I think that the concept of “debate” is sort of slipping past you. And–as I pointed out before–fighting ignorance. Although by now I have realized that you haven’t even the slightest interest in gaining any actual scientific knowledge here–I’m not blind, just stubborn.
And a tad bit rude, I might add. Not sure why you choose to be that way. I’ve been very polite to you. Your karma, I guess.
But Karma is Life.
Funny how that works. 
The trouble is, you’re turning out to be a person who doesn’t ponder. Anything, ever. You obviously came here to make some sort of one-sided presentation rather than to discuss anything, expecting to be - I don’t know… lauded? Dude, it’s not happening.
If you pondered some of the things that people are writing to you, you’d notice that a few of your current thoughts are out of touch with reality, and you’d say to yourself “Hmmm, it’s very clear that this ‘God Equals Life’ idea is complete horseshit - Walsch turns out to be dead wrong on this one - I wonder what next?”
You seem rather closed-minded yourself, if you don’t mind my saying so. I ponder plenty. Some of the ideas that people have written here are certainly thought-provoking. Others are—what’s the expression?—complete horseshit. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I will take the narrow minded views along with the more inspirational ones and weigh them and consider them for myself. The discussion itself in this thread can be anyone with anyone. My blessing is certainly not required. And if you don’t like some of the ideas presented or if you feel I need to ponder more, well, DavidwithanR, that’s alright too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t believe all human knowledge becomes available to everyone all of the time; I think some of it does, and it may come to us in a dream or a flash of intuition. Being aware of everybody’s underwear sizes would probably not be all that helpful in most situations, though are probably some situations where that kind of knowledge could be a lifesaver. I can’t think of any though.
I think the influence we have on others in our lives certainly gets passed on, but not genetically. Call it the wisdom of the ages. With the internet today, I suspect we have a far too large and cluttered pool of knowledge to pass on, where the important and not so important ideas kind of get jumbled altogether. Still, our own knowledge gets passed on to whomever we decided to share it with while we are alive.
All I can honestly say is I don’t know. I’d like to think that we have souls that carry on after our physical death. That could also be fifty years of Catholicism that I’m afraid to completely let go of. I like the idea os a soul, so I’m going to with it for now, even if it’s not scientific.
Good question. I don’t think a soul, if it exists, resides anywhere in the body. Neither does the mind, to my way of thinking. I have no proof of this, but rather just a hunch that our souls inhabit our bodies for as long as we’re alive and breathing on this planet. Have you ever wondered what exactly you see when you dream? All you’re actually seeing are the insides of your eyelids, yet in a dream, you can see all kinds of places and people and go on all kinds of adventures. Are these things real? They sure can seem real at the time. I believe there are dimensions beyond what is physical and obvious to our senses that are just as real as anything else we might experience in this life and that can affect us in profound ways.
Again, a good question. I don’t know. I can only conjecture, just like you. I think that the consciousness that is inside of me or you or anyone is God. Not the God of the Old or New Testament so much, but rather the life force that created us and created everything in the universe as well. Not the typical notion of God, I know, but it makes sense to me. The life force within me is the same life force within you. Our separateness is the illusion.
That’s about all I can come up for one evening. Have a good night.
Biffster: It’s clear that you have developed the habit of stalling every idea that you don’t plan to engage with by calling it “interesting”, “a good question”, “something to ponder”, or similar hand-waving phrases. You’re not pondering, not in the slightest, at all. You’re not even skimming or lightly considering. More like avoiding contaminating yourself with any idea that you didn’t arrive with.
I don’t understand what your point is. You seem to want to be adversarial no matter what I say. What is it exactly that you want to hear?
For me, it’s irritating/annoying to hear someone try to invent an entire belief structure out of pure fancy. I hear you say it gives you comfort and on one level, I can see that it does. I can also see that what you’re trying to rationalize for your own peace of mind is essentially harmless. Trouble is, you identify your belief system with New Age philosophy. That is no longer small scale or harmless, imo. New Age woo ranges from harmless to extreme nuttiness that verges on threat to society, ie. homeopathy, anti-vax, etc. I’m not accusing you of engaging in these practices. But to the extent that your fantasy based belief system may be contributing or embracing alternative realities and thus running in opposition to more rational, science-based evidence of reality - well, that’s problematic for me. Because it’s a short walk from Walsch (Life=God), to the kind of pseudo-scientific nonsense that Deepak Chopra preaches to the credulous, to the rise of New Age Religion. Frankly, speaking for myself only, substituting traditional religion with some new age horse-shit is not nearly good enough to call progress in human thought and development. It’s just more of the same lies in a new wrapper being peddled by liars and opportunists (Walsch, Chopra et al).
