Tozer Got It

_{Barry Arrington

May 6, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity.
I am aware that there are those who love to poke fun at the plain man’s idea of reality. They are the idealists who spin endless proofs that nothing is real outside of the mind. They are the relativists who like to show that there are no fixed points in the universe from which we can measure anything. They smile down upon us from their lofty intellectual peaks and settle us to their own satisfaction by fastening upon us the reproachful term “absolutist.” The Christian is not put out of countenance by this show of contempt. He can smile right back at them, for he knows that there is only One who is Absolute, that is God. But he knows also that the Absolute One has made this world for man’s use, and while there is nothing fixed or real in the last meaning of the words (the meaning as applied to God), for every purpose of human life we are permitted to act as if there were. And every man does act thus except the mentally sick. These unfortunates also have trouble with reality, but they are consistent; they insist upon living in accordance with their ideas of things. They are honest, and it is their very honesty which constitutes them a social problem.
The idealists and relativists are not mentally sick. They prove their soundness by living their lives according to the very notions of reality which they in theory repudiate and by counting upon the very fixed points which they prove are not there. They could earn a lot more respect for their notions if they were willing to live by them; but this they are careful not to do. Their ideas are brain-deep, not life-deep. Wherever life touches them they repudiate their theories and live like other men.
A. W. Tozer, The Pursuit of God

Comments

Bruce @117, I thought your response would be pretty much along those lines. I don't know if I've made it clear enough that my argument is two pronged. On the one hand, if there isn't some physical universe for our consciousness to act within, and there literally was only "consciousness", then we couldn't even know our consciousness. On this we seem to agree. But on the other hand, if what seems to be a physical universe is only a virtual, and not actually physical thing, then we have no reason to conclude that even our consciousness, that we ourselves, are real. As I was saying, without contrast we could never detect anything. We know "up", because there is a "down", and "dark", because there is a "light". But if the contrasting element on the one hand isn't actual, but virtual, then we have no warrant to say that what the virtual is contrasting is not also virtual. Now that may seem incoherent, I admit, for the idea of virtual also must contrast with the idea of actual. So who's to say that the virtual physical universe isn't just that, to contrast the actual non-physical reality (which you do)? But I don't think that works here. What we are trying to get at here is reality itself. Our dreams have a virtual reality because there are contrasting elements within the dream itself. But we know the difference between dreams and non-dreams because we know the difference between being asleep and being awake. Something else, "higher up", if you will, informs us of the difference of the virtual and actual. But you, admittedly, are bound within what you call a virtual reality. If you are so bound, then how could you reason from the virtual reality that there was any "higher up"? In the difference between asleep and awake, we have the "higher up" experience called "awake", so we have a reasonable footing from which to reason. Now I think here, again, you may get tripped up because you can, I think even rightly, say that you do have somewhat of an experience of the "higher up". I agree that all men have "eternity in their hearts". We all have an inkling that we are, or that there is, something more. But that, in itself, has nothing to do with whether the experienced seemingly physical universe is virtual or actually physical. It only says that there is also something other than this seemingly physical universe. And, if anything, it would seem to indicate, perhaps, almost the opposite; that the physical universe is "just" physical, but the more important and "higher up", is beyond physical. But to say that one does away with the other, or the other isn't actually independently existing (though I think independently should be used carefully here) doesn't seem to follow. Indeed, it seems counterintuitive. So again, if you insist that the physical universe is only virtually existing, then you have no warrant to claim that what it contrasts is actually existing. If you are a conscious being bound within a painting, for example, you may be able to see out of the painting and realize that there is an existence that is even greater than the one you are currently experiencing in the painting, but you cannot see from outside the painting back at the painting, so as to describe the painting in its proper context and relation to the externally existing reality. I think your current position claims that you can do such, and that you not only see the painting in its proper context, but that it doesn't even really exist. That seems funny to me. If you could see from outside the painting back at the painting which "doesn't actually" exist, then how could you see what doesn't actually exist? Or, if you could see it, then by all reasonableness, it does actually exist. Sorry, but two more points (and I know it gets hard to respond to so much . . .). If the virtual physical universe is only really a projection of our own consciousness, then aren't you back to square one in that you then admit that nothing really exists except a universal god-consciousness? But how could that god-consciousness become self aware so as to begin projecting anything? And again, if the only reality is one god-consciousness, then there is no sense in calling it God, or consciousness, or anything at all. And the second point, which really is the first because it was made in the original post by quoting Tozer, is that, again, you keep coming back to having to admit that even though the universe is supposedly virtual, you cannot actually live as though it is. If I cock my hand back to slap you, you will try to avoid being actually slapped. In every way that those who disagree with a virtual physical reality live, you must also live. If this is the case, it doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't ultimately matter. If how you live does matter in your everyday existence, then it seems to follow that it does matter ultimately.Brent_{May 22, 2011
May
05
May
22
22
2011
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT}

