We Actually Do Know that Literal “Spirits” Aren’t Real

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Why are the natural processes of any species, or involving the elements that compose them, designed to perpetuate life in opposition to those that don't?

They aren’t necessarily “designed” in the sense that there was a purpose behind it, but a random combo that popped up.  And we are the result because those that didn’t perpetuate life can’t end up with anything that can look back on the process and wonder.

There could be endless worlds out there that did not have the combination that would perpetuate life.  We happen to be on a world that does.

This world won the lottery….if one can say life in those conditions is a win.

Edited May 6, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

They aren’t necessarily “designed” in the sense that there was a purpose behind it, but a random combo that popped up.  And we are the result because those that didn’t perpetuate life can’t end up with anything that can look back on the process and wonder.

There could be endless worlds out there that did not have the combination that would perpetuate life.  We happen to be on a world that does.

This world won the lottery….if one can say life in those conditions is a win.

Yes, the alternative to a “why” for these processes that perpetuate the species is that they are “random,” rendering the wishful desire for cosmic justice (or the intentional suppression thereof),  or any other intent or ambition, one of the many potential expressions of many random processes. Including their discussion! 

So, the "why" questions still remain, and "randomness" (the questions are irrelevant) is only one potential response to them, which granted, is easy. Is that tautology also the reason for randomness?

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you chose nihilism?

That saddens me.

Fortunately, God has made some provisions for just about everyone. Things will turn out better than your current atheism allows for- but you could've had so much more.

 

Actually, I choose humanism. 

There is no need to be sad by that. In general, humanists have a deep sense of gratitude and reverence for life. Richard Dawkins said:

We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively exceeds the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. It seems you are saying that liking the idea of spirits being real has to do with a preferred outcome of cosmic justice, a sense of fairness or need for closure by finding meaning, or answering the “why” questions that bring a person into connection with the cosmic (the unseen universe beyond our immediate selves). This likely has a lot to do with your DNA and upbringing.

I agree that this and all other kinds of feelings can be proven to exist by scientific means and explained in scientific terms, but how do you see the sciences proving why you feel that way? We understand how we come up with “why” questions and the associated feelings, but why does biology or any other observable process produce them?

I’m not sure if I understand the question. Are you asking why we have the specific feelings and longings that we do? I don’t know I’d say science is capable of proving why I feel any particular way about these things, but I think it offers explanations. Nearly 30 years ago now, Robert Wright wrote a now classic book The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology that took a serious look at why we feel the way we feel, and the robustness of some of the studies he cited was impressive. There is a substantial wikipedia page about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

[Analytics]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not sure I am going to express well enough this reservation I have about the usefulness of the physical realm experiments to identify spiritual forces, etc even if matter as defined by JS, but here goes.

There seems to be an assumption in these experiments that spirit whatever are just more of the same physical elements, iow, the spirit realm plays by the same rules as the physical realm.  I think I get why….because the assumption is physical matter behaves a limited number of ways and interactions can only occur within these limits.  It is like refusing to define God as outside of time because then how could he affect inside of time (so to speak, too lazy to be precise here).

But what if the spirit realm is fundamentally different in some way…perhaps its unifying force is a type of consciousness and all interactions between spirit and physical will have a purpose to that interaction, or perhaps something else beyond the comprehension of mortal men is involved in activating interaction…think of it as two universes that can only intersect when intentional forces are applied to connect them and God sets the rules for using these forces.  If it didn’t serve the purpose of God to expose these interactions, if one assumes there is a mind behind these interactions, can one say with certainty God or whatever the mind is couldn’t simply not engage anytime he/they/it are aware of the potential for being observed?

I get that the macro observations of miracles and placebos allegedly is enough to cover this type of interaction, but I honestly don’t see how one could control variables enough or understand all the behaviours, internal and external that take place at this level of human behaviour in order to say “nope, nothing different between these two”.

It's conceivable that quantum field theory is wrong and that there is a class of matter and energy that interacts with normal matter and energy in a way that is completely different than everything that’s been observed in laboratories. But Carroll’s question remains open: if this exists, how can the incredibly successful model of quantum field theory be modified?

If one takes this far enough, has science demonstrated anything about the physical world at all? An extreme example is somebody who earnestly believed in young earth creationism because of Church teachings. She had a theory for the fossil record: the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to confuse us. That is theoretically possible, and I don’t know how science could possibly disprove the devil-did-it theory.

