Anything is possible. What’s actually realistic to expect is that a massive amount of data exists, but it's kept under lock and key. We only ever see the crumbs they decide to throw our way. How much can we truly know about the research we're actually interested in? In my opinion, barely anything. But honestly, it’s just easier for most people to blame their ignorance on religion or God rather than admit they simply refuse to learn how things actually work. So now they circle back to the topic, wondering why God isn't just handing them all the answers on a silver platter... LOL. Just think about it—how does knowledge even happen? People specialize in specific fields like science, manufacturing, or trade, among countless others.
Look, let’s be real for a second. Oxygen is the absolute key to staying functional. You can pump someone full of half a liter of blood, but once they lose a gallon and hit that brink, they’re gone—that’s basic biology. Blood exists to ferry oxygen to every corner of the body. Of course scientists haven't cracked the whole code yet, and obviously, those doctors don't have all the answers either. That was exactly the case with my grandmother. Who knows how many people have had similar experiences with near-death states or passing out? Maybe we won't solve it tomorrow, but we definitely will one day. We already know a ton about the brain and which parts handle what. Even with meditation, studies show it actually thickens certain brain regions and boosts performance. I even saw a great documentary on it on PBS. But here’s what science hasn't turned its back on yet, just like you were saying earlier: the possibility that our thoughts and consciousness might actually transition into another dimension or some part of the cosmos. People are studying this right now, and the big question is what kind of answers we'll get from it. Personally, I’m pretty skeptical, but there it is. 🙂
Look, everything I learned in my CPR training was crystal clear: you've got maybe five minutes before things go south, you start resuscitation immediately, and after three minutes without oxygen, the brain starts taking permanent damage. My own brother suffered serious brain impairment because of a medical oversight at birth where the umbilical cord was wrapped around his neck for just twenty seconds. So now you're sitting here spinning these fairy tales about a woman whose brain was offline for thirty minutes??? Are you even sure you read that right? Go back and double-check your facts, or better yet, drop a link. Don't just link to this specific thread—find me an actual source that proves a brain can be totally shut down for more than five minutes and still function perfectly, and then I'll gladly admit I was wrong.
The brain can only go without oxygen for about three minutes. After that window closes, you aren't "restarting" anything—it’s game over. You guys are getting your facts seriously twisted; try picking up a textbook on sleep cycles and hallucinations once in a while. I’d suggest it, but I already have it all figured out, so I don't need 🙂 .
@orah: Let's not get bogged down in endless arguments that just go in circles. Most people can probably agree with my point without us needing to start a massive brawl 🙂.
@Nancy Wilson2: Yeah, I'm basically just killing time right now—either handling private business or working out in the field. Unfortunately, this economic crisis is hitting every single sector. Based on my gut feeling, this year is going to be about 20% worse, which means we'll see roughly two months' worth of lost customers in the hospitality industry. As for the topic at hand: I don't know exactly what you experienced. I don't want to sound arrogant, but for people who have had near-death experiences (like my grandmother did), describing butterflies, pure joy, or flying over a meadow of flowers (that’s exactly how she put it), scientists gave us an answer a long time ago. It's just the brain hallucinating due to lack of oxygen, creating those vivid images. To me, it looks like the brain's desperate struggle to stay online as long as possible before it completely shuts down and wipes all our memories and knowledge . Here is how I see it: scientists already understand which part of the brain handles which function. We know the mind is essentially just a series of chemical reactions. If you damage one specific area of the brain, you lose certain mental faculties. It is simply not true that people with brain damage possess an intact "soul" while just being unable to communicate with us. Everything regarding a person's mind and personality can be stripped away if the brain is compromised: you might lose the ability to recognize faces, forget animal names while remembering everything else, or someone's entire personality could shift until they become totally antisocial, and so on.
Damage one part of the brain, lose one skill; damage another, lose another.
If you damage—or rather, shut down—the entire brain, what happens? Go ahead, answer that yourself; I’ve already found my own answer.
What religion tells us is that if the whole brain is destroyed, then upon death, our mind somehow magically ascends to heaven where we speak American and can finally recognize our grandma again.
What exactly are you trying to say, Harold Doyle3?