Brent, Thanks for the update. You are always the gentleman.Bruce David_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Bruce, I apologize. I'm not going to be able to reply for a day or so again. It's too late now and I gotta get up in 4hrs. Tomorrow's going to be a painfully long day. I wonder what you think about pain, by the way (just to give you something to think about).Brent_{May 20, 2011
May
05
May
20
20
2011
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Brent, re 116: Actually I agree with almost everything that you say here. In fact, you have brought to light a very deep truth. We do need (and even God needs) the opposite of something in order to be able to experience it. In my view (as explained in Conversations with God), this is the reason and purpose for the existence of the physical universe. In order to experience love, we need to have some experience of hatred (or at least indifference); in order to experience joy, we need an experience of sadness. (And I agree, that in order to experience my existence I need the experience of something that is not me.) And for God to experience His magnificence, He needed an experience of its opposite. But how could God experience the opposite of His own magnificence? He couldn't, not directly, because in His transcendent state, its opposite did not exist. So He divided Himself into us, each in His image and likeness, and created the physical universe. Then we all agreed to enter that universe, forgetting Who We Really Are, so that we could experience hatred, sadness, separation, evil, and much else besides, so that we, and God through us, could experience their opposites, and ultimately our and His true magnificence. This is the holy purpose of creation and why what we experience as evil is actually absolutely necessary for the fulfillment of that purpose and therefore, ultimately, seen from the highest perspective, not evil at all. However, and this is where we differ, this does not require that the physical universe have a separate, independent existence, but only that it appear to. The illusion of separation is sufficient to the purpose. So what happens is that we experience the illusion (physical reality) as real until we don't any more (which usually lasts for many lifetimes). But there comes a point when we see the illusion for what it is, and then we can truly be in the world but not of it. We can use the illusion for the purpose for which it was intended, while at the same time knowing that it is an illusion. Mystics from all spiritual traditions report that a fundamental aspect of the mystical experience is the Oneness of All That Is. I have myself experienced this in a small way. It is one of my core beliefs about the true nature of reality. However, oneness is not possible if the physical universe actually does have an existence independent of mind. A number of deep thinkers and mystics throughout history and in many different cultures and spiritual traditions have realized this, and for me, they are the ones who have rent the veils and seen into the heart of Truth.Bruce David_{May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Bruce, when you get wet, how do you know it? You know it because you know what it is to be non-wet, or dry. In the same way, if physical things outside of our consciousness do not exist, we wouldn't even know that we existed. Where there is no contrast it is because there is nothing to contrast. Either two things are not really two things, but one, or there is just nothing. I have more I think I'd like to say, but prefer to wait for your response to this first. And I'm glad you checked back in and made a quick reply to my last. I'm not trying to get in the last word . . . yet ;)Brent_{May 19, 2011
May
05
May
19
19
2011
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT}

