There is a Heaven

[loCAtek]

So, if you're going to say the both are fiction, then if one can be promoted, why not the other?

One is not being promoted as fiction, but as fact.

In any case, was this thread about book promotions or heaven and whether a child of a pastor may have had influences in his early life that could have been called upon when his body was under the stress of extreme infection or whether heaven, as often hypothesized, exists?

We've debated what is fact and what is truth.

Fact is scientific, based on what is physically quantifiable; and Coltan left the physical realm. Truth is metaphysical, based on what is spiritually qualitative; and Coltan entered the spiritual realm.

[loCAtek]

In an earlier interview, Colton said that his visions became more vivid as time passed.

I wonder where this was stated? In a YouTube video, I heard Coltan say the memories are fading with time.

Who'd have guessed?.........

Speaking last month about the sister he never knew he had, he said: 'She looked familiar and she started giving me hugs and told me she was glad to have someone from her family up there. 'She doesn't have a name though, she said they never gave her one. But she can't wait for her mom and dad to come to Heaven to meet her.' He went on to recount heaven in more detail, saying: 'I remember Jesus, there's streets of gold and a lot of colours. I sat on Jesus' lap and then I just felt safe. God, he is the biggest one in Heaven, he can hold the world in his hands.' He even claims he saw a glimpse of Armageddon. When asked the age-old question about what Heaven is like, Colton had a very specific description: 'Well, it’s all the colours of the rainbow, a place of beautiful shades and hues. 'The gates were made of gold and there were pearls on them. It never gets dark. It’s always bright. 'Everyone has wings and can fly except for Jesus, who hovers up and down. Everyone wears a white robe crossed by a sash of different colours and they have lights above their heads.'

At the risk of angering multitudes, I'd say that this is not even Christianity and the pastor should know better than to have allowed publication.

Sorry Loca but it really is quite awful

Meade

This also sounds like a third person opinion, but maybe Coltan's account is not Christian. That would make it an unindoctrinated experience.

[MajGenl.Meade]

http://m.dailymail.co.uk/mobile/news/ar ... ID=1368467

Sorry Lo I should have given the link. A full reading is even more scarey. He recognised Grandpa from an unwinged photo of him as a young man..... on the other hand his dead sister (the miscarried one) looked familiar to him, even with the wings, but apparently must have been "older" because she recognized him (smart girl) and carried on quite a conversation - a capability not usual in miscarried children. It's also to be noted that he now claims he met but didn't recognize John the Baptist because he hadn't got that in Sunday School at age 4.

So he did go to Sunday school before his 'experience' and his "imagery" comes exactly from what nice people like me drum into their tiny heads from diaper days until they hit the youth church and get to do all kinds of fun things, including serious debate.

Also he didn't actually "die" and get resuscitated. Is this the first person ever to go to heaven and not actually be dead first; something even Jesus didn't do - not Paul and not John by the way; Elijah doesn't count nor that other geezer because both OT chaps ascended and disappeared from earth.

So again, sorry Lo but this has nothing to do with "spiritual realms" IMO and everything to do with .... commerce (and by the way, I think "The God Delusion" would have been better as a fictional work exploiting religion than Billy the Cons little squib)

Meade

[loCAtek]

Well, I hadn't read "The God Delusion", so couldn't comment on it. However, I granted that this is a four-yer-old's symbolism, in regards that spiritual experiences happen at all walks of life. Some consider his a NDE, since he should have died from his illness and surgery, all his medical staff confirm that; and 'dreaming' isn't usual during surgery. Anesthetic is supposed to put you far under.

[Sean]

So, if you're going to say the both are fiction, then if one can be promoted, why not the other?

One is not being promoted as fiction, but as fact.

In any case, was this thread about book promotions or heaven and whether a child of a pastor may have had influences in his early life that could have been called upon when his body was under the stress of extreme infection or whether heaven, as often hypothesized, exists?

We've debated what is fact and what is truth.

Fact is scientific, based on what is physically quantifiable; and Coltan left the physical realm. Truth is metaphysical, based on what is spiritually qualitative; and Coltan entered the spiritual realm.

*Insert jaw-dropping smilie here...*

So if we take the statement:

The above quoted post shows signs of severe fruitloopery.

Now this statement is both fact and truth.

So where does that leave us?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think Lo is correct that ultimately truth is metaphysical and does not reside in brute facts. However...........

