The Late Great Urantia Revelation

[Stuu]

Certainly not trying to impress you. You have alot to learn. I leave you again with this, and hope my fellow theists will also consider it when dealing with your kind -



You are now on my Ignore list. May Life afford you all it has to offer :wave:


pj

OK, bye then.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Ha... Freelight putting you on ignore simply means that he knows what you're saying is true, he just doesn't want to deal with his mess or admit that you're right. :chuckle:

Just what I was thinking!

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

I'm sure those who insisted that the Sun orbited the Earth voiced the same sentiments regarding the calendar. The calendar works on the basis of the Sun going around the Earth and the idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe.... but it doesn't mean there is any ultimate reality to the idea.

Psychiatry works equally well on the basis of consciousness creating matter or vice versa. Psychiatry performs a specific function, just like a calendar, and does not have to concern itself with any overarching philosophy of the mind.

So in other words, you want to have your fantasy idea, which is supported neither by empirical science nor inductive reasoning, regardless. All you have is words that are not attached to any significance. You do have special pleading, but that is just a polite term for crazy talk.

The mind is a function of the chemical brain and nothing tells us or requires us to think any more than that.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Which god were you discussing?


No, the course of evolution is that which includes love. You are putting the cart before the horse.


For all the evolutionary advantages it gave tribal cultures.


How can evolution think things?

Stuart

We were talking about generic God.

Exactly! Evolution itself has no mind, there is a mind behind the development of the mind that can become conscious of it's creator.

You have no standing to invalidate the validity of religious experience. You have not sincerely turned to God. You're simply a critic of the imperfections of religious institutions.

"Whosoever wills to do the will of God shall comprehend the validity of spiritual values."​

101:10.6 Never can there be either scientific or logical proofs of divinity. Reason alone can never validate the values and goodnesses of religious experience. But it will always remain true: Whosoever wills to do the will of God shall comprehend the validity of spiritual values. This is the nearest approach that can be made on the mortal level to offering proofs of the reality of religious experience. Such faith affords the only escape from the mechanical clutch of the material world and from the error distortion of the incompleteness of the intellectual world; it is the only discovered solution to the impasse in mortal thinking regarding the continuing survival of the individual personality. It is the only passport to completion of reality and to eternity of life in a universal creation of love, law, unity, and progressive Deity attainment.​

Caino

 

[Aimiel]

Probably an oversight. The UB says "God is love" 14 times. However, according to Aimiel, this must be a lie.

Actually, when you couch truths with half-truths, the whole becomes a lie. :duh:

 

[Stuu]

We were talking about generic God.

Exactly! Evolution itself has no mind, there is a mind behind the development of the mind that can become conscious of it's creator.

Huh? Is that an answer to the question of how evolution could "think" things? It makes no sense. As usual.

You have no standing to invalidate the validity of religious experience.

That does not depend on anyone's "standing". That would be the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

You have not sincerely turned to God.

What god?

You're simply a critic of the imperfections of religious institutions.

Including yours, by the looks of the typically defensive religious responses you have given.

"Whosoever wills to do the will of God shall comprehend the validity of spiritual values."

I value spirituality and yet there are no gods at all.

Stuart

 

[Aimiel]

We were talking about generic God.

:rotfl: I don't care who y'are... that's funny right there.

 

[Caino]

Huh? Is that an answer to the question of how evolution could "think" things? It makes no sense. As usual.


That does not depend on anyone's "standing". That would be the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.


What god?


Including yours, by the looks of the typically defensive religious responses you have given.


I value spirituality and yet there are no gods at all.

Stuart

* it doesn't make sense because your to proud to concede debate points, not because you're to stupid to get it. Your finite mind is so arrogant that it cannot even logically conceive that it was designed.

* The God that I'm speaking of is the God that I know.

* You've apparently not tried to get to know God, so you have no right to comment on the experiences of those who do know God.




Caino

 

[Caino]

:rotfl: I don't care who y'are... that's funny right there.

I realise that may be over your head but there is only one God, he's called by different names in different religions. But being a step child of the chosen people delusion those ideas are as foreign to you as the gospel of Jesus.




Caino

 

[Stuu]

* it doesn't make sense because your to proud to concede debate points, not because you're to stupid to get it. Your finite mind is so arrogant that it cannot even logically conceive that it was designed.

The first sentence is a logically invalid ad hominem argument. Something "doesn't make sense because I am proud". The second is a logically invalid non-sequitur.

* The God that I'm speaking of is the God that I know.

That is the logical fallacy of special pleading.

* You've apparently not tried to get to know God, so you have no right to comment on the experiences of those who do know God.

This is the logical fallacy of begging the question. The existence of the thing under question is assumed.

Do you have any logically valid arguments?