Brent: "But, I’d rather focus again on what I see as your problem. How do you even know that YOU exist? If nothing else actually exists, can you even know that you exist? I don’t think you have any coherent reason to think you can. So, if you deny the reality of the physical world that we experience through our senses as not real, virtual, then you have no fixed point to reason from that even you, yourself, exist. Again, everything is completely and impossibly arbitrary. Anything goes. There is no such thing as contradiction or reason. Nothing." Brent, what has my existence got to do with the independent existence of physical objects? They aren't related. And I don't say that nothing exists. I never said that. God exists, consciousness exists, love exists, even my mug exists as a locus of perceptions (visual, tactile, etc.). And I exist as a part of God. I am a soul, as are you. My body exists, too, but only as a complex matrix of perceptions flowing through time and space, not as something independent of the minds that perceive it. There is simply no reason that all of the above depends on the independent existence of physical objects for its truth. It doesn't follow. Where is the logical connection between the existence of all these and the reality of physical objects in the sense that Tozer describes? You say, "you have no fixed point to reason from that even you, yourself, exist." Well, my knowledge of my own existence does not derive from reason. It's just a basic, indisputable fact, one of those things I know because I see its truth. I have no need whatsoever to prove to myself or anyone else that I exist. It ain't a problem. Not for me, anyway. (But, I am NOT my body.)Bruce David_{May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

Bruce @112, But, of course, Tozer is speaking of God, in context, just like I am; the most or only ultimately real Thing or One. He doesn't discount the "lower" reality. I think we are saying exactly the same thing (Tozer and I). God is, in the end, the only ultimate reality because He has His being in Himself. All other beings, and things, are contingent upon Him. But, to say that we or inanimate objects are not real because we are contingent is not true. Now, as a Christian, perhaps you would be a little surprised to hear that I don't believe in the omnipotence of, or sovereignty of, God, at least not like many seem to. God cannot, contrary to popular belief, do anything He wants, for when He declares, "I will do A", then it necessarily follows that He has limited Himself to doing "A", and not anything contrary to it. So, I think because of that, we have become, essentially, non-contingent beings. I don't think there is any good reason to think that God will suddenly undo what He has done. If this is right, then physical, concrete things are as real as anything else. But, I'd rather focus again on what I see as your problem. How do you even know that YOU exist? If nothing else actually exists, can you even know that you exist? I don't think you have any coherent reason to think you can. So, if you deny the reality of the physical world that we experience through our senses as not real, virtual, then you have no fixed point to reason from that even you, yourself, exist. Again, everything is completely and impossibly arbitrary. Anything goes. There is no such thing as contradiction or reason. Nothing.Brent_{May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Bruce David,
Clive, And the hotdog vendor replied, “You already are.”
And then he cannibalized himself in eating the hotdog.Clive Hayden_{May 18, 2011
May
05
May
18
18
2011
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Brent, re. #111: I think our difference here turns on the question of what exactly is meant by the word, "real", which is interesting, actually, since that is the term that is used in the original post. So let me quote from that: "I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity." So my position is that the physical world that we now inhabit is real in every sense EXCEPT that, ie., it has no existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it. If there were no minds, there would be no physical existence. Apart from our perception of it, it does not exist. And I see absolutely no inconsistency in that philosophical stance. As evidence for its internal consistency, I note that a number of very smart, very educated thinkers hold or held that position as well, among them Bishop George Berkeley (one of the giants of British empiricism), Ibn al 'Arabi (perhaps the greatest mystical philosopher that ever lived), Jonathan Edwards, Robert Lanza (author of Biocentrism), and Bruce Gordon (co-editor with William Dembski of The Nature of Nature and one of its contributers). Again, please note that I do not invoke the agreement of these men as evidence for the truth of my belief, only as evidence that it is a respectable philosophical position. In other words, I am in good company here, philosophically speaking. Regarding our after-death bodies, there is a lot of evidence from people who have had out of body experiences and near death experiences that those bodies are non-physical, ie., they are not made of matter.Bruce David_{May 15, 2011
May
05
May
15
15
2011
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT}

