Resurrection is a false concept

[Bahman]

You really don’t understand the concept of God do you?

The God who created absolutely everything in the universe, the God who created us in his own image and endowed us with souls, the God who holds everything in creation in existence, this God has no problem at all holding our souls until the final judgement and reuniting the billions of bodies and souls. You probably (going by your posts) don’t believe in this God, but we do. So please stop trying to tell us what our God can and can’t do. You don’t know him like we do.

I am quite familiar with concept God that you believe: He can do anything which is logically impossible when you fail to argue.

 

[NovusFidem]

I repeat again: something which doesn’t occupy any room cannot be locate. This is logically impossible.

Yeah, of course it can’t. Say, you have a room, and this Soul person is outside of the room. You can’t locate Soul inside the room, because she isn’t there.

But God is inside and outside the room (He’s that big), so he grabs Soul’s arm and brings her to stay at the door of the room - not really inside, but with enough presence as to be noticed. Soul still can’t be located inside the room (she’s not there, silly!), but she’s there, close enough to give us directions.

Your problem is that you think the room is all there is, and you are unable to understand “existence” outside of it. Which is why you refuse sentences like “inside God’s mind” - for you, if it isn’t inside the room it doesn’t count.

You may be familiar with our concept of God, but you certainly do not understand it yet, which is why you call it illogical.

 

[Bahman]

Whenever there’s a new thread posted by you, you use the same arguments about God - as if God is some lesser created being.

No that is not correct. My arguments are based on something which is logically impossible supported by an argument.

People will quite rightly point out that that’s not what Catholics mean by God.

People unfortunately fail to provide an argument defending their God.

But then you’ll post a new thread topic, and you’ll use the same kind of arguments - as if God is some lesser created being.

My arguments are not same.

And people will again point out pretty much the exact same flaws in your arguments.

They don’t. Where is your argument?

I find it ironic that you’ve put your religion on your profile as “Wherever it may go” (presumably, “Wherever the truth may lead”), when it’s very obvious that you don’t believe that. The reason you’re going round in circles with your arguments again and again is because you don’t want to consider the definition of God that Catholics have offered. You don’t really want to go wherever the truth leads, because you’ve already decided that you don’t like the God of Catholicism and you won’t even consider Him as being the true God. You’ve already decided on your own definition of God, and aren’t open to being wrong.

I am pretty much open to concept of God or Gods. I simply try to understand a definition of God and then see if there is a flaw in the definition. I discard the definition when I see a flaw otherwise I accept the definition and proceed forward.

Honestly, if you carry on ignoring the counter-arguments people give you because you don’t like to think of God as being like that, then you’ll find that “Wherever it may go” will be around in circles forever, repeating the same faulty arguments.

I read counter-argument precisely and see how the discussion flow. Unfortunately your community were not good enough to defend their position.

 

[Bahman]

Right; we’ll just take your word for it.

What?

 

[Bahman]

God can and does find the soul, whether the body is dead or alive. He is the creator of the soul, and there is no way a soul can escape Him.

This is just a claim which is not supported with an argument so it doesn’t have any value. I need a counter-argument otherwise my claim as it supported by an argument stands. It is very simple: something which doesn’t occupy any room cannot be located.

 

[Bahman]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/MaterCars.jpg

That is your argument!?

 

[NovusFidem]

This is just a claim which is not supported with an argument so it doesn’t have any value. I need a counter-argument otherwise my claim as it supported by an argument stands. It is very simple: something which doesn’t occupy any room cannot be located.

Ok, here. “It is very simple: something which doesn’t occupy any room cannot be located”.

Based on what? According to what? Located by whom, in what setting?

I’ll be blunt, and this I say just to show the immaturity of your arguments. God being a logical concept is no proof of God, and **many **atheists are capable of understanding that, and providing good arguments against God.

To some atheists, however, admitting the possibility of God is a scary idea, so they turn a blind eye to the arguments that show a logical possibility for God, effectively putting a block on any discussion on this issue. We try to discuss free will, and they say “it’s impossible, your argument is invalid!” instead of “assuming it was possible, here’s why I think it wouldn’t work”

I tell you: do not be fearful, and “open your mind” to the possibility. You have to receive arguments with every intention of discussing them as true, or else you’ll always sound like a petulant child who says “I don’t think so, so that’s that”.

You started the topic denying already: Resurrection is a false concept.

Then, you started your reasoning with concepts far too complex to make it as simple as you wanted it to be: you speak of matter and soul, and proceed to refute and deny the Catholic concept of soul and matter by defining soul as immaterial, without giving explanation as to what immateriality is.