Science and evidence based thinking doesn’t have all the answers. Far from it. But it doesn’t try to fill in the gaps of knowledge with magical thinking. It’s honest about saying “We don’t yet know ______”, or, “We got it wrong before about ______, and here’s what we think we know now.” That, to me, is satisfying. That, to me, is rational. That, to me, is mystery and wonder enough to fill a lifetime of questions to which I may never know the answer. Questions I have not even thought to ask. And I’m okay with not having all the answers without having to resort to making stuff up just to fill the gaps.
On a personal note: It’s irritating for someone like me to have these conversations with someone who thinks like you. I have a close relative who has the same tendency to redefine meaning of common words to fit his own reality. So I’m very familiar with the frustration of two people being separated by a common language, let alone what should be a common set of well established facts.
Thank you for explaining your misgivings in some detail. I also have limited patience for quack philosophies. I don’t think that’s what this is, however, but I respect your right to equestion it. As for the “someone who thinks like you” part, I’d suggest you try to be more open-minded. I’m not suggesting you should agree with things that rub you the wrong way, but as you say, what harm does this particular belief do to you? I find it annoying to lay on the line something I hold dear to have it picked apart by someone I don’t even know. I appreciate science as much as the next guy, but it’s only useful to a point. And the word Life has a ton of metaphorical meanings beyond the scientific one. Maybe try not being so literal in coming to understand what someone else is trying to say.
“Lighten up, just enjoy life, smile more, laugh more, and don’t get so worked up about things.”
– Kenneth Branagh
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/kenneth_branagh_714629?src=t_life
Like I said, what you believe does not have any direct impact on me, save the irritation I feel with respect to your inclination to redefine words to suit your own ends. In my defense, you chose to came here to share your thoughts. I didn’t knock down your door and demand that you do so. In short, you came here for an argument.
I’m a fan of KB, and I’m a little sorry I didn’t see him perform live in London. But it was down to him or Patrick Stewart & Ian McKellen. So when you see him, pass on my sincere regrets and tell him not to worry about me not enjoy life well enough - I’ll try and catch him next time I’m in town.
And on that note, have a great Sunday.
Peace.Out.
I want to hear your own reconsidered, revised, changed opinions about the content of your original post, in light of all the information and knowledge that various people on the thread have provided for you over the past few days.
Sorry to disappoint you, but my own opinion has not really changed very much, any more than I’m sure yours has. This thread wasn’t meant to change people’s minds so much as consider the concepts of God and Life from a different viewpoint. Most of the arguments I’ve read are semantic ones, dealing with the definition of Life in biological terms rather than metaphorical ones, like when someone is the life of the party. Eternal life certainly has no scientific basis, unless one proposes that life has always existed, no beginning and no end, yet it is a pretty central tenet of my religious upbringing. I don’t think anyone has a monopoly on the definition of Life. Or God, for that matter. I have seen the more atheistic types here become dismayed when I have not abandoned my beliefs, and I have seen others become dismayed that I dare to redefine God. Or Life. What this tells me is that people like to hold fast to their views, and I am no different. But the discussion of beliefs, as long as it is respectful, can be very helpful and helps me clarify my own.
The problem I have is that your definitions aren’t internally consistent. Life has properties that God doesn’t, unless you completely redefine God and you’ve been unwilling to do that. I could care less what you believe; but if you’re going to post in Great Debates then you should be prepared to defend your logic.
This is a further excerpt from the same author I posted in the first post in this thread.
Again, it’s not my idea, but I think it has great merit. Looking at God from a different perspective is going to upset the apple cart, but it could also yield greater understanding and awareness. For one, God becomes something we need not fear, any more than we need fear life. God is not going to judge us, any more than life is going to judge us. God requires nothing from us, any more than life requires anything from us. We shift from thinking of God as the Invisible man/parent figure in the sky to God as part of everything we do in this life. I find that notion far more inviting than the hellfire and brimstone God I learned about when I was much younger.
As an aside, here’s a question: if the devil punishes wrongdoers, doesn’t that make the devil God’s helper? Wouldn’t that make the devil essentially good?
What’s your own personal opinion on it?
And I don’t. It’s similar to the mystical folks like talking about Quantum Dynamics as if it’s something similar to God, but only if you completely ignore everything we know about QD and everything we agree about God.
IMO, it’s meaningless mental masturbation, providing no insights into the spiritual and no guidance on how to better live your life. If you benefit from it, more power to you. But you’ve made no convincing case for it, and frankly neither has the author and I’m not inclined to read any more of his stuff if you think what you’ve presented is a good sample.