Stuart

 

[Caino]

The first sentence is a logically invalid ad hominem argument. Something "doesn't make sense because I am proud". The second is a logically invalid non-sequitur.


That is the logical fallacy of special pleading.


What god?

Stuart

You hide inside the turtle shell of logic when it's convenient, pretending you have not love, that you cannot perceive truth, beauty and goodness. Or daring to insinuate that these perceptions are merely mechanical reactions.

How do you know that I do not know God?


Caino

 

[Aimiel]

I realise that may be over your head...

I really doubt that there's anything which you've ever even imagined that I couldn't fully comprehend to depths you've never dreamed possible.

... but there is only one God...

This much is True...[/QUOTE]... he's called by different names in different religions. [/QUOTE]Those false gods are NOT God, nor anything even loosely related to The One True God. They're men's imaginings, mostly, inspired or perhaps even dictated by demons.

But being a step child of the chosen people delusion those ideas are as foreign to you as the gospel of Jesus.

The Gospel (repent and be baptized in The Name of Jesus for the remission of your sins) isn't in the UB. And Christians aren't step-children, we're joint-heirs with Christ, adopted into His Family and known by Him, Personally. Those whom you're associated with will one day hear: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." You'll be dropped into a Lake of Fire, to be tormented for eternity, should you not repent before your death.

Jesus isn't a delusion. The Gospel is authoritative, unlike your UB. It has evidence of Jesus' life which we have of NO OTHER figure in all of antiquity. He isn't some hippie, like your UB makes Him out to be. He is The Judge of the Universe.

 

[Aimiel]

How do you know that I do not know God?

Stuu can't answer that, not knowing The Lord himself... but I can, since I do... I can tell you the answer: if you knew God, you'd recognize Jesus' authority and the UB would be anathema to you. Since you believe the UB is from God (when in truth it's from a demon) you prove who your allegiance is to. :devil:

 

[Stuu]

You hide inside the turtle shell of logic when it's convenient, pretending you have not love, that you cannot perceive truth, beauty and goodness.

Please link to the post(s) where I ever wrote any of that. I think my perception of beauty is the most honest one because I do not lay down celestial conspiracy theories on top of what actually appears to be the workings of the universe.

Or daring to insinuate that these perceptions are merely mechanical reactions.

Electrochemical, actually. There's nothing particularly daring about stating the facts as we know them.

How do you know that I do not know God?

I have no doubt that you have a god idea in your head. You have not convinced me that you have explored all the more likely reasons for the experiences you attribute to a supernatural being that makes snakes talk and might be involved in ordering construction fleets to begin planning for a new planet. Douglas Adams wrote much better sci fi than that, by the way. There is a reasonably well established understanding of many of the factors that make people believe silly things, and believe them with conviction.

If you wish to convince me that the only reasonable explanation for your experiences is a god you will first need to explain in detail what a god is and the mechanisms for how it does things, along with the evidence to demonstrate that none of the other factors causing silly beliefs in human brains are in operation in your case.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

Please link to the post(s) where I ever wrote any of that. I think my perception of beauty is the most honest one because I do not lay down celestial conspiracy theories on top of what actually appears to be the workings of the universe.


Electrochemical, actually. There's nothing particularly daring about stating the facts as we know them.


I have no doubt that you have a god idea in your head. You have not convinced me that you have explored all the more likely reasons for the experiences you attribute to a supernatural being that makes snakes talk and might be involved in ordering construction fleets to begin planning for a new planet. Douglas Adams wrote much better sci fi than that, by the way. There is a reasonably well established understanding of many of the factors that make people believe silly things, and believe them with conviction.

If you wish to convince me that the only reasonable explanation for your experiences is a god you will first need to explain in detail what a god is and the mechanisms for how it does things, along with the evidence to demonstrate that none of the other factors causing silly beliefs in human brains are in operation in your case.

Stuart

* A machine cannot have "perceptions of beauty" aside from a "living spirit" within it capable of perceiving or if a mind has programed it like a computer's software. That has been my consistent position. I think you know what i mean but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a mind conscious of values is itself "transcendent" of the laws of physics or chemistry. It is "proof" that the universe is not purely material. If perceptions of beauty or values or love were merely predictable electrochemical reactions then they would be consistent, predictable and reproducible.

I cannot explain God to you any more then you could tell me enough about yourself on TOL to communicate a perception of your personality equal to having actually met you.

The UB tells us how God does things to the extent that we can understand. Material reality is projected on a spiritual fabric.

Snakes don't talk, those are the ancient stories of a more distant time for the edification of a child like mind. But sadly religion fails to update itself. It's afraid to.