You think you're right just because you believe in ghosts, and since you've convinced yourself they're real through sheer willpower, suddenly I'm the one in the wrong? Fine, if it makes you feel better, keep clinging to your little ghost stories. Just don't try to twist my words or redefine my posts just to suit the agenda of your dying ideology for your followers.
edit: For the billionth time:
The "soul" isn't a thing; it’s just an abstract concept floating around in people's heads. Believers love to claim the soul is immaterial, arguing its existence shouldn't even be questioned. It begs the question: when does a person actually get assigned a soul? And what about animals? Believers will tell you animals don't have souls because they were meant for us to use—give me a break.
If this immaterial soul actually exists, how does it interact with the physical body? If it has zero impact on us, then the whole idea is dead on arrival. But if it *does* affect the body, it has to affect the molecules within it. We already understand the physical laws governing protein behavior; therefore, the existence of a soul directly violates the laws of physics. If souls are real, we might as well throw the laws of physics out the window. Who needs smartphones, the internet, or satellites then? Honestly, what are you even doing on this forum? Why aren't you out floating through the cosmos with all your other ghosts like a true believer should be?
The soul is nothing but unnecessary complication. Anyone claiming it exists needs to explain the mechanism of how it moves the physical body. We already know which parts of the brain handle which functions, so it looks like the soul doesn't actually do anything at all.
You all seem a bit lost when it comes to distinguishing fact from fiction, but whatever. I’m currently reading a solid critique that dismisses Ivancic’s "book" about Jesus of Nazareth being a Historical figure as nothing more than a fairy tale, systematically tearing down every supposed "proof" and witness. Like Anthony Perez9 pointed out earlier, the only "historians" who would ever try to prove the existence of the supernatural are theologians—people who, much like yourselves, can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. 🙂
silentridge8 said:I wasn't actually trying to start a debate there. My point was simply this: believing everything happens by pure chance isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.
I don't think there's much point in us debating this. To me, it all just looks like a coincidence. I’m being rational when I say that coincidence is just something that happens to all of us. It’s not just us, either. If you look at the day-to-day lives of other living creatures on this planet, there’s plenty of evidence to back it up. I’ll say it again: the idea of a supreme being isn't exactly a rational topic for me. It feels like a concept cooked up by people, where the whole existence of such a thing relies entirely on faith—and you just can't really bridge the gap between blind belief and actual logic.
So, at that point, your whole definition of reason—or what you consider to be rationality—just doesn't square with... The standard definitions for that term. Rationality isn't about whether something is tangible, sensitive, or even moral. It’s strictly about whether a thing can be understood through logic and reason. If you claim something is irrational just because it doesn't fit your criteria, you're missing the point. Made up. So, on one hand, you're trying to prove a negative, and on the other, you're acting like logic somehow validates your specific point of view.
If you haven't quite figured out what reality actually means in your own life, then nothing else is going to make sense.
I noticed you have this habit of trying to psychoanalyze my character and my work—and honestly, this isn't even the first time. I’d appreciate it if you’d just drop it. It doesn't add anything to the conversation, and frankly, it goes against the forum rules.
If you want my take on what reality actually is, here it is: for me, reality is right NOW. It’s everything I’m experiencing in this exact second—whatever my brain is capable of registering in the present moment. To me, reality is simply life.
To sounds like one of those empty clichés you'd find in a New Age paperback. 🤷
To me, reality feels like a book already written. To me, the afterlife isn't exactly "reality." I don't buy into those supposed events written up in fairy tales or religious texts. To my mind, none of that is actually real.
The only takeaway I can get from this is that you view reality as something tangible—like a physical book you can hold in your hands. When it comes to religious texts, the level of textual criticism we have here in the Western World is honestly enviable. Most historians are in total agreement that figures like Siddhartha, Jesus of Nazareth, and others mentioned in these scriptures are grounded in historical reality.
Look, I’m not trying to be insulting here, but in my view, if someone credits their entire life and everything they’ve built to some external entity and lives solely for some supposed afterlife, they naturally lose the ability to distinguish rationality from irrationality—or reality from whatever isn't actually real. Your posts are a perfect example of that. 🙂
It’s not about whether you have value; it’s just that you seem to struggle with basic definitions. Using "the Creator" and "the afterlife" as synonyms doesn't work, and when you swap out standard definitions for your own personal ones while ignoring the fundamental rules of logic, you end up making it pretty hard for anyone to take you seriously as a conversationalist.
