What Happens to Us When We Die?

[Gregmm6]

Agnostic Theist? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Nope.

How does one believe in something yet not be sure it exists?

Because they have been told about it by others in a convincing manner, but have been given no evidence of its definite existence. For example, if you told me that you're wearing a red shirt and you have a banana on your desk, I would believe that you're wearing a red shirt and that there is a banana on your desk. I have no reason to disbelieve these things, because they are reasonable and believable things that happen every day, and I have no reason to believe that you are lying to me.

However, I don't know that these things are true for sure. I've not seen your shirt, I know that people can tell me things that aren't true, and I have no observable evidence pertaining to your fruit situation.

Thus, I would believe your statement yet be unsure of its truthfulness.

Another, even simpler, example: I believe that there is fresh cilantro in my fridge right now. However, I am not sure that there is. I bought some a few days ago, but I know my girlfriend made some delicious pico last night, so I'm not 100% sure that there's any left. I believe that there exists fresh cilantro in my fridge, yet I'm not sure that there exists fresh cilantro in my fridge.

 

[hjon71]

My determinations are made by examining the consequences (or possible consequences) of a particular action and determining whether or not one of those consequences is harm to another or to myself.

Excellent! Now what if those determinations contradict?
Do you try to save a child from a burning building at the risk of your own safety?

 

[Gregmm6]

Excellent! Now what if those determinations contradict?
Do you try to save a child from a burning building at the risk of your own safety?

It depends. One must weigh the good against the bad. The complexity of human interaction and the subjective nature of "good" and "bad" makes for scenarios in which one must actually apply critical thinking and analytically thought, not simply rely on a thousands of years old rule book.

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

yes, and?

I'm sorry. Was that too confusing?

We have physical evidence of the egg. We have no physical evidence of god. You cannot prove god exists.

 

[Gregmm6]

I'm sorry. Was that too confusing?

We have physical evidence of the egg. We have no physical evidence of god. You cannot prove god exists.

I fully agree. I was simply asking you why you felt the need to state the obvious.

 

[Saltheart Foamfollower]

I fully agree. I was simply asking you why you felt the need to state the obvious.

Some people don't seem to understand the obvious. I'm not naming anyone specific.

 

[Oldgrunt]

It depends. One must weigh the good against the bad. The complexity of human interaction and the subjective nature of "good" and "bad" makes for scenarios in which one must actually apply critical thinking and analytically thought, not simply rely on a thousands of years old rule book.

So, do you just let the child burn to death while you are applying your critical thinking and analytical thought?

 

[Gregmm6]

So, do you just let the child burn to death while you are applying your critical thinking and analytical thought?

It depends on the situation. What would you do?

 

[hjon71]

It depends. One must weigh the good against the bad. The complexity of human interaction and the subjective nature of "good" and "bad" makes for scenarios in which one must actually apply critical thinking and analytically thought, not simply rely on a thousands of years old rule book.

I wouldn't expect you to look to the bible. But there is something inside people that causes them to make decisions contrary to their own self interest. Is it instinct? I think not. Instinct by it's very nature is concerned with the self I think.

 

[Gregmm6]

I wouldn't expect you to look to the bible. But there is something inside people that causes them to make decisions contrary to their own self interest. Is it instinct? I think not. Instinct by it's very nature is concerned with the self I think.

Some may think that it is instinct, and that some instincts are concerned with the group or herd as a whole.

Either way, that's hardly evidence of any god.

 

[Oldgrunt]

It depends on the situation. What would you do?

To be completely truthful, I don't know what I would do, only what I would hope I would do. Definitely not procrastinate! Greg, are you ever satisfied with a simple answer someone gives you?

It depends. One must weigh the good against the bad. The complexity of human interaction and the subjective nature of "good" and "bad" makes for scenarios in which one must actually apply critical thinking and analytically thought, not simply rely on a thousands of years old rule book.

You seem to want to delve off into infinity when a simple answer would suffice. If someone asked you for the time, you would start a long dissertation into what type of watch, clock or sundial was used to get the time and the intricacy of each before simply saying it is 4:45 PM or whatever. I do enjoy reading your posts but please don't wander off so much.:biggrin:

 

[Gregmm6]

To be completely truthful, I don't know what I would do, only what I would hope I would do. Definitely not procrastinate!

Same here.

Greg, are you ever satisfied with a simple answer someone gives you?

Yes. Are you?

You seem to want to delve off into infinity when a simple answer would suffice. If someone asked you for the time, you would start a long dissertation into what type of watch, clock or sundial was used to get the time and the intricacy of each before simply saying it is 4:45 PM or whatever. I do enjoy reading your posts but please don't wander off so much.:biggrin:

I'm not the one that wandered off. I was asked what I would do if there was a kid in a burning building, and I gave an honest and simple answer. They guy asking that question is the one going off topic, not I.

 

[hjon71]

Some may think that it is instinct, and that some instincts are concerned with the group or herd as a whole.

Either way, that's hardly evidence of any god.

Sorry guys, work.