[the narrator]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

Which of course imo, it should NOT be applied here since as you well know, Wittgenstein altered his positions on the Tractatus long before he died.

To the contrary, while Wittgenstein rejected the assumed logical rigidity of the Tractatus, I argue (and correctly, hehe) that the larger purpose of it remains and was the basis of his later thought:

Quote

Its whole meaning could be summed up somewhat as follows: What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.

Wittgenstein realized he wrong about the extent of what could be said clearly and that there was far more that logic could not speak and should be left silent. Philosophical Investigations is an extension of the latter, showing just how little analytic philosophy can actually achieve.

[the narrator]

On 5/4/2024 at 7:01 PM, Teancum said:

But emotions in our bodies produce electrical impulses as well as chemicals and hormones and thus can be observed.

This was the essence of my wedding proposal to my wife.

[the narrator]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:29 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

This is interesting...

* We teach that a child who dies at 2 under tragic, painful circumstances doesn't have merely a 2nd chance to endure more of mortality and it's painful issues, but that that child is raised to eternal life in the mansions of Celestial Glory to grow and progress in the presence of our Heavenly Parents in eternal joy. Which of these two concepts seems more merciful?

* There is a "debriefing" coming in the Millennium- where all the mysteries of the earth and it's history and what it all means and how it ties together will be revealed.

These are basic scriptural concepts... Did you never learn them while in the Church?

Where are either of those taught in scripture?

[the narrator]

On 5/5/2024 at 8:37 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you chose nihilism?

That saddens me.

Fortunately, God has made some provisions for just about everyone. Things will turn out better than your current atheism allows for- but you could've had so much more.

 

Well that's a silly dichotomy.

I think Albert Camus is absolutely correct that inherent to human experience is finding and living with meaning to our lives despite the lack of any meaning intrinsic to reality.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Where are either of those taught in scripture?

1) "And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:10)

2) "106 And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. 107 And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him. 108 And then shall the first angel again sound his trump in the ears of all living, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the mighty works of God in the first thousand years. 109 And then shall the second angel sound his trump, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the thoughts and intents of their hearts, and the mighty works of God in the second thousand years— 110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years." (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I’m not sure if I understand the question. Are you asking why we have the specific feelings and longings that we do? I don’t know I’d say science is capable of proving why I feel any particular way about these things, but I think it offers explanations. Nearly 30 years ago now, Robert Wright wrote a now classic book The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology that took a serious look at why we feel the way we feel, and the robustness of some of the studies he cited was impressive. There is a substantial wikipedia page about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology

Yes, you understand it -- the difference between approaches that provide explanations and those that provide reasons. I think that science as its has been represented for the most part in this thread is an excellent method for providing descriptions and explanations of processes in the world we perceive, experience and comprehend, but is not designed to provide the reasons for this world. Science as represented in Alma 32, on the other hand, does provide these reasons (while the other kind of science can measure, to the extent possible with current tools, the physical processing of these reasons). I think that the answer as to why some are oriented, as you described yourself, toward relying one or the other or both representations, and finding varying degrees of success with them, must be provided by the one that offers reasons.

[the narrator]

38 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

1) "And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven." (Doctrine and Covenants 137:10)

 

This says nothing about "to grow and progress in the presence of our Heavenly Parents"

39 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

2) "106 And again, another angel shall sound his trump, which is the seventh angel, saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. 107 And then shall the angels be crowned with the glory of his might, and the saints shall be filled with his glory, and receive their inheritance and be made equal with him. 108 And then shall the first angel again sound his trump in the ears of all living, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the mighty works of God in the first thousand years. 109 And then shall the second angel sound his trump, and reveal the secret acts of men, and the thoughts and intents of their hearts, and the mighty works of God in the second thousand years— 110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years." (Doctrine and Covenants 88)

This does not say there will be a " "debriefing" coming in the Millennium- where all the mysteries of the earth and it's history and what it all means and how it ties together will be revealed."

[ZealouslyStriving]

31 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This says nothing about "to grow and progress in the presence of our Heavenly Parents"

What do you believe happens in the Celestial Kingdom?

In the presence of our Heavenly Parents, we grow and progress in knowledge, wisdom, and power until we receive a fullness of what they possess, so...

31 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This does not say there will be a " "debriefing" coming in the Millennium- where all the mysteries of the earth and it's history and what it all means and how it ties together will be revealed."

