HEAVEN & HELL or REINCARNATION? what is your belief

[Bears Grill]

---

BEAR GRILL ....

Are you serious ? Even if the greatest doctors of the church sees it as tangible , they would not even touch that with their pinky.

Ever heard of the names Ludwig Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, Immanuel Kant, Benedict Spinoza, Percy B. Shelley, Emma Goldman, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan, Richard Feynman, etc? According to Will Durant's "The Story of Philosophy" and Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy," Kant's Critique demolished the church father's Cosmological, Ontological and Teleological arguments...so much so that the priests "revenged themselves by calling their dogs 'Immanuel Kant'."

I'd like to clarify myself. It's not I who made the counter-arguments that contributed to my doubts, but rather my study of these great men and women's rebuttals...plus those of current philosophers and scientists.

[Bears Grill]

@Spring,

The question was addressed to me by @noy and I answered it. It's just my opinion and I started that sentence with "I find them to be invalid". I didn't say "they're invalid". So don't get carried away as though I'm equating myself with the great intellectuals.

As far as my study of philosophy and science is concerned, I think the time's long gone for the issue of a First Cause (or the Origin of the Universe) to be settled by sequential syllogisms. Immanuel Kant argued that we can conjure anything into existence through syllogisms, thus making that method invalid. Take, for example, Anselm's Greatest Possible Being argument. It goes like this (from Wiki):

1) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5) We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6) Therefore, God exists.

Kant says, using the same syllogism, we can conjure any hypothetical being into existence. For example:
1) Our understanding of Hercules is a warrior than which no greater warrior can be conceived.
2) The idea of Hercules exists in the mind.
3) A warrior which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a warrior that exists only in the mind.
4) If Hercules only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater warrior—that which exists in reality.
5) We cannot be imagining a warrior that is greater than Hercules.
6) Therefore, Hercules exists.

The use of syllogisms, which all these Ontological/Cosmological/Teleological arguments basically are, is not valid when we deal with the strangeness of reality...as Kant pointed out. Let me give you an example of how syllogisms can fail.

1) If we throw a ball while riding on a train, the velocity of that ball is the speed of the ball + the speed of the train.

2) If I shine my flashlight while riding on a train, the velocity of that light is the speed of light + the speed of the train.

3) Therefore, something can travel faster than the speed of light.

It seems logical and air-tight. But we know that speed of light is constant. That statement by itself defies logic.

That's why I agree with a lot of current philosophers and scientists, that the time is long gone for the issue of the Origin of the Universe to be settled through nifty syllogisms.

Just my opinion. I hope people don't villify me for this.

[noy]

@noy,

Like I said in one of my earliest post, I am probably a Deist (because I'd like to think there's a first cause) or agnostic (because I can't prove that there is a first cause). To many of you, you would consider me an atheist, because I don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God...i.e, a God who answers prayers, telepathically communicates to a select group of people to write down his message, etc.

My position on this matter is NOT that I believe there is no God. My position is that I've studied all the stock arguments for the existence of God (Cosmological, Ontological and Teleological arguments, Argument from Design, The Moral Argument, and Fine-Tuning Argument) and I find them to be either invalid, begging the question, a God-of-the-gap argument, or filled with just-as-valid counter-arguments. I can understand people believing in a God because it makes them feel better. But I hope people resist the urge to persecute me for my doubts. After all, when asked how we should recognize Christians, wasn't this what Jesus answered:

BY THEIR FRUITS SHALL YE KNOW THEM.

So there. Even Jesus himself sees self-declarations of "I believe" or "I don't believe" as superficial. Belief in him, according to Jesus, is to be found in people's actions and behavior. If I say I'm not convinced but still live a life of charity, compassion and love, shall Jesus know me by my fruits?

Think about it.

thanks bears,i see that you're not entirely an aetheist but rather a seeker.as what you've said, you'd like to think that there is an origin or a reason about the order of things.i'd like to think that you've done your part in research as well and i think it's safe to say that you have found nothing to disprove heaven or hell and even God in the process nor found to prove their existince right?(was just basing it from your previous post).given that you would only believe in God as the grand architect and not the type that loves,feels,and mostly saves as how christians and other monotheistic religions precieved how God is like.
given your POV, it would follow that you also do not believe in heaven and hell right?
so i have some questions for you..

*as a person dedicated to science and proofs,so far in your study and research,have you found a solid proof(the type that you personally saw or experience) that heaven and hell are both inexistent?
'cause if your current state of belief takes root from the people who share the same stand with you
who actually actually conducted the study then what difference does it make
with Christians taking root in scriptures?

