The 'Truth'

[BeRational]

What do you think existed before anything existed? 

How do you know there was such a time?

[Shaker]

So in terms of material science can you explain the difference between a "what" and a "who"?

Yes, pretty easily.

'Who' implies consciousness, awareness, personality - something analogous to what we recognise as being like our own consciousness. We refer to people as 'who' and inanimate, unconscious and insentient things as 'what.' Charles Dickens is the man who wrote Great Expectations; the hydrological cycle is what causes rain to fall. And so on.

You are determined, by your prior adherence to theism, to see any cause of the universe (leaving aside for now whether such talk even makes sense) as personal - as a who. You have no grounds whatever for such a stance when there's just as much likelihood - in fact vastly more - that any such process would be an entirely abstract and impersonal one. In other words, a what, not a who.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know there was such a time?

The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing.  In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang.  So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?

[Alan Burns]

Yes, pretty easily.

'Who' implies consciousness, awareness, personality - something analogous to what we recognise as being like our own consciousness. We refer to people as 'who' and inanimate, unconscious and insentient things as 'what.'

But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions.  So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?

[Shaker]

But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions.  So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?

The so far imperfectly explained X factor of subjective awareness or consciousness, I guess. Qualia, as they say in technical lingo.

[Alan Burns]

The so far imperfectly explained X factor of subjective awareness or consciousness, I guess. Qualia, as they say in technical lingo.

Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.

[Shaker]

Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.

Well explained? That certainly comes as news to me. Which of these circles explain it well and provide a methodology for investigating and evaluating such a claim, as well as a means of sifting through rival, mutually inconsistent and mutually contradictory claims?

[BeRational]

The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing.  In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang.  So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?

I don't know.

Do you claim to know?

Just because we think everything had a cause does not mean that is the case.

So my question still stands

[Rhiannon]

Or the well explained Soul as they say in religious circles.

No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?

I know we feel very real. I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'. But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss.

[torridon]

But science dictates that our conscious awareness is just made up from material reactions.  So what in essence is the difference between conscious awareness and an exploding firework?

Think in terms of patterns of information flow; that would be a start.

[torridon]

The human mind can't cope with the concept that our existence came from an absolute nothing.  In our minds, everything must have a cause, including the Big Bang.  So is it a case of infinite causes all the way down, or is there a definitive cause of everything?

This is just using 'God' to escape the discomfort of infinite regress;  God as opiate, God as anaesthetic, masquerading as a philosophical proposition.

[jjohnjil]

This is just using 'God' to escape the discomfort of infinite regress;  God as opiate, God as anaesthetic, masquerading as a philosophical proposition.

It amazes me that they consider the uncaused 'thing,' that caused everything we know, isn't a mass of sub atomic particles, which gradually swirled together and began expanding (a difficult enough concept for us to understand).  No, this 'thing' that came from zilch just happens to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving, vengeful father-figure who worries whether we believe in him or not!   

The mind boggles!

[Alan Burns]

No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?

To me, the soul is the perfect explanation for who I am.  (Not what I am!)

[Shaker]

It's not an explanation, it's just Polyfilla - a colourless goo that fills gaps.

[Sassy]

She didn't say any such thing. What Rhiannon wrote was:

She doesn't need more than the material.. even went as far as to say 'we' so implying EVERYONE does not need more than the material. So she did say that for herself and for everyone else.

What you think denial is acceptable...

[Sassy]

That's right. What she didn't say - which you claimed she had said but didn't - is that she only believes in the material. What she said was that whether there's anything more than the material she doesn't know (nor do I, though she may have an opinion that leans more to one side than the other, as I do), so your attribution of a position that she doesn't hold is either stupidity or wilful mendacity.

As she is a pagan what she wrote is totally misleading and implies and even states no one needs anything but the Material.
Which she obviously does NOT BELIEVE because if she did believe her statement she would not be a practicing pagam.
So NOTHING stupid or even wilful that is your position because the statement is clear. If she held that position then she could not be a practicing pagan because she believes the MATERIAL IS ALL YOU NEED. She said "we" so referring to herself and believing it about everybody else.

Hence you are wrong and deliberately denying it. Just as you tried to defend Floo some weeks back and made yourself look dishonest then.

So far all you have done is proved that you will sink to any level to defend something you know you cannot defend without appearing dishonest.

You can claim it to be ignorance but if you do then no one will believe a word you say in future.

Shaker you are masking the wrong. Which is deceitful to say the least.

What she said is clear,.,.. That she and all were included only needed the material.
It won't change no matter how much you try to make it change.

It must feel so cold and lonely not being able to defend anything with actual truth.
Rhiannon made a statement which was factually incorrect on her part. She cannot believe that if she does not practice that.
So ear ticklers like yourself have to take responsibility and try practicing what you preach.

If she really believed what she wrote then she would not be a practicing pagan.
End of matter. Factual and untwisting...

[floo]

Sass appears to be jealous when people, like Rhi come out with sensible comments, which Sass invariably fails to do, so she tries to diss them, very sad.

[Sassy]

Dear Rhiannon,

Quote Rhiannon
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)

Is it? Is it really!

Greed is woo, poverty is woo, man's inhumanity to man is woo, maybe Love is woo, what about Compassion?

Do me a favour, take yer Auditors hat off for today, give me back the Rhiannon who can touch the Sky and Earth and knows there is more than just the material

Gonnagle.

But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.

I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.

Paganism is a form of religion.