Bruce, I'm sorry for the slow responses over the last week or so. I've been busy and have had some internet troubles I've also been trying to iron out. What I am starting to see in your position, Bruce, is a major and glaring equivocation. It is so major and glaring, in fact, that it seems it was the thing hiding in plain sight that made it so easy to miss. The equivocation is this: Everything we experience, you say, is virtual reality, but by it you mean a real virtual reality, one that you expect people to take seriously as if it is actually physical and real. This is really what you keep trying to bring me back to when you say that nothing changes from your experience of reality and mine, just that yours is virtual while mine is not. But, clearly, to say that virtual reality is real is a contradiction and it is necessary to wrap it in an equivocal use of "virtual reality". Anyway, this is where our real difference lies. If what we experience in what seems to be a physical, concrete reality is, in actuality, only virtual, then it is not real. You can't have your cake and eat it too, which I think you were saying to BA77 earlier. Reality cannot be both real and virtually real. It is one or the other, by definition. And when you can get this part clear, I think, you must then go back to what I was saying about in-concrete things, and spiritual things, needing the physical. To answer your question, I do not think that heaven is non-physical. I don't think that scripture paints that picture for us at all.
35But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. - I Cor. 15, KJV
Our bodies will be changed, but changed to heavenly and incorruptible bodies. Clearly this is meant to be understood as physical, though somehow different from our current body. I'll just add this to my already BA77 length post ;) : The other night I had a dream. Something happened in the dream that made me overwhelmed with joy. Joy, as a concept, is non-physical, but that experience woke me up with overwhelming physical sensations sweeping over my body. All I can say is, thank God for the physical! Thank God for the physical! The dream was virtual, and the joy non-physical, but like music it was able to play its notes on a real instrument. As I say, the non-material, spiritual reality needs the physical.Brent_{May 15, 2011
May
05
May
15
15
2011
09:12 PM
9
09
12
PM
PDT}

Thanks, BA.Brent_{May 15, 2011
May
05
May
15
15
2011
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT}

Brent: "Explain consciousness, joy, love, creativity, and imagination to me. You will have to do it by invoking the physical, concrete world." In my view, these words are symbols that refer to basic elements of our experience. I know what love is because I have experienced it. The same with the others. There is no explaining them beyond that. And in my reality, they exist on their own, without reference to anything else. They are EXPRESSED in the physical world as I experience it, but the fact that to me that world has no independent existence outside of consciousness is completely irrelevant to their existence. For example, the fierce joy that accompanies my experience of oneness with all that is simply does not depend on the universe having independent existence. Sorry, I just don't agree with your premise, as I have said. "Likewise, without a physical, concrete reality, the spiritual has 'no place to play'. Love, without a concrete reality, has no place to act out its romance; joy has nothing to jump up and down on, and consciousness has nothing to wake up to." I would agree, only I would replace the word, "concrete" with the word, "virtual". What I keep trying to convey to you but which I seem unable to accomplish is that the reality we inhabit is the same reality. I still have others to love, I still have ground on which to jump up and down, and I still wake up every morning to a spectacular world. The difference is how I view that world's ontological status. I would also add the caveat that the realm we inhabit after the death of the physical body and which is described by those who have experienced NDEs and by the subjects of Michael Newton's two books, Journey of Souls and Destiny of Souls, is totally non-physical, yet contains the experience of all these just the same. So as a Christian, I assume you believe that you will go to Heaven when you die. Do you then believe that love, joy, creativity, imagination, and consciousness will disappear due to the absence of "concrete, physical reality", since the spiritual will then "have no place to play"?Bruce David_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