When you give no ground for discussion on immateriality, we offer ours: the Catholic view of Creation, that accepts the “existence” of something that is not material, in a place that is not our reality, and in a time that is neither before or after now.

Your answer? "No, that doesn’t make sense, try again."

It is either our grounds, or yours. If you don’t want to play by our view of the world, then provide enough information for us to understand yours.

So, let’s start with small steps: what is immateriality and is it a logical possibility?

 

[Bahman]

By the way, this isn’t exactly what Catholics believe. Your view would more properly describe Cartesian dualism.

Catholicism’s view (at least in the Thomistic rendition of it) is slightly more nuanced than that. A man (human being) is made up of material (biological) and immaterial (intellect and volition) aspects. The soul is the nature or form of what it means to be a particular human being incorporated as a rational animal – i.e., both aspects (material and immaterial) in space and time.

It would be incorrect to say that the soul is the immaterial part while the body is the material part. That isn’t the way it is viewed, at least not as far as I can tell. The soul is the form of both the material and immaterial aspects brought together as a complete human being.

Thanks for the correction. The key point as it was stressed was that soul doesn’t occupy room upon death.

 

[Bahman]

https://gentleandquietdotcom.files..../steve-rogers-i-understood-that-reference.jpg

What?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I repeat again: something which doesn’t occupy any room cannot be locate. This is logically impossible.

I cannot find the idea “logically impossible” anywhere. It doesn’t occupy any room and cannot be located, therefore your saying the soul or the resurrection is “logically impossible” does not need to be addressed because I can’t find the idea “logically impossible” anywhere. Like the soul, “logically impossible” doesn’t take up room and can’t be located. I even looked under the bed. So your saying the soul is “logically impossible” is meaningless.

Oh, wait. “Meaningless” doesn’t take up room and can’t be located either. Come to think of it, neither does “meaning.”

Oh man, Bahman, are we ever in trouble.

Never mind! “Trouble” doesn’t take up room and can’t be located, either. Ergo, we can’t be IN “trouble.”

We’re safe.

No, we can’t be “safe” either, 'cause it doesn’t occupy space or be located.

Neither does “logical,” “rational,” or “reasonable.”

Hey! The lights just went out!

Hello? Anybody there?

 

[Mystrx]

OP:

You made a similar claim in an earlier thread.

It is inaccurate however, as follows:

While it is true that a human soul occupies no space or time apart from the solid body, each human soul is already in God’s mind.

As such, it is no issue whatsoever for God to restore the spiritual body.

ICXC NIKA

Yes

 

[Bahman]

Hello Bahman

Hello Wyrd.

I looked up your name because I was curious and I was told it was the name of a month in the persian calendar. I do not know if you are Persian or not or Muslim or not

I am Persian and I am not Muslim. I don’t however have a religion but I built my framework which based on what I understand by judging myself as far as I could. I just try to find the truth making sure that I am not attach on false belief. Hopefully I will be closer to the truth as time passes.

But I wish to warn you against a mistake I myself made for many years and that is to divide truth into opposing ideological camps and to fight and create tension among them.

I am just discussion different problems which comes to my mind in this forum. I think this sort of fight is constructive when you have good deed.

I think this would be a violation of the sentiment of your signature for example.

I don’t think so when you are a person with good deed.

Sometimes when that tension comes, it is best to just sit with it for an hour or a day and let the conflicts within yourself be resolved peacefully.

I am at peace most of the time and I believe that my approach is correct toward ignorance. That is the only way to find the truth.

What does it mean to you personally if resurrection is true or false?

Ignorance apparently is the fundamental problem of humanity so I am trying to resolve it by logical discussion. A world without ignorance is a better place. Don’t you think?

Do these implications bother you or make you feel uncertain?

No. We are going somewhere in spiritual journey so being certain is necessary.

Sometimes the hardest thing is to be comfortable with uncertainty.

How you could be comfortable with uncertainty when you consider the fact that we are responsible for us and others.

Also, to many uncertainty seems contrary to faith because how can one have unshakeable faith with uncertainty?

The idea is to search the truth and understand the truth and leave no room for uncertainty otherwise what is the point of being intellectual.

I am no master at this, but to me one must accept life as a whole and as a changing thing both at the same time like a river or the seasons or time it is a process not a fixed object, but within that flux and change are regularities. The same water does not go down the river moment to moment, but perhaps after a billion years some of the same water particles do. The pattern of the river is constant though… or rather it is regular for a time.