Image result for paganismwww.thewhitegoddess.co.uk
Paganism is a term that developed among the Christian community of southern Europe during late antiquity to describe religions other than their own, Judaism, or Islam–the three Abrahamic religions.
Paganism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism
Related topics
It [Wicca] draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practice. Wikipedia
Explore: Wicca
Modern Paganism, or Neo-Paganism, is a modern, Earth-centered religious perspective which borrows and adapts from pre-Christian paganism as well as from contemporary religious thought. paganlibrary.com
Explore: Modern paganism
Yule, A pagan festival also called the Winter Solstice, celebrates the rebirth of the Sun, the Sun God and honors the Horned God. urbandictionary.com
Explore: Yule

Hence if Rhiannon actually believed you do not need religion (and paganism is the name given to all religions not Abrahamic in origin) She says she doesn't need more than the material in fact she states 

what I believe is that we don't need more than the material

Clearly stating we don't need religion, then she is saying she believes that none necessary including paganism and believes in the material...

Rhiannon originally wrote:

Quote Rhiannon
But religion is all about the supernatural (aka woo)

So if religion not needed and she believes it is all about the supernatural and even says we do not need religion

But you don't need religion for those things, Gonners. And look at what I said in the context of the conversation.

I don't know that there's more than the material; what I believe is that we don't need more than the material.

Then she would not be a pagan and would be really set on showing how the material is all we need.

The truth is that only two Abrahamic religions have really existed in truth that has shown God feed his people.
The Israelites in the Wilderness and Jesus when he fed the 5,000 with a simple meal of loaves and fishes.

Sometimes people may not mean something to come out the way it did.
But she cannot now having made that statement say she only needs the material if a practicing pagan. Simple as....
It is untrue she cannot believe that if she practices paganism. For it is a religion albeit a false one but nonetheless a religion which she practices.

[Khatru]

You are completely ignorant when it comes to God and the bible.
You think in the flesh and cannot see with your spirit.

What all believers in God have had since the beginning of time is God and his Spirit.
Through his words and Prophets he has made known his will for mankind and all who believe in him.
You take a myth theory and wave it around as if it actually means something.
Look through the bible and you will see God has always revealed his will to man through the Holy Spirit.
Gods people are living people. People who accept his word as truth and live in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Someone who teaches us and leads us into all truth.

Jesus said:
John 16:13. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Those in Christ do not rely on what is written. They have something far greater as the Prophets of Old. Gods Spirit to guide them. You only have what your flesh has your own reasoning and inability to see what is actually before you. Spiritually blind as Saul/paul WAS. He had to become blind in order to see what was really the truth.

No suckers believing in fables., The children of God receiving what their God promised them.
How do we know Jesus is the Son of God? Because Gods promises to us come true and we receive what he promised through the Prophets a long time ago.

Jeremiah 31:31-34.


31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

We believe what God says about his son. It is this that makes us redeemed and the children of the Most High God.
No self-righteousness, no earning it...just Gods free gift.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He wants all to be saved. God keeps his promises..

I get it, Sass.

The supreme cosmic mega-being sacrificed himself to himself in order to appease himself so that he could save humanity from himself.

Perfectly sensible.

[Khatru]

I am not being drawn into non consequential arguments about creation or evolution.
My post is clear that Darwin kept his order of evolution to the same order a Genesis and Gods creation of animals and man.

According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.

That's not only at odds with Darwin but also with the millions of pieces of evidence we have.

[Khatru]

This is a very naive question.
This quandary also exists in science - what caused the Big Bang?, and what caused the cause of the Big Bang? ... etc

The problem is that we can only imagine things in the terms of what exists in our own universe.  Time and deterministic science are properties of this universe, but we do not know what exists outside.

There has to be some ultimate source of existence in order for anything to exist.  And this ultimate source of existence is God.

I guess the universe is real enough; it exists and some of it we can observe and measure. Sure there is much that we don't know about our universe but there is also much that we do know.

It wasn't that long ago when the universe was completely unknown to us. People would try and explain this unknown by creating another level of unknown. I don't see creating a second mystery to solve a first one as being that helpful.

Yet religious people think it reasonable to do just that: They invent an extra layer of mystery, call it by the name of whatever deity they have chosen to worship and categorically deny that anything could have come before it.

Furthermore these same religious people will emphatically deny that a quantum singularity from which our universe may have emerged could have always existed.

Thankfully, science endeavours to explain the unknown with the known - no need to add extra layers of mystery and magic.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Khatru,

According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.

Please try and keep up, God does not do poofed, and Sass is right ( is that a first ) vegetation, animals then man.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV

Gonnagle.

[Khatru]

Dear Khatru,

Please try and keep up, God does not do poofed, and Sass is right ( is that a first ) vegetation, animals then man.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV

Gonnagle.

OK, not poofed but magicked.

Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.

Then came the animals because man was lonely.

Finally Eve comes along.

Genesis 2:1-22

[Gonnagle]

Dear Khatru,

Magicked! You learn a new thing everyday, magicked is a real word

Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.

Well there are some who say Genesis 1 and 2 were written by two different authors, silly! Everyone knows it was God wot wrote it.

Gonnagle.

[Khatru]

Dear Khatru,

Magicked! You learn a new thing everyday, magicked is a real word

Well there are some who say Genesis 1 and 2 were written by two different authors, silly! Everyone knows it was God wot wrote it.

Gonnagle.

Fair enough, Gonny

Mind you, which creation account is correct?

They can't both be right.

However, one, or indeed both accounts, could be wrong!