It seems there is a sense of a higher morality that happens in all people naturally. A sense that tells us what we "ought" to do even when it goes against our own best interest(what we normally do).
So here is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior, and yet quite definitely real – a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us. This law isn't concerned with probabilities or facts or outcomes. And to an outside observer is completely hidden, as it only occurs to the one individual internally whether they act upon it or not.
Now some look at the universe and say, "Matter and space [and time] just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.” and then there are those who say, "Whatever is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, and has purpose, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, and partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself – at least to the extent of having minds.”
Brilliant men have held landed on either side. And Science cannot tell which is the correct view.
But WHY anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observers – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question. If there is ‘Something Behind’, then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.

 

[Farmhood]

The fallacy in that common argument is that there is a "why"--that things and events in nature have inherent purposes. Teleologically-based assumptions, attributes, and rhetoric inherently presuppose that there was a creator or designer, which of course is why religious types so predictably and regularly refer to objects and natural processes as being imbued with purpose. I guess if I wanted to front-load an argument (especially one disguised as thoughtful and insightful analysis) for some kind of a supreme creator, I'd do it too, knowing that I'd snag lots and lots of people. Cleverly crafty people, those religious types. They do know how to cover all the bases, at least on a superficial level, so that the unwary or undiscerning are trapped in a closed "analysis" with but one possible conclusion.

So what you are saying is.....you don't know either! Yes?

sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[Gregmm6]

It seems there is a sense of a higher morality that happens in all people naturally. A sense that tells us what we "ought" to do even when it goes against our own best interest(what we normally do).
So here is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behavior

If this phenomenon is something "that happens in all people naturally", then it is not "above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior." Something "that happens in all people naturally" is very much ordinary.

some look at the universe and say, "Matter and space [and time] just happen to exist, and always have existed, nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think.” and then there are those who say, "Whatever is behind the universe is more like a mind than it is like anything else we know. That is to say, it is conscious, and has purpose, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, and partly, at any rate, in order to produce creatures like itself – at least to the extent of having minds.”
Brilliant men have held landed on either side. And Science cannot tell which is the correct view. .

And there are those that say neither one of those things. It's detrimental to the discussion to view it all so narrowly.

But WHY anything comes to be there at all, and whether there is anything behind the things science observers – something of a different kind – this is not a scientific question.

Well, that's where you're wrong. Application of scientific principals in an effort to better understand the things around us (in this case, the observable universe and questions of its origins) is science.

If there is ‘Something Behind’, then either it will have to remain altogether unknown to men or else make itself known in some different way.

Or it will become known through continued scientific exploration. Simply because we don't yet know the reason (the thing "behind" it all) that the universe exists (or, hell, even if there is a "reason" it exists at all) doesn't mean that that thing is unknowable. Nor does it mean that that "something" is a being with agency that will have to "make itself known."

Again, a narrow-minded approach to such complex and fundamental questions really doesn't help the conversation.

 

[Farmhood]

You sure are fond of prefacing idiotic conclusions/accusations based on an embedded quote with "so what you are saying is..."

I don't have a clue what you're referring to by this comical attempt to put words in my mouth. Stick to your habitually cryptic and oblique writing. It tells everybody how you think.

Oh sorry...must of really hit a nerve to receive such an attack.

Comical, Cryptic and Oblique?

I could be wrong but I think you may have read way to much in to it.

I figured you might just say yes or no.





sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[Farmhood]

The fallacy in that common argument is that there is a "why"--that things and events in nature have inherent purposes. Teleologically-based assumptions, attributes, and rhetoric inherently presuppose that there was a creator or designer, which of course is why religious types so predictably and regularly refer to objects and natural processes as being imbued with purpose. I guess if I wanted to front-load an argument (especially one disguised as thoughtful and insightful analysis) for some kind of a supreme creator, I'd do it too, knowing that I'd snag lots and lots of people. Cleverly crafty people, those religious types. They do know how to cover all the bases, at least on a superficial level, so that the unwary or undiscerning are trapped in a closed "analysis" with but one possible conclusion.

You are funny. You do just what you accused me of....





sinful nature is always hostile to God....

 

[hjon71]

I'm not trying to trick, trap, confuse, etc.
When I say" ordinary behavior" I mean instinct. The" above and beyond" can't be instinct because it quite often goes counter to those instincts.

If there is a view besides "happy accident" or "created" I'm unaware of it but willing to contemplate it if you care to elaborate.

BTW- let me take a minute to say that this line of thinking is a stripped down summary of CS LEWIS- Mere Christianity. So I do not take offense if anyone finds fault. I am only relaying what I believe to be a logical and reasonable explanation.

 

[hjon71]

The fallacy in that common argument is that there is a "why"--that things and events in nature have inherent purposes. Teleologically-based assumptions, attributes, and rhetoric inherently presuppose that there was a creator or designer, which of course is why religious types so predictably and regularly refer to objects and natural processes as being imbued with purpose.

"Why?" Is a valid question, as is "What is the purpose?" The fact that we have the mental facilities to ask alone tells us there must be an answer I think.

 

[BC1]

"Why?" Is a valid question, as is "What is the purpose?" The fact that we have the mental facilities to ask alone tells us there must be an answer I think.

34 total posts, all in this thread. Very strange. A new user to a gun chat site goes directly to this thread? Stinks like a fish house at high tide. So what's your other ID?