We were just talking about this, and now you're straight-up lying. Fine, go ahead and lie—claiming I said your God is just a synonym for the afterlife (🤷 why would I?). Look, I can wrap my head around the fact that it feels more logical to you to believe in spirits than in pure coincidence, and I'll accept that. But if that's where you stand, then the cold, hard reality is that you and I will never be able to have a productive conversation on any subject whatsoever.👍
silentridge8 said:Haven't you heard that one yet? The whole "God can't exist because the universe is just too massive" argument. 🙂
So, you're actually interested in the whole afterlife thing? The whole "what happens when we die" debate? Is there any actual evidence that an afterlife exists? That’s pretty much the core of what I’m asking here.What exactly defines something? It’s one of those questions that sounds simple until you actually try to pin it down."/
It all started with this one statement of mine:
Philosophically speaking, both paths require a foundation. Whether you're leaning into pure randomness or putting your faith in a Creator, neither one just happens in a vacuum—they both need a starting point to hold them up.
bluebison25 responded to that with something completely irrelevant—basically just claiming that "it isn't rational to believe." The afterlife., because..."
Let me rephrase: if one person believes in "coincidence" and another believes in a Creator, both sides need a solid philosophical foundation to back up their claims. It’s not enough to just state an opinion. For instance, if someone argues, "I believe in chance because God is a concept rather than a physical reality," they actually need to defend that logic. We really need to sit down and figure out where the line is between what’s actually happening and what's just playing tricks on our minds..
Please quote with understanding.
When it comes to the afterlife, I honestly don't have a clue. You see people who believe in all sorts of different gods but don't buy into anything after death, and then you see the exact opposite. Personally, I find the whole naturalism argument a bit laughable.
Perfect! Now we finally know the difference between imagination and reality. To me, reality is when I get in bed with a fertile woman, we have sex, and the result is a baby. Most people won't agree with me; they'll claim I was just dreaming and that the real "reality" is that the Holy Spirit (who, according to them, was right there in bed with us) is the one who fertilized her. In my book, you don't need fancy philosophy or scientific studies to prove that.
Paul Anderson2 and Anthony Perez9 are completely misreading the Bible. But look, I’ve got a question for anyone willing to answer: what exactly is this "Eastern Sin" everyone talks about? Why even call it that? Is it because it actually originated in the East, or was it just because people back then only understood directions like East without knowing about the West, North, or South? That doesn't even make sense—you can't grasp East without knowing what South is. So, how did this "Eastern Sin" come to be, and what role does it play in all of this? Did God create this sin, or was it Jesus?
Let me break this down for you. We were debating your specific point: "It’s obvious; I’m just saying that isn't any more rational than believing in a creator." Basically, we're talking about whether a supreme being or pure randomness is the more logical choice. In my view, we can't even have this debate because randomness is inherently rational—it’s a fact of life that affects every single living thing on this planet every single day. It's observable evidence. As for a supreme being, it’s not a rational topic for me because it's a human invention. Believing in something like that is based entirely on faith, and you simply cannot claim faith is rational.
If you can't wrap your head around what constitutes reality in your own life, then let me tell you what reality is to me. To me, reality is NOW—it's everything I experience and everything my brain registers in this exact moment. Reality is life. Reality is a book in my hands. On the flip side, things like an afterlife aren't real to me. Fairy tales and religious texts don't count as reality.
Look, I'm not trying to insult anyone, but if someone takes their entire life—everything they've actually lived and built—and credits it to some entity while living for a spiritual world that doesn't exist, then naturally, they won't be able to distinguish between rationality and irrationality, or between reality and fiction. Your posts prove exactly that.🙂
I’m telling you, believing in an afterlife or even in God just isn't rational. It’s nothing more than a product of human imagination and mental gymnastics, not actual reality.
silentridge8 said:It’s pretty straightforward—I'm just pointing out that choosing that path isn't any more rational than believing in a Creator.
Comparing God to mere coincidence is a joke. That's my take on it.