Brent, very well put. The word 'Illusion' gets tossed around much too freely when dealing with physical reality in the light of quantum mechanics. I think you have nailed the subtlety of the problem in using the word 'illusion' in such a broad context on its head. If you don't mind, I'll store your post somewhere for future reference.bornagain77_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Bruce,
"Consciousness is real to me. Joy is real. Love is real. Creativity and imagination are real. My experience is real. The physical universe is not. For me this simply isn’t a problem."
Explain consciousness, joy, love, creativity, and imagination to me. You will have to do it by invoking the physical, concrete world. To you, the physical, concrete world isn't real, but virtual. At best, then, consciousness, joy, love, creativity, and imagination are only virtual. They are not real, either. Nothing is real. This most certainly, I assert, is a problem for you. As you've suggested to BA77 to not speak of NDEs, I suggest to you not to say that a virtual reality doesn't present a problem for you. Please think about this argument of mine for a while. I think it's better than it may seem at first. I'm sorry that I can't explain it as rigorously as is perhaps needed for you to get the significance more easily. Let me now, possibly, confuse the issue further. I do believe in the physical, concrete universe as real. It isn't just an illusion. However, being a Christian, I can say, also, that the spiritual realm is even more real than the physical. More real, in this sense, however, isn't to be taken to mean that the physical is "less" real, but that it is less important. The physical, ultimately, really derives its significance from the spiritual, and not the other way around. I submit to you, though, that the spiritual reality, in some sense, needs the physical reality, just as a baseball game needs a place to be played. The game itself may be more important than the field, but the game still needs the field in order to be played. The players are the most important part of the game, but without bats, balls, and gloves, the players cannot play. Likewise, without a physical, concrete reality, the spiritual has "no place to play". Love, without a concrete reality, has no place to act out its romance; joy has nothing to jump up and down on, and consciousness has nothing to wake up to.Brent_{May 14, 2011
May
05
May
14
14
2011
08:03 AM
8
08
03
AM
PDT}

