of a soul much better than you think you can, but still.... credit where credit is due!



From what I understand after reading a book by Feser, a soul is a form of a human person, where a form is an immaterial perfect conceptual "description" of anything, the metaphysical part of the physical thing. This concept comes from Aristotle who got it from Plato and was turned into Christianity by Aquinas.

According to all these philosophers, these forms are completely immaterial and independent from a rational mind. Hence, they exist, even in the absence of the actual physical human.
Under this notion, existence itself is the most basic form, it's the form that lends support to all other forms. As such, existence becomes associated with god, the creator, that without which nothing can exist. How can something exist without existence?

I never convinced myself that these things are real...I received such education from my mother, I finished Catholic school, I learned about different religions in school ... I read the Bible,  I go to church and i just intellectually agree with these and i trust... that's my faith that's all  

Yes... that's a bit what Feser says... People don't need to concern themselves with the philosophy behind the great Church teachings... just trust that the Church got it right when they adopted Aquinas' works as a rational basis for the whole edifice. The people need only concern themselves with trusting in their elders, being confident that it all makes sense, even if they don't understand how.

I do think that the notion of forms has a particular flaw that, if actual, can make the whole thing tumble... but the religion prefers to totally ignore it... obviously.

So if you're looking also into what is known as Human Nature then you see that most humans have a desire to faith.... in anything.
And yes..you're right i should mention and point out that this is a quote, my fault... usually it doesn't happen to me, unless it's my inattention or haste, as in this case ... I'm so sorry again. But that's right..i agree with that in most of point what the soul is, this is the closest thing to my idea about..
Yes, so to some extent, the concept of the soul comes from Aristotle, but according to him the soul and matter/body may be independent, but according to faith, the soul gives life to the body, we can't exist without soul... as C.S.Lewis said " You don't have a soul, you're a soul, you have a body ...."

---

Anyway, I don't want to impose on anyone what I believe, or teach that it is so, just yes and only ... I'm not infallible and and I'm not saying that my faith is more true than what I see and not what I feel ... although it can not be denied the fact that what we feel is not real ...huh? ...is joy, love, anger even though they're not material and are just feelings ... are they not real ?!  
a lot of love for everyone  

[Little Rik]

1) You still can not understand how a rock can be full of consciousness as in human life and at the same time it present no life.

Easy.

It is the awareness that make the difference.
The awareness doesn't come easy.
It takes some millions or more years to turn a latent or dormant form of consciousness such as pure matter into plant life, animal life, human life and God life.
This is what evolution is all about.
It is the evolution of the awareness in consciousness that turn matter into something different and more aware.
Consciousness in itself is the same in all form of lives because everything come from the same source but not everything has got the same awareness of who they are.

Consciousness has nothing to do with..........the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings........instead has to do with being aware of who we are so it is an internal thing not an external one.
Matter does not have a brain or any other way to think or to be aware so no expression is possible.
Even then after millions of years in that bondage something pop up within that make her wish to escape that situation of bondage
and that works with the release of energy as we can see in some minerals such as uranium and other.

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.    

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.  

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.

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.  

[surreptitious57]

Surprisingly so many people dont acknowledge that creation itself is evidence of God  

The Universe cannot be evidence of anything because evidence by definition can never be absolute
And so it is a category error to say that creation is evidence of God for it cannot be any such thing

---

What if I am looking also into what is known as Human Nature and see that most humans have a desire to live forever while holding the full awareness that they will die someday

I cannot speak for most humans but I myself would not want to live forever even if it were possible

Death is the only state where there is a complete absence of suffering in all its forms
And which is why I have no fear of it at all and will welcome it when the time comes
An eternal non existence is therefore infinitely better than any idea of living forever

You can have consciousness and suffering or non consciousness and non suffering
You cannot have consciousness and non suffering as that is not how reality works

[surreptitious57]

The Universe had a beginning therefore God

It is an evidence free assertion to claim that the Universe had a beginning. Also in there are two logical
fallacies specifically non sequitur and God of the Gaps. And any God claim is by definition non falsifiable

Surprisingly so many people dont acknowledge that creation itself is evidence of God

The Universe cannot be evidence of anything because evidence by definition can never be absolute
Therefore it is a category error to say creation is evidence of God since it cannot be any such thing

[Fake Messiah]

It doesn't seem that theist have arguments they consider to be "best" to them they're all on the same level and they usually are:

-there are lots of religious people and they can't all be wrong
-my holy book is right
-evolution is wrong and even if it's right it's evil
-faith is a good thing
-atheism is just a religion
-I can feel god when I pray
-ghosts and exorcisms are real
-world is too beautiful to be an accident
-anything is better then being an atheist
-god tortured his son for me
-atheists think they know everything
-my god heals
-I want to believe
-I want to live forever
-I can't face reality
-I don't want to be punished by god for not believing
-my god changes lives
-my religion is the right one
-no one has proved my god doesn't exist

[Angrboda]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

[robvalue]

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.

In this regard, if we assume a hypothetical creator/manager of our environment, do I have faith in them? Absolutely not. I see awful design decisions at every turn, I see mismanagement (or no management), and I see what appears to be pointless sadism.

The only thing that could restore my faith in this creator would be me finding out why the results do not match my expectations. This would necessarily require them not having total control over everything, but instead achieving some overall goal (of which we might be only a small part), using limited resources. This is contrary to what almost every religious theist tells me. Maybe, if this was the case, I simply don't currently understand how everything I am seeing fits in to this. Or maybe, I'd still think it was fucking stupid and/or sadistic. It would depend on the specifics.

One further point: poor animals. They already get the worst deal, being basically our property and foodstuff based on our God-complex over them. But from a theological standpoint, they don't generally even get to go to heaven either. So this huge mitigating factor which is meant to make everything okay in the end doesn't even apply. So their suffering is entirely pointless in this regard, except as pawns in some sick game. Women were also property in the bible, but at least society has moved on with regard to them. I hope one day the same promotion is given to animals.