I was tempted to add more scriptures. I see that I should've went with that initial thought...

* "16 Wherefore, the things of all nations shall be made known; yea, all things shall be made known unto the children of men. 17 There is nothing which is secret save it shall be revealed; there is no work of darkness save it shall be made manifest in the light; and there is nothing which is sealed upon the earth save it shall be loosed. 18 Wherefore, all things which have been revealed unto the children of men shall at that day be revealed; and Satan shall have power over the hearts of the children of men no more, for a long time." (2 Nephi 30)

* "26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; 27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory; 28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. 29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. 30 And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars— 31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times— 32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest." (Doctrine and Covenants 121)

* "5 For thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and in truth unto the end. 6 Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory. 7 And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. 8 Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. 9 And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught. 10 For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (Doctrine and Covenants 76)

* "6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence. 7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh." (Doctrine and Covenants 77)

* "32 Yea, verily I say unto you, in that day when the Lord shall come, he shall reveal all things— 33 Things which have passed, and hidden things which no man knew, things of the earth, by which it was made, and the purpose and the end thereof— 34 Things most precious, things that are above, and things that are beneath, things that are in the earth, and upon the earth, and in heaven. 35 And all they who suffer persecution for my name, and endure in faith, though they are called to lay down their lives for my sake yet shall they partake of all this glory." (Doctrine and Covenants 101)

🤙

Edited May 6, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[the narrator]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

but is not designed to provide the reasons for this world.

Why do we need a reason for it? Isn't the fact of it enough?

[the narrator]

36 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

What do you believe happens in the Celestial Kingdom?

The same thing that happens in Garden of Eden. Everyone is just prancing around naked and eating fruit--why else would Joseph Smith go out of his way to point out that Moroni was naked under that robe? Imagine if Moroni beamed down to the Smith cabin without putting it on first!

I kid though. There was no Garden of Eden, especially in Missouri. You can believe what you want though. I have nothing against religious beliefs that benefit the believer.

44 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I was tempted to add more scriptures. I see that I should've went with that initial thought...

I stand corrected. It's been a while since I've though at all about the Millennium. I wasn't even sure if it was something really believed in or expected anymore. As a teen, it was always presented to me as right around the corner (I had a seminary teacher who was adamant that it would happen during Monson's presidency), but now it seems to be a part of the growing list of things that 19th and 20th century Mormons were totally into but are now just "not emphasized anymore."

[Tacenda]

5 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The same thing that happens in Garden of Eden. Everyone is just prancing around naked and eating fruit--why else would Joseph Smith go out of his way to point out that Moroni was naked under that robe? Imagine if Moroni beamed down to the Smith cabin without putting it on first!

I kid though. There was no Garden of Eden, especially in Missouri. You can believe what you want though. I have nothing against religious beliefs that benefit the believer.

I stand corrected. It's been a while since I've though at all about the Millennium. I wasn't even sure if it was something really believed in or expected anymore. As a teen, it was always presented to me as right around the corner (I had a seminary teacher who was adamant that it would happen during Monson's presidency), but now it seems to be a part of the growing list of things that 19th and 20th century Mormons were totally into but are now just "not emphasized anymore."

I'm sorry if I've lost my mind, but were you a member of the LDS church at one time. I thought you are a Mennonite. 

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Why do we need a reason for it? Isn't the fact of it enough?

I hate to answer a question with a question, but how and why is fact enough?

People say they need reasons; I take them at their word, demonstrating that one particular fact in this instance is enough for me. But I also ask, "Why do people/I say they/I need reasons (and then obtain those answers)?"

"Fact is enough" comes across to me as a tautology. How and why is that satisfactory?

The kind of science in Ama 32 is particularly interesting to me because it not only answers "why," but goes on to explain "who" provides the answers, which/who is the ultimate end/reason for the questions. Some people say it their imagination, and who am I to argue? It may well be in their case.

In relation to this, I thought this speech contained a particularly interesting turn of phrase: "...we are destined to reunite with our spirit through resurrection..."  https://marriott.byu.edu/magazine/feature/how-will-you-carry-his-name This speaker evidently perceives herself as a biological entity which can operate independently of a spirit, "separably" connected as well as "inseparably connected" (D&C 93: 33). Makes sense to me. She sees her resurrected body, fully functional, reuniting with her spirit, and not vice-versa as we commonly discuss it. The rest of the article gets into the "who" by way of the name in which the reason for this is explained and fulfilled.