*since we are talking about proofs through scientific methods,
so the siecntific problem solving method would also apply..you know, the process that starts with a problem followed by hypothesis...so on so forth
which stage are you now at with your science problem?have you already arrived with a conclusion?

*and in the course of your scientific study.for sure you have already explored a great deal in the perspective of science plus scientists who opposed the idea of God
but were you also able to conduct a study and research from from a theist's or Christian's perspecrtive?
(like talking to a doctor of religion and church,like those people who seem to know why they believe in such God or doctrines('cause some Christians do not know why they believe,they just believe it 'cause they grew up with the idea)) have you studied the life of those scientists who believed in the Christian God?have you studied about their arguments as well?
or visited and spent a great deal of time on Christian apologotics sites?
this way we can eliminate pre-concieved ideas,
whatever biases that you may have.

*do you believe that a person who is scientifically inclined should and ought to be practical?
is it practical to conclude something that hasn't been proven yet?
(people who believe in God don't need proof 'cause faith for us is the proof of things unseen and unfathomable).

*can you explain why there is this undying longing for everlasting in humanity?like a rich man is never contented with his wealth,he always sought to be richer,whenever we reach our highest goal,why do we always end up wanting more?

if you live a life of charity,compassion and goodworks.from a christian's perspective..you are even more christian than most people who claim to be one and Jesus could not agree with you more being a good person.
and it's also a guarantee,if not perfected then at least wou woudn't have major issues with morality

suppose heaven and hell are real and the whole salvation thing as well...

Jesus said in JOHN3:16 that whoever BELIEVEs in him will not perish but will have eternal life...
the word BELIEVE is not as plain as how most people would percieve
'cause this belief is supposed to be backed up with actions and good deeds(i'd say the ones that you already have).

therefore:
*if a person who says he believes in Jesus but does not bear fruits(good deeds) then clearly the profession of faith is a lip service.though we don't see his heart but as what we can see...his actions does not really reflects with his faith...
*if a person who does not believe but is genuinly good.however we could not say perfectly good either if you would agree 'cause maybe at least once we fail most of our moral values..)
then technically that person did well...
IF death is the end of us and IF heaven and hell were NOT REAL
'cause if otherwise...only God knows how that person would stand.
but clearly that person did not follow what Jesus said in John3:16.
anyway God is merciful...so you know...who knows?

good news is, we have a lifetime to figure things out?
bad news is, when we're dead(which we don't know when)
there's no retake...

[Bears Grill]

@noy, let me start by saying that I agree with a lot of things you just said. With that out of the way, here's where I differ with you, on the burden of proof: One is not asked to prove a negative. I don't say there are no UFOs until somebody says they exist and presents me with the evidence which I can evaluate. But I can only go as far as to say that the evidence for UFOs are not valid; and therefore, in the absence of valid evidence, I'd say I don't believe or suspend my judgment altogether. Likewise, I don't say there is no heaven or hell. I can only go as far as saying that I've yet to find a good reason or evidence that they exist. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that a certain entity exists. That's my opinion. You can agree or disagree and we'll leave it at that.

Lastly, I'd like to say something about what you said, which ended with:

good news is, we have a lifetime to figure things out? bad news is, when we're dead(which we don't know when) there's no retake.

On the big questions for which answers are not forthcoming and the evidence is lacking, I suspend judgment. I've learned to live with uncertainty. That's one of the lessons I learned from Richard Feynman's "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out". I do not find the comfort of believing in a speculative answer satisfying...because there's much more PLEASURE IN FINDING THINGS OUT.

[noy]

because there's much more PLEASURE IN FINDING THINGS OUT.

i totally agree with you on this bears,'cause i too had my share in searching and what i found with this faith
totally blew me away and i've never been the same ever since.

by the way,you may not agree with me on this but the burden of proof is not of those who claim
but those who do not believe..
for those who claim have already found their truth and proof in faith and no proof
would ever be valid to those who do not believe.

but since you neither belong to either of the categories...
i pray that you will find your answers someday..

you've already studied the opposition's ideas diba?
maybe you ought to study our side too,check sites that defends criticisms about the bible,Christian apologotics,
study the lives of those who believed and why they believed...most of all..try reading the bible with an open heart as if you're reading it the first time, as if you did not know anything about it..esp the new testament..
for sure you'll understand why i believed.
i know you know what i mean...

with your intellect plus an open mind and heart..
there's no doubt you can land a reasonable conclusion..
after all, there's much more PLEASURE IN FINDING THINGS OUT..