"The above quoted post shows signs of severe fruitloopery" Now this statement is both fact and truth. So where does that leave us?

Well actually it leaves us requesting grounds to accept that "this statement" is either fact or truth. In the same way, Lo's "Coltan entered the spiritual realm" should have concluded with "or not, as the case may be".

GIven what we know of mankind, the likelihood is about 99.99999% "not but it's a great way to make money" and about 0.00001% something mysterious happened. And "mysterious" here means we don't know what it was - not that it was spiritual.

As I think someone (Hen) mentioned earlier, if all of this is symbolic, then it wasn't real. And if it wasn't real then he just made it up - either inadvertently or on purpose. Certainly it is all a re-hash of popular symbols of Christian belief for kids and simple minds - pearly gates, streets of gold, blue-eyed Jesus (yech), Sunday School songs and lessons and contained zero new "information".

As to his claimed knowledge of his parents praying and telephoning, an explanation which requres far less multiplication of causes is that in his emergence from grogginess he overheard hospital staff saying something like "Where's his parents?" "Oh the mother's on the phone outside and the dad is praying in the other room"

Meade

[Sean]

Fair enough Meade. It does beg a couple of questions however...

Do you see 'truth' and 'fact' as mutually exclusive?
Do you see the existence of God as 'truth' or 'fact'.

[loCAtek]

Good inquiry, I mean that, shows you're thinking.

advance to 3:30 and listen to the rest if you dare;



Ye Shall Know Them By Their Fruits I Cor. 12

[Sean]

Good inquiry, I mean that, shows you're thinking.

Was that to me Lo? Have you any idea how patronising it was?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fair enough Meade. It does beg a couple of questions however...

Do you see 'truth' and 'fact' as mutually exclusive?
Do you see the existence of God as 'truth' or 'fact'.

Well, it depends on what "is" is.

Obviously if I use the word "fact" to mean "that which is true" or say that "truth" consists of "that which is a fact", then they are synonymous. Some kind of mouse anyway.

If we take a post-modernist route then we're going to say that there is no truth and there are no facts either. All is relative and a matter of language symbols - what I see is not what you see and we can't even prove that this computer screen exists. So I'll discard that rubbish but assume it declares that:

Fact and truth may be different tomorrow than they are today.

If so, they are neither fact nor truth but social constructs. Therefore, fact and truth are meaningless terms unless eternal and necessary. The only true eternal necessary is God. Therefore all fact and truth resides, exists and has its being only in God who is fact and truth.

Meade

[Sean]

Fair answer. I just don't go for the convenient separation of fact (scientific) and truth (spiritual). It sounds like very weak justification spin to me.

Hypothetical example:

Religious person: God makes rainbows.
Sciency person: Nonsense. Rainbows occur because of refraction of light through moisture in the air.
Religious person: Ah yes, those are the facts. But the truth is that God makes it happen.

And so ends any chance of reasonable debate...

[loCAtek]

So what is truth and what is fact, in order to justifiably answer you?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Fair answer. I just don't go for the convenient separation of fact (scientific) and truth (spiritual). It sounds like very weak justification spin to me.

Hypothetical example:

Religious person: God makes rainbows.
Sciency person: Nonsense. Rainbows occur because of refraction of light through moisture in the air.
Religious person: Ah yes, those are the facts. But the truth is that God makes it happen.

And so ends any chance of reasonable debate...

I see your point. Personally I would not divide fact into a scientifice area and truth into a spiritual one. But equally if a person wished to define them that way then a discussion can occur on that basis.

In your example though, you have category confusion in the first two lines regardless of fact/truth issues. Line 1 deals with a "who" while line 2 deals with a "how"; these cannot speak to each other as you also concluded (for a different reason I think).

I don't think the who/how of rainbows makes for much of a debate, reasonable or otherwise. Also the word "nonsense" might be viewed as the end of reasonable debate before we get to rainbows )

But how would you deal with "God makes rainbows by the refraction of light through moisture in the air and thus creates beauty". ?

Meade

[Sean]

I think there will always be how vs who in any discussion of science vs religion.

The rainbow discussion was just the first thought that sprang into my mind. I did not mean to infer a serious discussion could be had about rainbows. I used the example to illustrate a point.
As for your quibbling on semantics regarding the use of the word 'nonsense'...