The idea is to judge yourself and what you believe constantly. That
is the only way to find absolute truth.

For now instead of thinking of Catholicism as your enemy, think of it as a foreign land that you are exploring and you wish to be a good emissary to that land and develop loving relationships from which perhaps something greater can be built in time.

I don’t consider Catholicism as my enemy instead I am simply trying hard to understand them with love. This is one of my duty. In another hand I feel responsible for others when I see ignorance hence I challenge their idea for good.

Your friend,

-Wyrd

Love,
Bahman.

 

[Bahman]

Yeah, of course it can’t. Say, you have a room, and this Soul person is outside of the room. You can’t locate Soul inside the room, because she isn’t there.

I unfortunately don’t think that the picture you provided is correct. Look my friend the picture that I presented is more close to your system of belief than yours. Soul is form of body which grants life to a person. Soul however gets separated from body upon death hence it cannot occupy any room since it is detached from body. This means that soul cannot be located anymore hence the resurrection is false concept since it is logically impossible.

But God is inside and outside the room (He’s that big), so he grabs Soul’s arm and brings her to stay at the door of the room - not really inside, but with enough presence as to be noticed. Soul still can’t be located inside the room (she’s not there, silly!), but she’s there, close enough to give us directions.

Please read the previous comment.

Your problem is that you think the room is all there is, and you are unable to understand “existence” outside of it. Which is why you refuse sentences like “inside God’s mind” - for you, if it isn’t inside the room it doesn’t count.

We cannot possibly be inside God’s mind. We are conscious being like God. Consciousness doesn’t occupy any room yet it can experience and act depending on the situation. We however exist and the mystery of what happen upon death cannot be resolved simply.

You may be familiar with our concept of God, but you certainly do not understand it yet, which is why you call it illogical.

God is omnipresent. Spiritual world has infinite folds. This means that the concept of God must be consistent in each realm meaning that our understanding of God must be logical. This however applies to our characters as well since we are conscious being otherwise we are going nowhere in our spiritual journey.

 

[You]

96% of the universe is missing.
99% of an atom is nothing.
You could say that reality, matter, space and time are only just about real. Those things constitute about 4% of the volume of Creation. This Creation exists within its creator and he extends to infinity.
Its maybe not so much that the soul exists in the material spacial universe as that creation exists within a spiritual creator. If your eyes were capable of seeing spiritual substance then 99% of what you now see around you would disappear as the nothing that it is made from and you would see that everything is made of spiritual substance.

 

[NovusFidem]

I unfortunately don’t think that the picture you provided is correct. Look my friend the picture that I presented is more close to your system of belief than yours. Soul is form of body which grants life to a person. Soul however gets separated from body upon death hence it cannot occupy any room since it is detached from body. This means that soul cannot be located anymore hence the resurrection is false concept since it is logically impossible.

I didn’t mean it literally, of course.

I meant to say that your view of the world consists solely of the room you are in (the “material world”) and you (Bahman) can’t understand anything outside of that definition (the “immaterial world” or wherever God is supposed to be in). You can’t grasp that a soul (immaterial thing) can be “placed in places” by God. OBVIOUSLY, I don’t mean spatial places, nor places in the universe as we know it, but in “immaterial places”.

Look, I don’t know how to explain the “where”, since it is not a place. Is like explaining the “when” of a timeless God, it’s absurd. Which is why saying that “it’s in God’s head” makes more sense (not for you, because you still don’t understand what we are trying to say)

Next time I’ll make sure to say “this is an illustration only, meant to make something abstract (such as immateriality) easier to understand! Don’t take this literally, please!”

We cannot possibly be inside God’s mind.

Point being: you still don’t understand God at all.

We are conscious being like God. Consciousness doesn’t occupy any room yet it can experience and act depending on the situation. We however exist and the mystery of what happen upon death cannot be resolved simply.

Of course it can’t be resolved “simply”. No one here, other than you, said that this is simple.

But being simple or complex, the **fact **is that there is a logical assumption as to what happens upon death. If it is truth or not is a whole other discussion.

God is omnipresent. (okay) Spiritual world has infinite folds. (I can go with that) This means that the concept of God must be consistent in each realm (pretty much, yes) meaning that our understanding of God must be logical (so far, so good). This however applies to our characters as well since we are conscious being otherwise we are going nowhere in our spiritual journey. (I really don’t understand this conclusion)

 

[hu324b]

96% of the universe is missing.
99% of an atom is nothing.
You could say that reality, matter, space and time are only just about real. Those things constitute about 4% of the volume of Creation. This Creation exists within its creator and he extends to infinity.
Its maybe not so much that the soul exists in the material spacial universe as that creation exists within a spiritual creator. If your eyes were capable of seeing spiritual substance then 99% of what you now see around you would disappear as the nothing that it is made from and you would see that everything is made of spiritual substance.