Bruce David you state, Not going to take my advice, eh? It’s your funeral. I’m done with the NDE discussion. But Bruce, I await all your evidence that testifies that foreign cultures have positive NDEs. I have honestly scoured the web looking for such evidence and can't find any rigorous NDE studies to back up your pantheistic claims. The sheer absence of heavenly NDE studies for foreign pantheistic cultures should make you severely question whether your rejection Christ as Lord is wise or not! Here is another interesting tidbit, relating NDEs to Christ, for you to chew on Bruce; ,,,This following recent video revealed a very surprising holographic image that was found on the Shroud: Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words 'The Lamb' - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205 Even with the advantage of all our advanced space-age technology at their fingertips, all scientists can guess is that it was some type of electro-magnetic radiation (light) which is not natural to this world. Kevin Moran, a scientist working on the mysterious '3D' nature of the Shroud image, states the 'supernatural' explanation this way: "It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was "lifted cleanly" from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state." http://www.shroudstory.com/natural.htm If scientists want to find the source for the supernatural light which made the "3D - photographic negative" image I suggest they look to the thousands of documented Near-Death Experiences (NDE's) in Judeo-Christian cultures. It is in their testimonies that you will find mention of an indescribably bright 'Light' or 'Being of Light' who is always described as being of a much brighter intensity of light than the people had ever seen before. All people who have been in the presence of 'The Being of Light' while having a deep NDE have no doubt whatsoever that the 'The Being of Light' they were in the presence of is none other than 'The Lord God Almighty' of heaven and earth. In The Presence Of Almighty God - The NDE of Mickey Robinson - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045544 The Day I Died - Part 4 of 6 - The NDE of Pam Reynolds - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045560 ------------- further note: The Center Of The Universe Is Life! - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age - Front and Back 3-D images - articles and videos https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg Another very interesting point about the Shroud is, since the Shroud had to be extremely close to the body when the image was made, and also considering the lack of any distinctive shadow patterns on the image, it is apparent the only place this supernatural light could have possibly come from, that made the image on the Shroud, was directly from the body itself ! Yes, you read that last sentence right: THE SOURCE OF LIGHT WAS THE BODY ITSELF !!! God's crowning achievement for this universe was not when He created this universe. God’s crowning achievement for this universe was when He Himself inhabited the human body He had purposely created the whole universe for, to sanctify human beings unto Himself through the death and resurrection of his “Son” Jesus Christ. This is truly something which should fill anyone who reads this with awe. The wonder of it all is something I can scarcely begin to understand much less write about. Thus, I will finish this portion of my paper with a scripture. Hebrews 2:14-15 "Since we, God's children, are human beings - made of flesh and blood - He became flesh and blood too by being born in human form; for only as a human being could He die and in dying break the power of the devil who had the power of death. Only in that way could He deliver those who through fear of death have been living all their lives as slaves to constant dread."bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, Not going to take my advice, eh? It's your funeral. I'm done with the NDE discussion.Bruce David_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, To be crystal clear, I am extremely glad that many of those who claim to be atheists, and new agers, in Judeo-Christian cultures, are not going to hell! Yet then again I am extremely upset that many of the people from pantheistic cultures are experiencing hell. The problem for you in all this is that your pantheism cannot possibly account for the stark differences! Whereas the fact that a professed atheist, or new ager, in a Judeo-Christian culture, is indoctrinated, as they are growing up, with Christmas, Easter, One Nation Under God,, etc.. etc.., does lend strong plausibility that their NDEs, whether they are aware of the fact or not, are strongly influenced by deeply ingrained Judeo-Christian beliefs as they were growing up. Case in point Bruce. Howard Storm was a a professed atheist, who was a university professor, He died and went to hell. Yet it was his belief in Christ that he held as a child that ultimately saved him from hell! You may see his entire interview here: Howard Storm "My decent into Hell" Best NDE ever! (full intervew) 1:50:17 - 2 years ago Interview with former atheist, professor and chairman of the art department at the Northern Kentucky University. Howard Storm died and found himself in HELL, conversed with Jesus who answered Storm's difficult questions. Today Howard Storm is a Senior Pastor of Covington United Church of Christ. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2094001112814040004#bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, now it seems your 'inner knowing' means you are also free to make up evidence. For you state: 'you ignore the fact that that people of ALL religious points of view, including atheism, have positive NDEs, both in the West and in other cultures.' Exactly where have I 'ignored' this??? In fact I have listed all the foreign studies I could find which all show a consistent lack of 'heavenly attributes' which are so typical of Judeo-Christian NDEs! Whereas you have listed zero studies of foreign culture NDEs!!! If you have a foreign NDE study so as to back up your claim that they have heavenly NDEs then produce it, But do not make up your own evidence to suit your own purpose!!! Bruce here is a site that has all the major NDE websites listed on it; http://www.near-death.com/links.html You can dig through the sites as much as you want, as I have done, and you find a extreme rarity of foreign culture NDEs that are anything like the overwhelming beautiful ones we see here in our Judeo-Christian cultures.,,, Of the very few individual foreign NDEs that I have found that mention God i.e. 'the Light', they are exclusively those NDEs of children. It seems there is indeed a age of accountability that seems to be at play, as many Christian churches teach!!! further notes: Near-Death Experiences of Hindus Pasricha and Stevenson's research http://www.near-death.com/hindu.htmlbornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Bornagain: You can believe what you want. I can't, nor do I want to, stop you. I'll tell you something, though. If you really want to have an influence on people to move them toward your Christian point of view, I would seriously consider shutting up about the NDEs. The logic is flawed in at least two ways: 1) it cherry picks the data, as I have pointed out, and 2) you ignore the fact that that people of ALL religious points of view, including atheism, have positive NDEs, both in the West and in other cultures. If your version of Christianity were actually true, then Christians would experience Heaven and EVERYONE ELSE, no matter where they lived would experience Hell. Your attempting to prove your point by invoking NDEs only makes you look foolish to anyone with an open mind on the issue, and seriously impairs your credibility.Bruce David_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
08:06 AM
8
08
06
AM
PDT}

