Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

Recent discussion in other threads has made me aware that the OP for this thread failed to cite 1Pet. 3:15 as the biblical meaning of the term "apologetics", so I would like to amend it with this post:

My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith or testimony with atheists (in obedience to 1Pet. 3:15), hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs during my biography.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin this thread by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? (In the thread titled "The Kerygma" I begin theologically by asking "What is God's requirement for salvation?")

I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice .

An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).

The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly.

So, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?

 

[rewriter]

Well, my preference is to not tell them what is true, but rather the let them tell me what they accept. If they claim everything is relative, I have to ask them if even that position is relative. I don't try to nail them down to a specific spot, I hand them the nails to nail themselves down and then, after they have committed themselves to something I can figure out how to proceed.

 

[GWH]

Well, my preference is to not tell them what is true, but rather the let them tell me what they accept. If they claim everything is relative, I have to ask them if even that position is relative. I don't try to nail them down to a specific spot, I hand them the nails to nail themselves down and then, after they have committed themselves to something I can figure out how to proceed.

That is a good way to start.
I start in this thread philosophically by nailing down what seem to be unavoidable starting axiomatic points:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

After this beginning I continue by discussing the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, I "begin” by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias), imagining that I have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, my immediate concern would be meeting survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, I would wonder why I was “born”, how I should behave, and what I ought to accomplish with your life. IOW, I would be a seeker of ultimate truth.

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for deep thinkers or ultimate truth seekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

The first type of answer can be called “cosmaterialism”, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing may be called “moralism”, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God per Rom. 1:20).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.

Do you agree with this train of thought or would your thinking go along a different track?

 

[rewriter]

That is a good way to start.
I start in this thread philosophically by nailing down what seem to be unavoidable starting axiomatic points:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am” (cf. Rodin’s sculpture; thinking is believing). The OT says in Exo. 3:14 that God is “I am” (the essence of existence).

2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).

3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means, and in order to communicate sufficiently for attaining agreement or unity, it is necessary to have a common language and cultural context. (I hope that as Earthlings using English these needs are met for you and me

After this beginning I continue by discussing the logical point from which the varieties of beliefs extant in the world diverge. Only the first student or one with a tabula rasa (blank slate)—like a newly sentient child—actually starts exploring reality from the beginning. (A pre-sentient infant in the womb is completely agnostic or without knowledge of every ism.) Nevertheless, I "begin” by seeking to assume the position or condition of adult innocence (unprejudice/lack of bias), imagining that I have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, my immediate concern would be meeting survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, I would wonder why I was “born”, how I should behave, and what I ought to accomplish with your life. IOW, I would be a seeker of ultimate truth.

Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for deep thinkers or ultimate truth seekers, there are only two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions.

One way is by assuming that there is no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI/God).

The second type of answer is that life is NOT a farce—that existence has meaning, and how one believes and behaves does matter for some non-arbitrary reason (the UMI/God, cf. Rom. 1:20). This answer seems more appealing and almost logically imperative, although some people appear to prefer the paths of nihilism and KOTH (cf. Matt. 13:14-15).

The first type of answer can be called “cosmaterialism”, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses. The second way of believing may be called “moralism”, because—while accepting the reality of the physical/material—it also affirms a fifth dimension perceived by a sixth intuitive or spiritual sense that gives reality a logical basis for meaning and morality (a UMI/God per Rom. 1:20).

The choice between cosmaterialism and moralism logically is the first fundamental choice in life (cf. Gen. 3:5). It can be thought of as a watershed decision that divides all people into two essentially different philosophical categories or world-views like a continental divide.

Do you agree with this train of thought or would your thinking go along a different track?

I can basically agree with your approach, with one exception you might find puzzling. I believe that the infant, prior to the 7-8-month age range, knows far more about reality than we adults do (this is supported by studies in psychology and psychoanalysis as well as common (universal seems likely) parenting experiences). That it is somewhere in this age range that the infant learns and accepts the lie that {aul references in Romans 1:25 and that leads to the separation, thoughts and deeds that are collectively referred to as "Sin". But then if I am correct, we misunderstand not only the nature of "Sin", but also the natures of "salvation" and "redemption".