[the narrator]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm sorry if I've lost my mind, but were you a member of the LDS church at one time. I thought you are a Mennonite. 

I have no idea where you got that from. I guess I share their pacifism, but that's about it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, the narrator said:

The same thing that happens in Garden of Eden. Everyone is just prancing around naked and eating fruit--why else would Joseph Smith go out of his way to point out that Moroni was naked under that robe? Imagine if Moroni beamed down to the Smith cabin without putting it on first!

I kid though. There was no Garden of Eden, especially in Missouri. You can believe what you want though. I have nothing against religious beliefs that benefit the believer.

Ok? I'm not sure what this has to do at all with the initial subject concerning children, tragedy, and "second chances" vs. Celestial Glory.

[the narrator]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I hate to answer a question with a question, but how and why is fact enough?

People say they need reasons; I take them at their word, demonstrating that one particular fact in this instance is enough for me. But I also ask, "Why do people/I say they/I need reasons (and then obtain those answers)?"

"Fact is enough" comes across to me as a tautology. How and why is that satisfactory?

The kind of science in Ama 32 is particularly interesting to me because it not only answers "why," but goes on to explain "who" provides the answers, which/who is the ultimate end/reason for the questions. Some people say it their imagination, and who am I to argue? It may well be in their case.

In relation to this, I thought this speech contained a particularly interesting turn of phrase: "...we are destined to reunite with our spirit through resurrection..."  https://marriott.byu.edu/magazine/feature/how-will-you-carry-his-name This speaker evidently perceives herself as a biological entity which can operate independently of a spirit, "separably" connected as well as "inseparably connected" (D&C 93: 33). Makes sense to me. She sees her resurrected body, fully functional, reuniting with her spirit, and not vice-versa as we commonly discuss it. The rest of the article gets into the "who" by way of the name in which the reason for this is explained and fulfilled.

I guess I'm just completely fine with the simple fact that I live. I don't need some grand reason for it.

Of course I am always finding meaning and purpose to that living. As I noted above, I agree with Albert Camus that doing so is an inherent part of our existence, and I particularly find the most meaning in my desire to see my children grow into adults. My biggest fear is not being able to see that happen--which makes sense, since it's a bit hard to shake a billion-plus years of evolution that made the primary "reason" for living to be that my genetic material passes on and is able to be passed on in further generations.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the premise that begins this thread:

Quote

I have claimed that science has proven that “spirits” don’t exist. What I mean by this is that there isn’t a “ghost in the machine” and that everything we are, including our sense of self, are the result of purely biological processes made of the mundane stuff we are made of, and that when people have an experience of floating outside of their bodies in NDEs and the like, these experiences are illusions driven by the physical processes of the brain.

I don’t particularly like this belief, and I never wanted to believe it. However, I did want to know the truth. By reading “the best of books”, I’ve found that multiple fields of science all converge on this idea: we are purely biological beings, and there isn’t and can’t be a ghost in the machine.

The predictive power of science does make learning this exciting and satisfying. 

There is this problem:

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest. (Karl R. Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality (New York: Routledge, 1994), 84–85.

We cannot say that Bacon was irrational or unscientific.  But he was not dealing directly with the sorts of issues that Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler raised.  And he was not even trying to imagine how things might look to an observer on an earth that moved around a sun.  And that leads to this observation by Hofstadter, that 

Quote

"The important thing to keep in mind is that proofs are demonstrations within fixed systems of propositions." and that "Godel showed that provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiomatic system is involved."  (Godel, Esher, Back, 18-19).

Kuhn talks about how in the sciences 

Quote

"Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead it deals with those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that paradigm has partially determined. As a result, different paradigms engage in different concrete laboratory manipulations."  (Kuhn, 126)

Kuhn explains that in making a paradigm choice even in the sciences, a scientist "must, that is have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed in a few. A decision of that kind can only be made by faith."  (Kuhn 158.)

So, based on evidence available, and experiments performed so far, which is always limited and incomplete, there is no escape from faith, nor from the implications that Positivism as an ideology, the notion that only evidence examined via Positivistic ideology, counts and therefore nothing beyond what is proven via such a fixed system of propositions, can exist.  (Nibley's Sophic and Mantic essays in The Ancient State: The Rulers and the Ruler, are a reminder just how old some supposedly modern ideologies are, and also just how much the means we select to measure things also turns out to rule what we then experience.  (The number of meanings in Nibley's title just keeps expanding on me.)

