I think it’s time to get back on topic. Forget about my experience. If you want to learn about NDEs there are many good books, and web sites that you can learn from.
Asking you to back up your claims is on topic.
Now we’re off topic.
First you accuse another poster of trying to provoke you, then you close with one of your flagrantly insincere declarations of “love,” wich looks pretty provocative to me. In fact, you have been told to refrain from this behavior in the past, so I am Warning you to not repeat it, here.
A bit less hypocrisy would do you well.
= = =
And you will NOT attempt to hijack this thread into one more drain circling spiral of doom regarding NDEs. They are not a topic in this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
You have got to be kidding, this is really funny, or really sick.
I am a spiritual person. Spirituality is about Love. Jesus taught to love one another, not just family and friends, but even your enemies, to return good for evil. God is Love, universal, unconditional Love. Near death experiences are about Love, loving everyone. I love everyone. It is my calling and goal in life. It is the sole purpose of life to learn to love. Love is the power behind miracles, behind healing, and answered prayer. I have never been more serious in my life.
It’s a shame there aren’t more religious people in the world really, it would be a much happier place and full of love.
Oh, wait a minute…
Not necessarily, the actual scientific explanation is almost irrelevant.
There is world of difference between saying ‘This thing happened that is very difficult to explain because it happened only once a long time ago, but there must be an explanation and I’ll keep looking for it’
And:
‘This thing happened that is very difficult to explain, it’s a miracle! Proof that God exists!’
Only one of those statements involves theorising something that directly contradicts all of known science. And anything that violates all known laws is unlikely to be the most straightforward explanation and must be backed by the strongest of evidence.
-
Why can’t the universe exist, in one form or another, for all eternity, naturally? Sure, the universe, as we currently know it, had an origin. Perhaps it originated from a cosmic ball of matter and energy … whatever. The cosmic ball of energy came from something else and so on … whatever … for eternity, naturally. Is this possible? For some reason, you argue nothing can exist eternally. There must be an origin and a cause. Says who? Perhaps the things and forces that make up the current universe naturally defy the idea that there must be an origin and cause as we know it.
-
Assuming there must be an origin and a cause, you have to pick between the natural and supernatural origin and cause. We don’t have any reliable information here, so I just admit I don’t know the truth, I accept that void in my knowledge, and I move on with life content that I just don’t know. However, you pick the supernatural explanation for some reason. If everything has an origin then how did this supernatural force originate (i.e., if God is the creator, then who or what created God)? If you respond saying God exists for all eternity, then you admit that certain things are capable of defying the rules of origin and cause as we know them and can exist for all eternity. Go to paragraph 1.
-
Even if you draw the conclusion that there is a supernatural creation force that has existed for all eternity, then how do you justify the assertion that this creation force is an intelligent designer?
-
Even if there is an intelligent designer, how do you justify making a choice between various theories of the supernatural intelligent designer? One supernatural theory is correct and all others are incorrect. How do you pick the Christian theory over the Muslim theory, the Jewish theory, the Ancient Greek theory, etc.? Maybe all those theories are wrong and some other supernatural theory will come along to supplant those based upon human cultural forces. Maybe the Mayans had it right but they didn’t have enough power to maintain their culture in the face of a stronger army.
My hunch is that people make these choices to believe because (1) it feels good to believe something over nothing; (2) it’s what their culture has taught them to believe; and/or (3) uncertainty, question, and doubt makes people uncomfortable or fearful.
Does believing that an unchanging force(God) has existed for all eternity make more sense than that a constantly changing universe has existed for all eternity?
If so, why?
Spirituality has nothing to do with religious doctrine.
You’re last four posts haven’t been off topic? You had no interest in keeping this thread on topic; you’re interest was pretending you gave a damn to avoid backing up the claims you’ve made in this thread when called on them.
Your post has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
However, you may be right in assuming that many people believe because they were taught to believe, or they are afraid not to believe less something bad happen to them, etc. But that doesn’t mean there is nothing to believe in. It doesn’t mean the world is a random accident, and life is an accident. No it doesn’t.
Most on this board were taught to believe in science, taught that nothing supernatural or spiritual exists, but that teaching is not based on proof or an understanding of the whole universe.
Let me ask, If you discovered today that the universe was created by intelligence, how would that change your life?
Where are you getting this idea from? I’d bet you anything you want that if you took a poll you’d find that the majority on this board were taught that God exists and other supernatural nonsense.
You think you’re still on topic, right?
TOPIC - “Believers: Why are you so sure of your beliefs?”
This isn’t the first time you’ve said this, but if this poll goes the way I think it will, it should be the last.
I was taught religion and I was taught science. Science does not teach that nothing supernatural or spiritual exists. Science does not claim to have all answers regarding the entire universe. The lesson I came to learn over time is not to affirmatively believe things for which there is inadequate evidence.
Science provides evidence and proof of many things. In those things, I believe.
Science has not provided evidence or proof of other things. In those things, I claim no affirmative belief.
Science has provided no evidence explaining how the big bang occurred. Thus, I claim no affirmative belief as to how the big bank occurred.
Similarly, science has provided no evidence of God. Thus, I claim no affirmative belief in God.
It makes no sense to reject all of science until science can explain the entire universe. The scientific method has proven itself to work at yielding reliable results. So, to that extent, I “believe in science” and I believe in those things in the universe that the scientific method has reasonably shown to be true.
I agree that just because many people believe X for the wrong reasons doesn’t mean X doesn’t exist. Maybe X does exist. I don’t know. I do know that I’m not got to assert a belief in X until the burden of proof has been met with reliable evidence.
I also agree that people believing in creation, despite a lack of evidence, just to feel good or just because they never adequately questioned their cultural inputs, is not necessarily evidence that the world or life is a random accident.
Again, the fact that people are misguided in their reasons why they believe X is true is not necessarily evidence that X is false. I await convincing evidence showing X is true before asserting an affirmative belief in X.
I have no idea. I guess it depends on the nature of that intelligence.
How does this poll effect this particular belief of yours?
Science teaches that only a materialist world exists, the same thing as saying nothing supernatural exists. I do not reject all of science, only those doctrines that can’t be proven. They are “all is materialism”, “personal experience is unreliable,” and that “theories are somehow more than theories.” That is for starters, I may find more. I find it unscientific that many scientists turn their backs on solid research only because it is contrary to their current theories. Usually saying it is not good research when it clearly is good research.
Science materialism will never show the existence of non-corporal existenses, so you will never believe. However Quantum Mechanics is pointing the way to non-corporal existences right now, and will no doubt become more popular in the future.
I didn’t ask how they were raised, that don’t tell me what they believe now.