I would also point out that depending on what another person accepts as real or valid to reason from. Those whom you term "cosmaterialists", I usually just eliminate the "cos" can be dealt with via approaches attacking such a restricted worldview where their skepticism, forces them to change the recorded facts in often upsetting ways. This includes requiring absurd speculations to resolve the issue, including requiring someone to enter an occupied classroom (a professor and 20-30 students) without being seen and climb up on a chair in the front of the room to look through a window that will not be installed for another 10+ years (this solution to one attack on materialism has been published in one of the skeptical magazines and there are a number of equally absurd such solutions also published) .

 

[GWH]

I can basically agree with your approach, with one exception you might find puzzling. I believe that the infant, prior to the 7-8-month age range, knows far more about reality than we adults do (this is supported by studies in psychology and psychoanalysis as well as common (universal seems likely) parenting experiences). That it is somewhere in this age range that the infant learns and accepts the lie that {aul references in Romans 1:25 and that leads to the separation, thoughts and deeds that are collectively referred to as "Sin". But then if I am correct, we misunderstand not only the nature of "Sin", but also the natures of "salvation" and "redemption".

I would also point out that depending on what another person accepts as real or valid to reason from. Those whom you term "cosmaterialists", I usually just eliminate the "cos" can be dealt with via approaches attacking such a restricted worldview where their skepticism, forces them to change the recorded facts in often upsetting ways. This includes requiring absurd speculations to resolve the issue, including requiring someone to enter an occupied classroom (a professor and 20-30 students) without being seen and climb up on a chair in the front of the room to look through a window that will not be installed for another 10+ years (this solution to one attack on materialism has been published in one of the skeptical magazines and there are a number of equally absurd such solutions also published) .

I am glad you essentially agree with my train of thought, but regarding the exception, are you claiming an infant knows more about ULTIMATE reality (because that is the type I always have in mind)? I doubt any study supports that, agreed?

Yes, the "cos" may not be necessary, but I use it to mean that the term does not refer to lust for wealth.

Moving further along the track, I have discerned that a person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

A second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be three main atheistic denominations: 1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), 2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), and 3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14).

Humanism has three sects including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)

The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

How are you tracking me at this point?

 

[rewriter]

I am glad you essentially agree with my train of thought, but regarding the exception, are you claiming an infant knows more about ULTIMATE reality (because that is the type I always have in mind)? I doubt any study supports that, agreed?

Yes, the "cos" may not be necessary, but I use it to mean that the term does not refer to lust for wealth.

Moving further along the track, I have discerned that a person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Until/unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.

A second watershed decision flows immediately and implicitly from the moralist viewpoint (like major rivers from one side of the Divide)—choosing what (or who) to believe gives existence meaning and under-girds moral conscience. As one analyzes the variety of moralistic beliefs, there seem to be three main atheistic denominations: 1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. Gen. 11:4), 2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. Gal. 6:7), and 3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. Rom. 2:14).

Humanism has three sects including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)

The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.

How are you tracking me at this point?

Well on infants, I would agree that proving it is impossible, but likely for a different reason than you. We do not know absolute reality, nor can infants tell us directly what they perceive, but what is consistently claimed about ultimate reality and the way infants behave do coincide up to the designated age range, but not after. Ian Suttie saw this pattern and wrote a classic psychology book on it, although he ignored the ultimate reality aspect as I recall. And numerous physicists also have made observations that fit with the ultimate reality side. Basically, there can be no "proof", but that is due to our ignorance and I would submit, out acceptance of the lie.

Other than that, we track fairly well together.

 

[GWH]

Well on infants, I would agree that proving it is impossible, but likely for a different reason than you. We do not know absolute reality, nor can infants tell us directly what they perceive, but what is consistently claimed about ultimate reality and the way infants behave do coincide up to the designated age range, but not after. Ian Suttie saw this pattern and wrote a classic psychology book on it, although he ignored the ultimate reality aspect as I recall. And numerous physicists also have made observations that fit with the ultimate reality side. Basically, there can be no "proof", but that is due to our ignorance and I would submit, out acceptance of the lie.

Other than that, we track fairly well together.