But how would you deal with "God makes rainbows by the refraction of light through moisture in the air and thus creates beauty". ?

Well first of all I would draw attention to the errant punctuation at the end of that question...

Then I would wonder aloud why a supernatural cause would be attributed to a phenomenon which we can explain perfectly well without it...

[MajGenl.Meade]

It's my background as a telegraphist - we have to put STOP all over the place. . See. ?

No, the cause is not attributed to what is caused. It's the other way around. Not because rainbow therefore God but because God therfore rainbow (and everything else). Whether one agrees with it or not, the Christian theistic position is that God created and currently sustains all things - He is prior-to, not subsequent-to.

So science explains how the rainbow appears as it does but not why. It can never explain why (unless by "why" we mean the simplistic question form "why is the sky blue?" - or why does the sky appear to me bluely?). That's not the kind of 'why' we're speaking of here.

After all, even on a scientific basis "refraction of light" itself introduces an assumed accumulation of causes through the back door - how does the light happen to be there, from whence comes it, by what mechanism etc. And as to moisture in the air - well, I need some causes for that too and a lot more explanation.

It's a good enough hypothetical but it doesn't achieve the simplicity that you are seeking. After all, it goes back to the beginning of the universe and science mus now shrug and say "I don' know - yet". The Christian of course knows what the "yet" is.

Meade

[thestoat]

So science explains how the rainbow appears as it does but not why

This question assumes there is a "why". The "why" automatically pre-supposes some will or intent. The "how" is all there is. There is no background will behind rainbows, the formation of the planet or any of that stuff. These things happen because the necessary physical conditions occur to make them happen. There is no "why" does the rainbow appear here, and more than there is a "why" does the rainbow not appear there.

[thestoat]

After all, it goes back to the beginning of the universe and science mus now shrug and say "I don' know - yet". The Christian of course knows what the "yet" is.

Science does say "I don't know" when it doesn't. It says "it might be X" when it has a theory - and is happy to have the theory battered down when a new one comes along. A parrot or a 3 year old, trained with just a few words of vocab, can say "Ah, but what created that?". If something "must have" created the planet, and something "must have created" the solar system, and something "must have" created the universe, then what created that something? I don't find it a valid argument to argue on one hand that everything we discuss must have had a creator but then suddenly state that this argument no longer applies to the creator.

[Big RR]

So science explains how the rainbow appears as it does but not why

This question assumes there is a "why". The "why" automatically pre-supposes some will or intent. The "how" is all there is. There is no background will behind rainbows, the formation of the planet or any of that stuff. These things happen because the necessary physical conditions occur to make them happen. There is no "why" does the rainbow appear here, and more than there is a "why" does the rainbow not appear there.

Perhaps, buy doesn't philosophy do the same thing? Indeed, one need not presuppose a "why", but permit the assumption that a "why" exists, to permit such inquiry to occur. There may not be any discernable "why", but we cannot even discuss it unless we permit the assumption (that there is one) to direct the conversation. That such discussions are mental exercises and not subject to rigorous prof shows exactly why they are not the province of science.

[thestoat]

That's true - a better question could be "why not?"

[MajGenl.Meade]

stoat - ah well the argument is not that all things must have a cause. The argument is that all contingent things have a cause. (Actually I'm not stating it quite correctly there either but....). Since there cannot be an actual infinite regress of contingent causes, here must be a necessary being (call it god, God, the universe, FSM) which is the uncaused causer.

Back to the infinity thing I guess........... forever and ever.......... Kalamity Jane says: there cannot be an infinite number of moments prior to this moment because if there were an infinite number of moments prior to this moment we would never reach this moment. We'd still be waiting. Therefore the argument says that the universe had a beginning and science agrees, some 13.7 billion years ago. I'll let Dawkins argue that science is wrong because I happen to think it's correct.

And I like your question "why not?" Exactly! Why is there something rather than nothing? There was nothing contingent and then there was something contingent (the big bang?).

Now all of this may be arguable - well it is of course - but the point is - it's rational. And of course it's a matter of fact (or truth) that neither you nor I can prove that all things (including the Bible) didn't suddenly spring into being 20 minutes ago. Ultimately in our thinking, we can never prove a first principle. We have, as Big RR put it rather differently but correctly, to assume our first premise and then see what flows from that. Rather scientific.

I remain, your 3 year old parrot
Meade