I’m not even going to touch the "rationality" argument because, let's face it, you're clearly just following a religious dogma. How can we talk logic when all your "reasoning" was handed down to you by some divine being—while mine wasn't? It’s an uneven playing field.🤷
I’m standing my ground on this one. I refuse to credit any of this to some deity just because I've been reading those aggressive, terrifying ancient texts from the Middle East. It’s pure coincidence. Back then, people couldn't wrap their heads around a solar eclipse, lightning, or even a heavy snowstorm—they thought it was magic. We're looking at the same kind of ignorance today. 🙂
Now this is just turning into a joke. If we’re going to communicate seriously, then let's be serious—though I can play the joker just fine if I feel like it. That's exactly why I used quotation marks; to make it clear what was being quoted. But clearly, some people aren't blessed with basic literacy, which you keep proving to me. 🤷
edit: And get this, my friend. Every human being has an organ called a brain. It's what sends commands to the body to perform tasks, to think, to build knowledge, and everything else we do. And us believers—we "imagine" how our spiritual side, which is linked to the body, manages all that via our one and only imaginary creation known as God :d
Paul Anderson2 said:So, I guess we should just hand kids sharp knives and matches, because otherwise they won't get any credit for not burning the house down or killing each other?
By that logic, a child born with a terminal illness or a deformity also gets no credit for making it into Paradise.
The way everything around us is justified is just... unbelievable. They say God created everything, but the natural world—which He supposedly made—is exactly how it needs to be, filled with bacteria, viruses, hunger, parasites, storms, earthquakes... yet people—whom He also made—aren't quite what they were meant to be. It’s as if some mysterious "evil" crept into them, something that doesn't show up anywhere else in the world except in humans, and somehow only affects people.
Justifying why God doesn't share His knowledge is kind of like saying you gave a starving African American a can opener: you gave him the tool, now he has to figure out the can himself, and his problems are basically solved.
👍 That’s the comparison. 🙂😵
Arthur Grant8 said:I honestly think you’d struggle to pull any of that off without a functioning brain... And who exactly provided you with that brain of yours?...
Stipe Mason... Vesna Pusić... Mom and Dad picked up some things at Walmart... God... 🙂🙂🙂
The right answer would be "Mother Nature", a healthy brain comes from genetics and inheritance, and I came from my parents.
P.S. You didn't give a clear or rational answer; that response was bordering on pure fantasy.
Can someone explain the specific moments and methods by which God supposedly imprinted His knowledge into us human beings?
Let me give you some context regarding my own life: what I’ve established so far is that I had to attend elementary school, simply because that’s what American law requires. As far back as I can remember, I wasn't just sitting there catching flies; I was taking notes and then heading home to grind for two, three, or four hours every single day. I studied and acquired that foundational knowledge. I didn't just skim the surface; I went deep, as thorough as possible. Once that stage was over, American laws don't mandate or force an individual to continue their education. However, just like any other kid my age, I already knew exactly what my next move should be. So, by my own choice, I enrolled in high school. Since it was a vocational program, mastering the trade was essential—which happens to be my profession—so I gave it everything I had to learn as much as I could. Unlike elementary school, I spent less time studying at home and more time learning on the job. Eventually, I finished and gained a decent level of expertise, but I earned it entirely on my own. From there, I decided to pursue a degree in my field, and I completed all of it myself—meaning without any connections, favors, or some imaginary entity called "God." Now, if I were a different kind of person, I might have barely scraped through elementary school with failing grades. I wouldn't have continued my education at all. My lack of knowledge would have been equal to my ignorance. So here is my question: where, during my schooling and in the practical application of the skills I use in my current job, does "God" actually show up? What exactly did He do in my case? What exactly did He do for the collective knowledge of everyone on Earth? Did He do the learning for us and then just apply it? Does anyone have clear answers to my question? To me, the only logical answer is this: God doesn't distribute knowledge, because God doesn't even exist, regardless of whatever definition of "God" you choose to use...
Look, I’m not worried. I already told you once before: if I’m heading to hell, I want front-row seats right next to Mao Zedong, served up with some greasy bratwursts. Now, I’m adding mustard to the order. I am being dead serious here—no sarcasm! When that moment hits, I am taking EVERY SINGLE THING they throw my way!!!
Misery only starts when nothing is being offered, and I know for a fact there is absolutely nothing left!!👍
That’s how DJ says it. Lately, I’ve actually started respecting him more because he’s incredibly firm; he stands his ground regardless of how much people push back. He doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks about his views:
"God created man, God is omnipotent, and God granted humanity knowledge and free will. Those who embrace the Bible and the wisdom found within its teachings—and actually live by that knowledge—will be rewarded with eternal life in paradise. The rest of us are headed for eternal hell."
Great. But if you ask me, then God isn't omnipotent, and frankly, He isn't God. If He designed me and everyone else like me, He didn't actually give us free will or the knowledge required to accept the version of God described in the Bible. It’s a logical loop: if this is true, then God isn't God.