Caino

 

[Caino]

I really doubt that there's anything which you've ever even imagined that I couldn't fully comprehend to depths you've never dreamed possible.This much is True...... he's called by different names in different religions. Those false gods are NOT God, nor anything even loosely related to The One True God. They're men's imaginings, mostly, inspired or perhaps even dictated by demons. The Gospel (repent and be baptized in The Name of Jesus for the remission of your sins) isn't in the UB. And Christians aren't step-children, we're joint-heirs with Christ, adopted into His Family and known by Him, Personally. Those whom you're associated with will one day hear: "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." You'll be dropped into a Lake of Fire, to be tormented for eternity, should you not repent before your death.

Jesus isn't a delusion. The Gospel is authoritative, unlike your UB. It has evidence of Jesus' life which we have of NO OTHER figure in all of antiquity. He isn't some hippie, like your UB makes Him out to be. He is The Judge of the Universe.

.....oh thats right, you've never read the UB. If you ever do you will realise what an utter fool you have made of yourself on this thread!!!

Your sadistic God of lakes of fire and torture is the impostor. It is your hateful heart that wishes that of me because you are Jealous of the UB.



Caino

 

[Aimiel]

.....oh thats right, you've never read the UB. If you ever do you will realise what an utter fool you have made of yourself on this thread!!!

Your sadistic God of lakes of fire and torture is the impostor. It is your hateful heart that wishes that of me because you are Jealous of the UB.

Sorry, but by not believing God's Holy Word but taking the word of a demon over His Word, you've not only made a fool of yourself, but you will be eternally sorry for your decision, should you not repent.

The impostor wants you to believe that he is God, when, in fact, he's merely gotten you to disbelieve God's Holy Word. I am not the least bit jealous of a book written by a fool for other fools to be fooled by. God isn't mocked, and neither is Christianity. Please guess again, it's still your turn.

 

[Caino]

Sorry, but by not believing God's Holy Word but taking the word of a demon over His Word, you've not only made a fool of yourself, but you will be eternally sorry for your decision, should you not repent.

The impostor wants you to believe that he is God, when, in fact, he's merely gotten you to disbelieve God's Holy Word. I am not the least bit jealous of a book written by a fool for other fools to be fooled by. God isn't mocked, and neither is Christianity. Please guess again, it's still your turn.

The Bible was not written by God but by fallible men. To call the Bible Gods word is blasphemous and idolatrous. The OT, written by the Jews, is full of outright lies about themselves (although they never claimed that they were writing "gods word") idolatrous book worshippers who use silly fear to try to manipulate gullible people like Aimiel made that claim.

"eternal lake of fire" :dunce:


Caino

 

[Stuu]

* A machine cannot have "perceptions of beauty" aside from a "living spirit" within it capable of perceiving or if a mind has programed it like a computer's software. That has been my consistent position.

It is a religious platitude. You have not defined "living spirit" and you have not established that the computer programming analogy is a sound model for this. Your writing has no communicative meaning.

I think you know what i mean but steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that a mind conscious of values is itself "transcendent" of the laws of physics or chemistry.

That is because it is an idea unsupported by any evidence. You have not given any mechanisms, and that is the fatal flaw in the dualist assertion. It is just assertion on your part. All I have to say is "no it isn't" and the score is 0-0.

It is "proof" that the universe is not purely material. If perceptions of beauty or values or love were merely predictable electrochemical reactions then they would be consistent, predictable and reproducible.

Why would they?

I cannot explain God to you any more then you could tell me enough about yourself on TOL to communicate a perception of your personality equal to having actually met you.

What is a god?

The UB tells us how God does things to the extent that we can understand. Material reality is projected on a spiritual fabric.

What is a spiritual fabric? This is another religious platitude. The term is meaningless.

Snakes don't talk, those are the ancient stories of a more distant time for the edification of a child like mind. But sadly religion fails to update itself. It's afraid to.

How about celestial planning committees? How much older do you have to be to live in that fantasy world? It is particularly hypocritical of you to accuse other religions of "not updating". Your Book of Theft is stuck in the right or wrong science of 1955.

Stuart

 

[Caino]

It is a religious platitude. You have not defined "living spirit" and you have not established that the computer programming analogy is a sound model for this. Your writing has no communicative meaning.


That is because it is an idea unsupported by any evidence. You have not given any mechanisms, and that is the fatal flaw in the dualist assertion. It is just assertion on your part. All I have to say is "no it isn't" and the score is 0-0.


Why would they?


What is a god?


What is a spiritual fabric? This is another religious platitude. The term is meaningless.


How about celestial planning committees? How much older do you have to be to live in that fantasy world? It is particularly hypocritical of you to accuse other religions of "not updating". Your Book of Theft is stuck in the right or wrong science of 1955.

Stuart

Stuu, I'm done talking with you.

Caino