[tophat]

I believe in Karma and Reincarnation, but not the way as described in this thread by the TS.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ BEAR GRILL ...

You pointed out names that carries the substance of UNBELIEVERS nor ATHEIST except for EINSTEIN who believe in God.

My point is , the VALIDITY of your reaction came from the INVALIDITY of to which you agreed nor incline with out of the statement you made and claimed from your " STUDIES ". Now , when you said about " stock " studies, it is not even at par with the greatets minds around and those who where here before us , mind you , maksi tapukon pa na nimo tanan utok sa PHILOSPHERS , still they cant and will never FATHOM the argument of GODS existence. mao bitaw daghan studies , research and results ni gawas but it is not right to call it CONCLUSION.

Otherwise naay BIAS sa gi sulti nimo because I can only agree with you the moment mo sulti ka na ang source sa studies nimo kay silang St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas pod nag sulti na it is INVALID because they themselves can not FATHOM it.

1) Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2) The idea of God exists in the mind.
3) A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4) If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5) We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
6) Therefore, God exists.

================================================== =============

I have a lot to say about the syllogism but then ,focusing on the argument it wont justify anything yet we can arrive in a conclusion that whatever you put in the MINOR PREMISE , you will never conclude anything about the certainty of the MAJOR PREMISE and that is due to the attributes of God being OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT .

Is HERCULES like that too or maski kinsa na character/logic/topic imohang ipuli sa MINOR PREMISE to arrive sa conclusion ?

[Breakeven]

I believe in Karma and Reincarnation, but not the way as described in this thread by the TS.

magsideline sad ta atua part kay naglami man ilang discussion....gamay ra atong mashare diha

can you please explain sa imong concept of reincarnation?

[Breakeven]

@noy,

Like I said in one of my earliest post, I am probably a Deist (because I'd like to think there's a first cause) or agnostic (because I can't prove that there is a first cause). To many of you, you would consider me an atheist, because I don't believe in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic God...i.e, a God who answers prayers, telepathically communicates to a select group of people to write down his message, etc.

My position on this matter is NOT that I believe there is no God. My position is that I've studied all the stock arguments for the existence of God (Cosmological, Ontological and Teleological arguments, Argument from Design, The Moral Argument, and Fine-Tuning Argument) and I find them to be either invalid, begging the question, a God-of-the-gap argument, or filled with just-as-valid counter-arguments. I can understand people believing in a God because it makes them feel better. But I hope people resist the urge to persecute me for my doubts. After all, when asked how we should recognize Christians, wasn't this what Jesus answered:

BY THEIR FRUITS SHALL YE KNOW THEM.

So there. Even Jesus himself sees self-declarations of "I believe" or "I don't believe" as superficial. Belief in him, according to Jesus, is to be found in people's actions and behavior. If I say I'm not convinced but still live a life of charity, compassion and love, shall Jesus know me by my fruits?

Think about it.

This link part tingali makatabang ni nimo....try to keep a balance between faith and reason.

words of Frederick Copleston:
"God is not man, and man is not God. And the gulf between them cannot be bridged by dialectical thinking. It can be bridged only by a leap of faith, by a voluntary act by which man relates himself to God and freely appropriates, as it were, his relation as creature to the Creator, as a finite individual to the transcendent Absolute."

End of Reason (Ravi Zacharias), “Five Arguments for God” (William Lane Craig): Apologetics Resources | …thorns compose…

[SioDenz]

...yes our hearts is deceitful sometimes, naay butang we thought insakto/maayo but dili diay. Pero kita mismo kabalo kung unsa ka tinuod atong relasyon ug commitment sa ginoo.

Kini lan daan nga argumento libog na kaayu. Muangkon tah atung heart naay time nga deceitful nya kita mismo makahibalo if angayan or nakapasar tah sa standards sa Ginoo? murag di man logical cguro kay ma question tah nga "Gi unsa natu pag sure nga wa ta na deceit?". Same ra na mu ingun ka nga ma perfect ko sa Board exams ugma pero naa koy topic wa natun-i - it doesnt make any sense.

Mas maayu pa cguro mao ni: Buhat tah if unsay atung mabuhat based sa Bibliya kay mao nay insakto, then ang Ginoo nay bahala or mu judge natu if angayan ba ta or dili ug Dili kita. murag naa pay sense if atung i consider ang ubang nga sinuwat sa bibliya. Leave the Judgement to God kay siya RA ANG NAKAHIBALO sa tanan.