And even so, sometimes scientists, who are sure they have a complete handle on everything that is, can run into something that does not fit their expectations.  This one goes on for about 40 minutes before a scientific investigation of death runs of the rails and into unexpected territory for this set of investigators.

And Barbour in turn, explains that 

Quote

Participation in a religious tradition also demands a more total personal involvement than occurs in science. Religious questions are of ultimate concern, since the meaning of one’s existence is at stake. Religion asks about the final objects of a person’s devotion and loyalty, for which he will sacrifice other interests if necessary. Too detached an attitude may cut a person off from the very kinds of experience which are religiously most significant. Reorientation and reconciliation are transformations of life-pattern affecting all aspects of personality, not intellect alone. Religious writings use the language of actors, not the language of spectators. [emphasis mine] Religious commitment, then, is a self-involving personal response, a serious decision implicating one’s whole life, a willingness to act and suffer for what one believes in. (Barbour, 135-136)

All pf this means that I do notice, whenever I read anything by someone who claims to have taken the complete measure of the cosmos, the claims of Jesus, and Joseph Smith, and even little old me, is that I always notice that I have performed some experiments, considered some data and experience, that they have not, and that ideology, not just evidence and logic, is always present.  And that leaves me with a very comfortable, not at all cramped and fragile, room for faith. 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[the narrator]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Ok? I'm not sure what this has to do at all with the initial subject concerning children, tragedy, and "second chances" vs. Celestial Glory.

You asked what I believe happens in the Celestial Glory. I said something similar to what happened in the Garden of Eden, which does not exist.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

You asked what I believe happens in the Celestial Glory. I said something similar to what happened in the Garden of Eden, which does not exist.

Cool 🫘

[teddyaware]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:29 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

This is interesting...

* We teach that a child who dies at 2 under tragic, painful circumstances doesn't have merely a 2nd chance to endure more of mortality and it's painful issues, but that that child is raised to eternal life in the mansions of Celestial Glory to grow and progress in the presence of our Heavenly Parents in eternal joy. Which of these two concepts seems more merciful?

* There is a "debriefing" coming in the Millennium- where all the mysteries of the earth and it's history and what it all means and how it ties together will be revealed.

These are basic scriptural concepts... Did you never learn them while in the Church?

Until a believing member of the restored church of Christ comes to the realization that those who are devoid of the gift of the Holy Ghost are totally unable to fathom and appreciate the things of God, this kind of useless, unproductive so-called “dialogue’ will continue to needlessly occupy too much of a believer’s precious time on earth, in what amounts to a rhetorical hamster wheel that goes to nowhere. It’s like trying to convince someone with Antisocial Personality Disorder to learn how to develop empathy and compassion. — it’s not going to happen. It’s only God who has any hope of waking such people up from the sleep of death,  and in most cases that isn’t going to happen until they are thrust into the spirit prison at death. It’s only when they realize there actually is life after death that they may eventually learn to be humble enough to realize they need to come unto Christ in faith and repentance or they will be lost in misery forever. I learned some time ago to stop beating my head against the wall on this site, which is why my participation here has been reduced by 95%. 

Edited May 6, 2024 by teddyaware

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, the narrator said:

I guess I'm just completely fine with the simple fact that I live. I don't need some grand reason for it.

Of course I am always finding meaning and purpose to that living. As I noted above, I agree with Albert Camus that doing so is an inherent part of our existence, and I particularly find the most meaning in my desire to see my children grow into adults. My biggest fear is not being able to see that happen--which makes sense, since it's a bit hard to shake a billion-plus years of evolution that made the primary "reason" for living to be that my genetic material passes on and is able to be passed on in further generations.

Yes, your subjective experience is that you are completely fine with being alive, without asking why. I can relate to that. Your genetic material has passed on and your offspring are developing into adults that can continue to reproduce it. This can and will be accomplished without you. The two ways of “seeing” (continued involvement and passive observation) and the associated sense of meaning and purpose that once rewarded the young parent’s seeing are now residual drains on internal and external resources. There must be an objective way to redirect that vestigial instinct (and the associated sense of fear) to free up resources to more efficiently and effectively ensure more heredity!