Well, in the absence of proof that infants intentionally sin, I think it is better to believe they are not accountable until they attain that stage, which for me was about the age of eight.

I am glad you agree fairly well with my logical analysis of humanism, so I will continue (others are invited to chime in)...

Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).

The adherents of naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. Matt. 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH ("king of the hill" or “might makes right”).

Rolling along?...

 

[rewriter]

Well, I would argue that the infant makes a deliberate choice, although in complete ignorance of what it means, in fact it would logically appear to be correct, and that the choice has been made becomes rapidly apparent to the parents as it results in "night terrors", not hungry, not wet or soiled, just terrified.

As for the issue of reincarnation, this has been studied extensively. It is clearly not a cultural belief, as the claims of reincarnation does occur in all know cultures, it is more commonly reported in cultures that accept it, but even in cultures that deny it the claims still occur. Further, quite often the claims are detailed enough to be verified, and such evidence often occurs in young children and is often very precise although difficult for trained investigators to verify. One example, how would a 3-year-old be able to know details about a specific WW2 casualty when there is no family or even community connections? Most of those who claim memories of a previous life lose those memories by age 8, an age that some people is the age of accountability for sin.

As for naturalism and the belief that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality, there is no evidence. But there is evidence of practicing morality for personal benefit. Gaming theory has determined that the winning strategy is to be nice/moral in one's first engagement with each specific other person and then in all subsequent interactions respond to the other person in the same manner they were treated in the previous interaction.

As for the general proclivity towards evil, it is a result of the belief formed around 6-8 months of age and reinforced in whatever fashion by subsequent experiences and the individual's interpretation of those experiences. I know one individual who has been described as a victim on the lookout for the next time he is victimized. Almost any interaction with another, no matter how trivial it would appear to someone else, might well be interpreted as abuse. Case in example, wrapping a present, putting it inside a slightly bigger wrapped box, inside yet another and yet another is not a funny joke but a deliberate attempt to impose emotional pain.

 

[GWH]

Well, I would argue that the infant makes a deliberate choice, although in complete ignorance of what it means, in fact it would logically appear to be correct, and that the choice has been made becomes rapidly apparent to the parents as it results in "night terrors", not hungry, not wet or soiled, just terrified.

As for the issue of reincarnation, this has been studied extensively. It is clearly not a cultural belief, as the claims of reincarnation does occur in all know cultures, it is more commonly reported in cultures that accept it, but even in cultures that deny it the claims still occur. Further, quite often the claims are detailed enough to be verified, and such evidence often occurs in young children and is often very precise although difficult for trained investigators to verify. One example, how would a 3-year-old be able to know details about a specific WW2 casualty when there is no family or even community connections? Most of those who claim memories of a previous life lose those memories by age 8, an age that some people is the age of accountability for sin.

As for naturalism and the belief that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality, there is no evidence. But there is evidence of practicing morality for personal benefit. Gaming theory has determined that the winning strategy is to be nice/moral in one's first engagement with each specific other person and then in all subsequent interactions respond to the other person in the same manner they were treated in the previous interaction.

As for the general proclivity towards evil, it is a result of the belief formed around 6-8 months of age and reinforced in whatever fashion by subsequent experiences and the individual's interpretation of those experiences. I know one individual who has been described as a victim on the lookout for the next time he is victimized. Almost any interaction with another, no matter how trivial it would appear to someone else, might well be interpreted as abuse. Case in example, wrapping a present, putting it inside a slightly bigger wrapped box, inside yet another and yet another is not a funny joke but a deliberate attempt to impose emotional pain.

I think infants operate instinctually selfishly until they learn enough language to understand concepts like sharing and taking turns, etc. I agree that environmental conditions and experiences play a part in shaping personality and moral character, including having a sense of humor.

Regarding claims of having memories of previous lives, I see no credible evidence to substantiate them. I have had some deja vu moments, but that is different. The whole point of karmaism is reaping what was sown in order to learn how to attain nirvana,
so losing memories by age 8 is counter-productive. I DO believe divine/supernatural justice involves unrepentant sinners reaping just consequences for evil in hell.

Did you appreciate the need for a universal moral imperative in order to have a golden rule instead of a mere pyrite suggestion?
Also, do you realize that KOTH or might makes right has defined much of human history?