Bruce David, your view is not logically consistent for the simple fact that their reincarnation (Buddhist/Pantheist) philosophy is in fact THE very philosophy that led them to hell in the first place!!!! So what if they are assured by the yamamoots (who I associate with demons) that they will be reincarnated into a endless cycle of trying to be worthy enough to attain paradise?!? The WHOLE POINT Bruce is that they consistently DO NOT have heavenly experiences, as is typical for Judeo-Christian NDEs. ,,,, So thus Bruce even if I held that the reincarnation interpretations, which were imposed on top of the NDE landscapes, were true, it still would do nothing as to alter the fact that you got severe problems in your 'all is god' pantheistic philosophy for accounting for the drastic differences in the afterlife accounts in the first place!!! Like I said before the only way to logically account for the drastic differences of NDEs is if the Pantheistic metaphysics is false in its premises. Bruce you can't have your cake and eat it to! i.e. You yourself have admitted that the Thai NDEs are unpleasant/undesirable compared to Judeo-Christian ones, so thus you cannot also hold that your pantheism is superior to Judeo-Christianity!!!bornagain77_{May 13, 2011
May
05
May
13
13
2011
03:26 AM
3
03
26
AM
PDT}

Brent, re. #99 Basically, your argument just doesn't convince me. I simply don't buy it. Consciousness is real to me. Joy is real. Love is real. Creativity and imagination are real. My experience is real. The physical universe is not. For me this simply isn't a problem. I have ideas of number and many other mathematical concepts that are real in the realm of ideas. To me they are no less real because they are abstractions from the virtual reality in which I now temporarily reside rather than an externally existing physical reality. When I die I expect to enter a realm that has no physical existence at all, not even as virtual reality, and those who have experienced it and returned to tell about it (NDEs) often say that it is far more real to them than this so called reality we presently inhabit. That is enough for me.Bruce David_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

Bruce,
"Since the concept of number is not an actual physical thing, but a concept (ie, mental thing) abstracted from the physical, it is as real for me as it is for you, even though it is not grounded in an externally existing reality."
But this is a problem. If you are speaking of something, anything, abstract, you will need to describe it using physical, concrete things (or some other abstract concepts that are already understood and are grounded in physical things). But if those physical, concrete things are not even real, it is like saying your abstract idea is like nothing. If your abstract idea is like nothing, then the abstract idea is nothing, as I pointed out with bungabulyer. Bottom line for my argument: If the physical isn't real, we have no warrant to think of anything as real. If that which we perceive as the most real is discarded as inauthentic, then where is the justification for regarding the things we perceive as less tangible to actually be authentic? It is completely arbitrary. It is the ultimate form of selective hyperskepticism. That which we can see, hear, taste, touch, and smell is not real, but that which we cannot is actually real? Where is the justification for such a position? It is completely arbitrary.Brent_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, re #97 You just don't get it. Either the foreign NDEs are a reliable window into the truth, or they are not. You don't like them. Neither do I. However, it is faulty logic to select only the parts that agree with your worldview and say, well, that proves my worldview is correct and ignore all the elements that contradict your worldview. You want to have it both ways--the parts you agree with are reliable and those that you don't aren't. The parts that are Hellish must be true (except of course for those aspects that disagree with Christianity, like the fact that their Hell isn't eternal) but the parts that are Buddhist can't be. My view is that the ENTIRE Thai NDE experience is a result of very strong beliefs regarding the afterlife and what effects actions while living will have on their experience after death. That includes their experience of Hell, their experience of Heaven, AND all of the Buddhist doctrine as well. I submit that my explanation is logically consistent. Yours is not.Bruce David_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Bruce, now let me get this straight, I judge all NDEs fairly across the board for basic 'landscape elements', no matter what culture they are in. By using a standard 'basic landscape element' criterion, I find Judeo-Christian Culture NDEs to be typically extremely pleasant and extremely desirable. Yet by using the same exact 'basic landscape' criterion, I find ALL foreign culture NDEs to be either somewhat blandish and weird, to being terrifyingly hellish. Neither of which do I find desirable. But even though I have tried my best to be fair in measure of the parameters, you think I'm being biased??? OK Bruce, since you don't trust my judgement in this matter, Please tell me exactly which culture you would prefer. Would you rather experience the typical Judeo-Christian NDE or would you rather experience the typical Thai Buddhist NDE??? For myself, it is not even a question, the typical Judeo-Christian NDE is by far the best choice, but I don't know perhaps you would choose different; Although I like this whole following documentary, I particularly like this guy's testimony at the 4:55 minute mark of the part of the video I have listed. He talks of the powerful transformation that occurred in his life after he was in the presence of God (the Light) during his NDE; The Day I Died - 5/6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdNXSdYRU_U - here is the start of the entire 1 hour documentary; The Day I Died NDE Consciousness Pt1 of 6.flv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es9u6oi3El8bornagain77_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: "Bruce David, I do indeed trust the Thai NDEs as a ‘trustworthy warrant for truth’ as far as the basic elements are concerned!!!" Apparently what you mean by "basic elements" are whatever you already believe is true, and what are not "basic elements" are whatever you don't. Your argument from Thai NDEs is a fine example of invoking the one fact that supports your case and ignoring all those that damage it. Don't expect anyone who doesn't already agree with you to buy it.Bruce David_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PDT}