Have to agree - we only see the shadow of reality - not the big picture.

If you lined up the entire light spectrum it would be thousands of miles long - humans can only see such a small part of this spectrum - so if its thousands of miles long we can only see about a few miles of that spectrum - we are bound by our senses and have a very very very very very very very very limited view of reality

 

[Peter_Plato]

Catholic believe that man is made of mater and soul. Soul however is an immaterial thing and it is form of body. Soul gets separated from body upon death. Soul however cannot occupy any room since it is immaterial. This means that soul cannot be located by God. Hence the concept of resurrection is false.

Let me put this argument into another form, one which might shed some light. I’ll use the same form as your argument above and parody it.

Authors believe that a “story” is made of a soul – the ideas (theme, plot, characters, setting, etc.,) – and matter – the book (the paper, ink and cardboard that embodies the ideas.) The ideas, however, are immaterial things, yet they are the “form” of the story. If the ideas get separated from the physical, material book, say, when a story is written in a foreign language and that language dies or no one is around who can translate it, then the story could be said to be “dead.” Form is separated from the matter.

The ideas, however, cannot occupy any room since they are immaterial. This means that the story cannot be located by anyone. In fact, if your logic holds, then not even God can “locate” the story since it is immaterial and cannot occupy any room. Hence the concept of resurrecting a story is false.

Furthermore, when anyone reads the story, they are essentially breathing life into the cold, dead text (ink on paper,) by collecting together ideas and meaning which are neither found in space or take up room. In essence, a reader “resurrects” a story after it has been written. You would say that is “logically impossible” since the meaning or “form” of the story is not locatable in space or does it “take up room.” How, then, do readers breathe meaning into the materials of ink and paper when they read?

Unfortunately, you also forget a few other things.

1. God is the original author of the “story” – the body with its form, the soul. Ergo, he can rewrite it, just like the original human author of a story could reconstitute it, especially easy if the physical book (the body of the story) remains.
2. God is all-knowing (and presumably never forgets anything because he would know what he forgot,) ergo resurrecting a human being – re-assembling the body and soul into a human being would be as easy for God as it would be easy for an author with perfect memory to re-write a story – putting the same ideas into the same words embodied into book form even if all the extant copies were destroyed. The fact that those ideas are not locatable nor “take up room” in space is irrelevant as to whether the author with perfect memory could re-write (resurrect) the story.

If a human author with perfect memory could re-write the story, then an all-knowing, all-powerful God could reconstruct (resurrect) a human being.

1. Resurrection does not, in Catholic theology, mean that God places the soul in the same worn out body. It means that God places the perfected soul in a glorified body. That would be like writing an improved version of the story on brand new paper using even better expressions of words to convey a more perfect meaning.
2. Even human beings (who are not the original authors) can re-assemble a story when the form (meaning) is separated from the body (textual material) and the “story” is essentially dead. Egyptologists have “resurrected” a great deal of the Egyptian “story” using the decoded “dead” scripts (hieroglyphics and demotics) found on the Rosetta Stone. If humans can do that, it would seem God ought to be able to do something analogous with regard to the form of human beings.

We are talking about all-knowing and all-powerful not just any being limited to time and space, correct?

 

[GEddie]

Claiming that souls are inside God’s mind doesn’t really help much. THe problem still standing.

The problem remains only for you.

If your soul is within God’s mind, it will be no problem whatsoever for Him to rebody you, irrespective of the fate of your original body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Peter_Plato]

God is omnipresent. Spiritual world has infinite folds. This means that the concept of God must be consistent in each realm meaning that our understanding of God must be logical. This however applies to our characters as well since we are conscious being otherwise we are going nowhere in our spiritual journey.

We are “going nowhere” ONLY if we try to get there on our own.

Hence, the teaching of the Church on supernatural grace, supernatural virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I am pretty much open to concept of God or Gods. I simply try to understand a definition of God and then see if there is a flaw in the definition. I discard the definition when I see a flaw otherwise I accept the definition and proceed forward. …

You discard too much data, on the whole.

I find some members’ explanations more convincing or clearer than others. Overall, they build up quite a picture. My mind is stimulated. I keep on checking the concepts out and seeing how they work.

An explanation is meant to point at something. We can use our visual thinking, which has got dimensions.