The next places along the track are pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods, but we will not stop because they envision a vitiated or diminished divinity that is tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, the belief that a/one supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (cf. Gen. 17:1). NT theism reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).

Shall we stop here?

 

[rewriter]

I think infants operate instinctually selfishly until they learn enough language to understand concepts like sharing and taking turns, etc. I agree that environmental conditions and experiences play a part in shaping personality and moral character, including having a sense of humor.

Regarding claims of having memories of previous lives, I see no credible evidence to substantiate them. I have had some deja vu moments, but that is different. The whole point of karmaism is reaping what was sown in order to learn how to attain nirvana,
so losing memories by age 8 is counter-productive. I DO believe divine/supernatural justice involves unrepentant sinners reaping just consequences for evil in hell.

Did you appreciate the need for a universal moral imperative in order to have a golden rule instead of a mere pyrite suggestion?
Also, do you realize that KOTH or might makes right has defined much of human history?

The next places along the track are pantheism or belief that nature is god and polytheism or belief in many gods, but we will not stop because they envision a vitiated or diminished divinity that is tantamount to atheism. Also, deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism. The cry of Jesus on the cross, “My God, why have you forsaken me?” (in Matt. 27:46) expresses feelings in accord with this view, while the resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 28:5-7) provides hope that such feelings do not match the facts.

The only viable alternative to atheism is NT theism, the belief that a/one supernatural Supreme Being exists, who has a moral will for humanity, with which humans may cooperate or not (cf. Gen. 17:1). NT theism reformed the OT concept by revealing that the one almighty God is also all-loving (cf. 1Tim. 2:3-7.) It views God as creating and communicating by means of His Word (Logos in John 1:1), and it affirms that the world is created intentionally rather than accidentally “banged” from a “singularity” (Rom. 1:20&25).

Shall we stop here?

We can stop whenever you wish but be very careful when dealing with polytheism. There are references to polytheism that you likely either miss or are simply not aware of and not where you would expect. There are suggestions of acceptable polytheism in both the DSS and the Talmud as well as both the OT and NT.

Now if you want to get into Consciousness Studies, relatively unknown recent experiments (the original program closed in 2007) can be extrapolated to imply an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, just theistic divine entity, but it also implies some things you would be surprised with. And I have checked my knowledge of the experiments and their implications with the son of one of the lead scientists involved and he is involved in the same general field within Consciousness Studies.

 

[rewriter]

[I apologized, I focused on the issue of pantheism and ignored other points. I agree on the notion of a universal golden rule, and such does exist. I am not aware of any religion that does not have something very close to the golden rule as expressed by Jesus, but I am also aware that it has been rarely applied throughout history, might makes right is far more common.

As for infants reacting instinctively, I would ask how much experience you have with infants? They tend to learn within a few weeks to recognize the faces of their caregivers and to react to those familiar faces with joy, despite discomfort so long as the familiar person is calm and not stressed. That is not instinct.

As for reincarnation memories, what would be the necessary purpose in remembering much? That some do remember bits and pieces is more convincing to me than that most do not remember. And how is deja vu inherently different? Both involve knowledge gained from outside the normal passage of time in the physical realm.

I would guess that in regard to reincarnation you are not aware that a small subset of those who report such memories, that also claims memories of the time between their physical lives, and describe a realm consistent with that often reported by Near Death Experiencers.

 

[GWH]

We can stop whenever you wish but be very careful when dealing with polytheism. There are references to polytheism that you likely either miss or are simply not aware of and not where you would expect. There are suggestions of acceptable polytheism in both the DSS and the Talmud as well as both the OT and NT.

Now if you want to get into Consciousness Studies, relatively unknown recent experiments (the original program closed in 2007) can be extrapolated to imply an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, just theistic divine entity, but it also implies some things you would be surprised with. And I have checked my knowledge of the experiments and their implications with the son of one of the lead scientists involved and he is involved in the same general field within Consciousness Studies.

Well, I would like to know the NT references to acceptable polytheism.

We have stopped our logical but biblical train of consciousness at the station where we depart philosophy and enter the theological train. The atheist opinion indicates that the existence of a supernatural Deity is not proven, although it is not disproved either, which means that the evidence needs to be evaluated honestly. Atheists assert that one cannot prove a negative, so the burden is on theists to prove God exists. However, this assertion assumes God is not the positive “I AM” (see axiomatic belief #1).

A neutral statement about ultimate reality is the following: “It is logical to remain open to believing all credible possibilities (those which present sufficient evidence) and to hope the most desirable rational possibility is true.” Alternatively, the Bible indicates that the purpose of this life is rather for humans to prove to God they are worthy of—or qualify for—heaven (cf. Deut. 6:16 & Matt. 4:7).

This discussion/train of thought shows that everyone lives by faith regarding God or ultimate reality (2Cor. 5:7), and the structure of earthly reality forces souls to choose between various contradictory beliefs and to make (albeit sometimes rather subconsciously) the two watershed choices described: between nihilism and moralism, and between the various atheistic beliefs and the highest type of theism, NT Christianity. I believe the last is best: Let there be God!

Atheists claim there is no more evidence for the existence of God, the Creator and Judge of humanity, than for the reality of obviously fictional entities, such as Odin or unicorns. However, four types of evidence or reasoning may be viewed as supporting rational belief in God, although they do not prove He exists: the unique universe, theocentric human history, existential need and moral conscience.

Current scientific theory states that the universe began with a “bang”, when a singularity of energy suddenly exploded, and that it will end with a “whimper” when the stars eventually fade to darkness. This unique universe theory is compatible or consistent with belief in a God who created the universe “ex nihilo”, who sustains it by His power, and who will judge its moral agents at the end of time.

Current knowledge of world history suggests that humanity descended from one genetic source and evolved into various cultures. Throughout history humanity has perceived deity to be the ground of meaning and morality. The first people to perceive God were named Adam (Gen. 2:7) and Eve (Gen. 2:22 & 3:20). Theocentric history reached its apex or spiritual climax with the NT teaching that there is one almighty and all-loving God, who desires all humanity to live in harmony on earth and also in heaven, and who allows humanity to experience earthly existence including pain and disappointment (KOTH) for the purpose of teaching them their need for Him (cf. Heb. 12:10).

Current existential reality indicates that mortals need God in order to obtain immortality, that morality needs God for a universal imperative and ultimate justice, and that the NT offers the best hope that this “duo of desirables” (DOD) or heaven and justice/hell can be attained. Just as physical needs are satisfied by material realities, perhaps our metaphysical needs indicate the reality of supernatural solutions (the God of the DOD).

Moral conscience indicates and logically requires accountability to a moral authority, and the supreme Authority would be God. Paul wrote (in Rom. 1:32 & 2:15) that people “know God’s decree that those who do evil deserve death” and that their consciences “show that the requirements of the [God’s moral] law are written on their hearts.” Our feeble attempts at earthly justice may reflect or serve as evidence of God’s perfect justice. This view is similar to Platonic idealism (cf. 1Cor. 13:12, Heb. 8:5, 9:23 & 10:1). We may perceive perfect justice partially (1Cor. 13:9-12) using spiritual eyes/intuition/a sixth sense along with inference, logic, and even imagination.

Do y'all agree with these reasons for travelling on the theological train?

 

[rewriter]

Well there are three different existent lines of modern scientific thought that point to a creator, unfortunately all are deistic, not theistic, atheists will try to get around them by arguing an infinite series of universes, but that is easily disproven by the existence of this one. In an infinite series, there is always at least one more before this one can occur, thus this one never occurs.

Godel, the mathematician, also has a "proof", basically an updated version of Anselm's, if I remember the proper philosopher/theologian. It is basically an update of God is that of which nothing greater can be imagined, and actually existing is greater than non-existence so he must exist.

I think I have referenced to "proof" that I am working on from Consciousness Studies that yields a theistic God, largely compatible with the NT, but not with tradition. But it will be an interesting challenge for atheists. I hope.

As for polytheism in the NT, you know the reference very well I am certain, but what you likely lack is the cultural clues that give it away. Erecting a booth for an entity was only done for a divine entity and done as a place to worship such. Dazzling white was associated with the divine. Now name three individuals who wore dazzling white and for whom there was talk of erecting booths without any recorded criticism.

Now for your other points, current knowledge of our human ancestry indicates that any common ancestor would not have been identifiable as a homo sapiens, rather homo sapiens have interbred with at least two other extinct members of the homo line, possibly three. This means that any universal ancestor must predate all these lines.

We do not know who the first people to recognize God truly were. Elohim created the universe down to humanity, Yahweh created Adam and Eve and on a different timeline. Now it is common to equate Elohim and Yahweh, but it is not clearly necessary to do so. Yahweh might have just been working to create the specific line that would lead to Abraham and all his descendants. There are hints in the OT that Yahweh and Elohim are distinct entities and that Yahweh is the lesser.

There is also current, as well as consistent historic and cross cultural, evidence that we are already immortal beings. This evidence implies that we are not 3-dimensional physical entities but non-0physical, immortal, 4-dimensional entities restricted to 3-dimensions via some unclear means. This, coupled with the apparent knowledge about infants and their behavior and Romans 1:25, could all point to this universe being a school in which we learn the outcomes of certain behavior and that our moral code is a vague memory of what we actually belong to and that our earthly justice is actually a major corruption of true justice.

 

[GWH]

Well there are three different existent lines of modern scientific thought that point to a creator, unfortunately all are deistic, not theistic, atheists will try to get around them by arguing an infinite series of universes, but that is easily disproven by the existence of this one. In an infinite series, there is always at least one more before this one can occur, thus this one never occurs.

Godel, the mathematician, also has a "proof", basically an updated version of Anselm's, if I remember the proper philosopher/theologian. It is basically an update of God is that of which nothing greater can be imagined, and actually existing is greater than non-existence so he must exist.

I think I have referenced to "proof" that I am working on from Consciousness Studies that yields a theistic God, largely compatible with the NT, but not with tradition. But it will be an interesting challenge for atheists. I hope.

As for polytheism in the NT, you know the reference very well I am certain, but what you likely lack is the cultural clues that give it away. Erecting a booth for an entity was only done for a divine entity and done as a place to worship such. Dazzling white was associated with the divine. Now name three individuals who wore dazzling white and for whom there was talk of erecting booths without any recorded criticism.

Now for your other points, current knowledge of our human ancestry indicates that any common ancestor would not have been identifiable as a homo sapiens, rather homo sapiens have interbred with at least two other extinct members of the homo line, possibly three. This means that any universal ancestor must predate all these lines.

We do not know who the first people to recognize God truly were. Elohim created the universe down to humanity, Yahweh created Adam and Eve and on a different timeline. Now it is common to equate Elohim and Yahweh, but it is not clearly necessary to do so. Yahweh might have just been working to create the specific line that would lead to Abraham and all his descendants. There are hints in the OT that Yahweh and Elohim are distinct entities and that Yahweh is the lesser.

There is also current, as well as consistent historic and cross cultural, evidence that we are already immortal beings. This evidence implies that we are not 3-dimensional physical entities but non-0physical, immortal, 4-dimensional entities restricted to 3-dimensions via some unclear means. This, coupled with the apparent knowledge about infants and their behavior and Romans 1:25, could all point to this universe being a school in which we learn the outcomes of certain behavior and that our moral code is a vague memory of what we actually belong to and that our earthly justice is actually a major corruption of true justice.

Regarding polytheism being acceptable in the NT, I await your citations, but I do not see it from your comments about erecting a booth or wearing white.

Regarding your comments on the four reasons for believing in the NT God:

1. human ancestry - Does interbreeding occur between different species? I thought the very definition of "species" meant that the members could only breed offspring with other members of the same line.

2. I believe the story of A&E was a parable naming the first people to be conscious of God and morality.

3. I believe Elohim and Yahweh refer to the One God.

4. Mortal beings exist in four physical dimensions; it takes a 5th dimension to attain spiritual immortality.

5. I do believe this existence is a school for the purpose of teaching humans their need for God's salvation.

6. I believe our earthly justice reflects divine ultimate justice.

I am proposing adding the train of thought we are riding to the "three different existent lines of modern scientific thought that point to a creator", and fortunately this one leads to theism.

Do you have any additional comments before we proceed down the track?
I am wondering whether my reasons #3 & 4 relate to your "consciousness" argument.

 

[rewriter]

Regarding polytheism being acceptable in the NT, I await your citations, but I do not see it from your comments about erecting a booth or wearing white.

Regarding your comments on the four reasons for believing in the NT God:

1. human ancestry - Does interbreeding occur between different species? I thought the very definition of "species" meant that the members could only breed offspring with other members of the same line.

2. I believe the story of A&E was a parable naming the first people to be conscious of God and morality.

3. I believe Elohim and Yahweh refer to the One God.

4. Mortal beings exist in four physical dimensions; it takes a 5th dimension to attain spiritual immortality.

5. I do believe this existence is a school for the purpose of teaching humans their need for God's salvation.

6. I believe our earthly justice reflects divine ultimate justice.

I am proposing adding the train of thought we are riding to the "three different existent lines of modern scientific thought that point to a creator", and fortunately this one leads to theism.

Do you have any additional comments before we proceed down the track?
I am wondering whether my reasons #3 & 4 relate to your "consciousness" argument.

Since you cannot think of the three people in dazzling white and booths, the Transfiguration with Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Peter, James and John wanted to build booths.

1) Lions and tigers can interbreed, horses, donkeys, Jackasses and zebras can also all interbreed. Wolves, dogs and coyotes are another example. The specific species must be closely enough related, that is of the same genus for humans that is "Homo", so Homo Sapiens could interbreed with Homo Neanderthal, Denisovan or Hobbittus (a unknown if this actually happened the last I knew).

2,3) Different beliefs. As for Yahweh and Elohim, that does link to my Consciousness theory but would take a lot of explaining. I curently have 26 8-1.2 x 11 pages written and I am still writing, but a good bit of the argument is in the first 15 or 16 pages where I heavily address the Bible, heavily OT.

4) If you count time as a dimension than you are correct. This is directly linked to my Consciousness theory.

5) We are very similar

6) I find God's justice to be far different than human justice

 

[GWH]

Since you cannot think of the three people in dazzling white and booths, the Transfiguration with Jesus, Moses and Elijah. Peter, James and John wanted to build booths.

1) Lions and tigers can interbreed, horses, donkeys, Jackasses and zebras can also all interbreed. Wolves, dogs and coyotes are another example. The specific species must be closely enough related, that is of the same genus for humans that is "Homo", so Homo Sapiens could interbreed with Homo Neanderthal, Denisovan or Hobbittus (a unknown if this actually happened the last I knew).

2,3) Different beliefs. As for Yahweh and Elohim, that does link to my Consciousness theory but would take a lot of explaining. I curently have 26 8-1.2 x 11 pages written and I am still writing, but a good bit of the argument is in the first 15 or 16 pages where I heavily address the Bible, heavily OT.

4) If you count time as a dimension than you are correct. This is directly linked to my Consciousness theory.

5) We are very similar

6) I find God's justice to be far different than human justice

I doubt Matthew meant that polytheism was approved by the building of booths, but maybe it indicates that the disciples still did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

Re humanity, I guess I need to amend my understanding to speak of genus rather than of species.

I think consciousness of God and moral authority aka conscience should relate to your argument so please share a brief version of it when possible.

I will move us along the track later.

 

[rewriter]

I doubt Matthew meant that polytheism was approved by the building of booths, but maybe it indicates that the disciples still did not recognize the divinity of Jesus.

Re humanity, I guess I need to amend my understanding to speak of genus rather than of species.

I think consciousness of God and moral authority aka conscience should relate to your argument so please share a brief version of it when possible.

I will move us along the track later.

Before I share the outlines of my "proof", how far outside your comfort zone are you willing to go? I would need to reference experimental evidence that makes a lot of people question how it could possibly be true. It involves about 28 years of experiments at a well-regarded university and odds against chance well into at least the billions to 1 against. I would have to look at the literature to confirm how generous I am being towards chance it might well be trillions or greater. And the son of one of the leaders of the program has told me that I have "the gist" of their findings and told me about some more findings I was not yet aware of that fit.

 

[GWH]

Before I share the outlines of my "proof", how far outside your comfort zone are you willing to go? I would need to reference experimental evidence that makes a lot of people question how it could possibly be true. It involves about 28 years of experiments at a well-regarded university and odds against chance well into at least the billions to 1 against. I would have to look at the literature to confirm how generous I am being towards chance it might well be trillions or greater. And the son of one of the leaders of the program has told me that I have "the gist" of their findings and told me about some more findings I was not yet aware of that fit.

Well, I am comfortable with seeking all truth, because I believe it is God's Word, but we would need to know the bias of the experimenters before we could believe their conclusions, so do not bother to provide specific details until we determine that.
For starters I am more interested in how their or your general conclusions either jibe with or contradict my reasons.

In the meantime, I will share more of the theological train of thought:

This reasoning is not proof, but because it is based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation.

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).

Your thoughts?

 

[rewriter]

Well, I am comfortable with seeking all truth, because I believe it is God's Word, but we would need to know the bias of the experimenters before we could believe their conclusions, so do not bother to provide specific details until we determine that.
For starters I am more interested in how their or your general conclusions either jibe with or contradict my reasons.

In the meantime, I will share more of the theological train of thought:

This reasoning is not proof, but because it is based on evidence and logic, it is rational rather than “blind”, and it is made even more intellectually reasonable or defensible by acknowledging ways God would be disproved, which include the following:

1. If atheists or anti-Christians created eternal life, because the Bible teaches that eternal life is God’s gift only to believers in Him (John 3:16).

2. If the body of Jesus of Nazareth were discovered in a tomb, because Paul stated that if Christ is not resurrected, then faith is useless (1Cor. 15:14).

3. If it were proven that moral free will (MFW) is an illusion, because the premise of biblical morality is that human souls are accountable (Deut. 30:19-20).

4. If human-like beings on another planet had no salvation history involving God and Christ, because the Bible teaches that God is Lord of all (Phil. 2:9-11). (Caveat: If they are included in the Great Commission, their history would be like the OT.)

5. If God could prove His existence to people without abrogating free will (cf. 2Cor. 5:7), but apparently God performs miracles only as necessary to accomplish His plan of salvation.

6. If it were proved that the universe is not created, because resurrection or re-creation presupposes creation and thus a Creator (Acts 17:24-31).

Thus, both theism and atheism are unproven opinions or opposite subjective conclusions requiring faith concerning ultimate reality. However, the NT teaches there will come a time—at the resurrection or eschaton—when the proof atheists demand will be provided, and KOTH will end. At that time theism will be revealed as the right or true ideology as souls reap the opposite destinies of heaven and hell in accordance with their moral choices, beginning with their decision whether to love or to disregard God (cf. Matt. 7:24-27).

Your thoughts?

First I would note that God endowed us with the ability to reason and use logic. Why would he provide us with these tools if He did not expect us to use them? In fact, it is possible to understand Job as encouraging people to use reason and logic to understand God as opposed to relying on traditional understandings. As for proof, the term is used in various ways, and any skeptic can find reasons to challenge any "proof".

1) Given that cultures around the world and across time all make similar comments about eternal life, I am not certain what you mean here.

2) Finding the body of Jesus would not bother me because I recognize that in the 1st century resurrection meant something other than physical resurrection. Paul himself never mentions an empty tomb and many individuals were recognized as having been resurrected. People often count 6 claims of physical resurrection, two from sources that appear edited to add the account, two from a source that denies direct knowledge, just hearsay (not admissible in a court of law), one relies heavily on one of the edited accounts and one is vague, no clear statement about what they mean by resurrection.

3) I am not certain how that could be proven. To date, all evidence points towards moral free will, despite the best efforts of skeptics.

4) Until there is evidence of human-like life on other planets I will not be concerned with this.

5) God already does this and performs many more miracles than are commonly recognized.

6) You would have to resort to infinite universes for this and the existence of this universe proves infinite universes wrong.

You resort to a promissory argument, never delivered on today, always tomorrow, in conclusion, and those are not even worth the scraps of paper they might be written on. This argument has validity only when God finally acts, not before.

 

[Eli1]

So @rewriter , what is your theory on consciousness?