Speaking of being in a Judeo-Christian culture Bruce, you may enjoy this: Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgkbornagain77_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, I do indeed trust the Thai NDEs as a 'trustworthy warrant for truth' as far as the basic elements are concerned!!! ,,,and yet you mysteriously state this,,, 'then we should all immediately convert to Thai Buddhism, become vegetarians, and start meditating.' Why in the world would I want to do that???? Especially when meditating and vegetarianism is apparently not keeping anybody out of hell over there??? That is the whole point Bruce, they DON'T HAVE ANY extremely pleasant NDEs to report over there, as is typical for Judeo-Christian cultures.,,, Why in the world would I want to give up the 'amazing grace' that Christ has wrought for me, that apparently leads to such indescribably beautiful NDEs here, in favor of the futile works of Thai Buddhism that apparently has no impact whatsoever on the negative 'landscape of the NDEs' in Thailand. No Sir Bruce, I'll place my trust on the sure foundation that Christianity provides!!!bornagain77_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Come on, Bornagain! Either the Thai NDEs are a trustworthy warrant for the truth or they are not. If they are, then we should all immediately convert to Thai Buddhism, become vegetarians, and start meditating. If they are not, then there is no reason to believe in the existence of Hell based on them. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too!Bruce David_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

Bruce David, I don't know where you are finding that I don't accept the basic elements of Thai NDE's. I hold the basic elements found common throughout the Thai case studies to be valid, just as I hold the basic elements to be valid in Judeo-Christian NDEs (i.e. tunnel, Light, Panoramic life review) but I reject individual interpretations of NDEs as not trustworthy because of the 'Imagination Factor' that individual interpretations may bring, that is not saying that I don't hold that they really happened to these people, it is just a check point on imagination,,, but I can't see where you can justify that we all go to the same place when we die when clearly the basic elements are in stark contrast. Since I find your rationalizations to this matter to be extremely superfluous, The only thing that makes sense to me is that your pantheistic view of reality must be false!bornagain77_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Brent, "Unobtainium does derive its meaning from the physical!" For you it does. For me it derives its meaning from the virtual. All of the "physical" qualities you mention also exist for me, in the reality that I hold as virtual. "If what we are trying to understand must be grounded in something physical, but the physical is not actually real, then what we are trying to understand by the physical cannot be real either." I believe I understand the concepts of number and arithmetic as well as the next man, but for me they are grounded in virtual reality instead of existential reality. Since the concept of number is not an actual physical thing, but a concept (ie, mental thing) abstracted from the physical, it is as real for me as it is for you, even though it is not grounded in an externally existing reality. In short, I do not agree with your premise. "Didn’t you say pretty plainly (to someone else here) that you didn’t think that we could understand anything, reality, from the physical world?" I don't recall saying that. If you could find the quote you are referring to, I would be happy to respond.Bruce David_{May 12, 2011
May
05
May
12
12
2011
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply