Do you believe in God and why

[fredwiggy]

8 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Since you're an expert on this god fella, pray tell what the heck was it doing from the beginning of time until about 13.8 billion years ago? Must have been god awful lonely, so it 'created' a few trillion galaxies, each with a trillion stars, and in one of a trillion nondescript galaxies, around one of a trillion stars in that galaxy, set up a planet that would eventually lead to a pack of sentient beings, just to praise and thank the god all the time? Is that your concept of 'faith' and existence? Seems a convoluted way to get a compliment.

 

Your god must be terribly insecure in that, despite being supposedly omnipotent, it needed to create some woefully inferior beings to tell it how great it was. One would think such an entity as a 'god of all things and all time' would be a lot less needy than a pathological Narcissist. One would think it would be more confident and not need to have its supposed greatness reinforced. I mean, I don't need ants or paramecium to applaud me, and surely an omnipotent god would be farther above me than I am above a paramecium. If it needs my praise or thanks, it's pretty weak.

 

That difficult to fathom tale of 'creation' really does seem to better fit the old saw "man created god in his image". The numerous character flaws in everybody's gods backs up that line: a woefully insecure being that needs constant adoration or it gets miffed and punishes the non-worshipper for all eternity. That's pretty vindictive besides being needy. No thanks.

 

I think I'm going ignore all the various god stories and stick with the latest scientific evidence that indicates Universe coming into being from nothing is well within the laws of physics as particle physicists have discovered in the last few years. Because you do not understand the physics doesn't make it wrong, just as those who insisted the Earth must be flat, otherwise we'd fall off, could not conceptualize the force of gravity. Well, the force of gravity still is not well understood at all, but gravity's effect is well understood and can be measured and predicted with incredible accuracy. It's very real. Why just last week scientists and engineers took that thing-they-can measure-but-not-explain and fired a spacecraft into orbit and had it dock with an object orbiting 226 miles above the planet.

 

Science continually proves itself, while nobody's god has ever proven anything ever. Science even predicts things---e.g., Higgs boson---that are subsequently discovered, but not one god or prophet ever predicted anything. Any faith where it's god, prophet or savior had done something like chisel Planck's Constant into a stone slab, or drawn a map of Australia, would have gone a long way toward proving itself divine rather than just being a fraudster. None did.  Take Occam's Razor to faith and religion, and all that seems left are fraudsters or lunatics.

That's why it's called faith. And matter can not come from nothing. You can believe scientists and their sometime guesses, or you can have faith that there is a creator, a much more logical idea, and you'll find out soon enough who is right or wrong.

[luckyluke]

16 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

There's only one God, so a lot will be in for a shock.

Especially the ones who believe that their God is the one they assume is the only one God. 

[Tagged]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Try to prove yourself wrong. I can't do the work for you.

 

Many people have melted with the God consciousness in the past, many do today.

They have all pointed in the same direction. What they have achieved is achievable by each one of us. Each one of us can take the steps towards that consciousness...the tools are there at our disposal. 

It is my own responsibility to walk the path to liberation, and its nobody else's responsibility what happens on your path but your own.

What you do with the time on your hands is up to you, no judgement...but don't turn an opinion into a fact for lack of knowledge. 

Again, we humans are teached the concious by others who are gifted, and tell other people are unedicated when you know how easily brain is manipulated to see, hear, taste, and smell things that is not real! 
 

Go figure when it comes to religion and what is real or not!

 

The biggest problem I see with human brain, is the accept of socalled truths that does not exists.

 

For an example we learned and was told consuming more than we need is good for economic and make you happy! Of course we all know the horrible bi effect by doing so, we continue in good faith. 
 

So people feel connected to something that is not real or not there, is not surprising. 
 

However I will never deny a greather force, it is just people can not be sure what they feel, see, hear of smell is real, and can for sure say this is the truth! The brain is a mystery, and most likely god is in us, and that god is us self. However people do feel connected to each other of different reasons, and of course find the god and the energy and truth together, feel the same walk the same talk the same! 

 

[luckyluke]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

That's your opinion, not a fact.

And that's by itself an opinion. 

[fredwiggy]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Especially the ones who believe that their God is the one they assume is the only one God. 

So there are more then one? Wouldn't there be a fight? Wouldn't one show himself to prove he is the one true god?

[luckyluke]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

 

 

I prefer not to sit on my ass waiting for someone to tell me what is what. I sit on my ass in meditation to take the rudder of my own life. 

Medidation is one way, there are others. 

I have problems with the ones who claim they are "oh so special", and that their way is the only "real" one. 

And it seems that I have to repeat that continuously. 

[luckyluke]

9 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

So there are more then one? 

Of course, some people have always been convicted there are gods.

 The ancient greeks believed there were 12 major gods and goddesses (No mysogyny). 

Now I must admit that the one called "God" is rather popular nowadays. 

But we don't know what the future will bring. 

[fredwiggy]

34 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Of course, some people have always been convicted there are gods.

 The ancient greeks believed there were 12 major gods and goddesses (No mysogyny). 

Now I must admit that the one called "God" is rather popular nowadays. 

But we don't know what the future will bring. 

And some people are and were wrong. There is and has been only one God, and your future is in your hands. It's up to you what to believe for you.

[Logosone]

12 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Like the sound of one hand clapping.

All non-essentials stripped and only the divine spark of consciousness remaining, and depending on how you lived your life that being a bright shining light or a faint tealight.

What is it that would be conscious? 

 

What would it be conscious of?

 

The problem with this theory "depending on how you lived your life" is that it imposes a human moral perspective. If you were good you will be a big bright shining light, if you were bad just a faint tealight. This looks to be a remnant of the old church moral anthromorphism of the entire world, human morality, human good and bad becomes the deciding factor. We see this with Karma in Buddhism of course as well. However, if there is a God, looking at history and nature, presumably he would not share human notions of morality one bit.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Logosone

[Peter Denis]

10 hours ago, Walker88 said:

---

That difficult to fathom tale of 'creation' really does seem to better fit the old saw "man created god in his image". The numerous character flaws in everybody's gods backs up that line: a woefully insecure being that needs constant adoration or it gets miffed and punishes the non-worshipper for all eternity. That's pretty vindictive besides being needy. No thanks.

...

So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. [Genesis 1:27]

Animals are also part of God's creation, but they are not made 'in the image of God' as that refers to the potential of developing higher consciousness, which is what makes humans 'special'.  Whether you make use of that potential is of course an entirely different matter.

 

That 'man made God in his own image' is an antropomorphism, but actually also correct in the sense that you can only imagine God within the limits of your individual consciousness.  The God of those that have experienced a glimpse of true divine inspiration, is a totally different God than those who did not have such experience (yet).
 

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Medidation is one way, there are others. 

I have problems with the ones who claim they are "oh so special", and that their way is the only "real" one. 

And it seems that I have to repeat that continuously. 

Yes, you are repeating yourself to death...simply because you have nothing else to contribute other than the same old "all opinions are equal" nonsense. 

 

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Really there shouldn't even be a need for the word "atheist". If someone claims to believe in Fairies or Leprechauns or Unicorns or Bigfoot...does that make those whom don't believe..."afairyist" or "aleprechaunist" or "aunicornist" or "abigfootist"? Same thing with a god claim. Just because more people tend to believe in a "god" rather than Bigfoot doesn't make them any more correct. No need for the "a"-word in all these other examples. Some just don't believe claims without good reason. The word for this, in this topic, is the undeservedly highly stigmatized word "Atheist". Of which I'm quite fond, truth be told. 

 

Actually, the prefix 'a', meaning 'not', is used a lot in the English language. It's a very useful letter.

 

An example which currently appears frequently in the media as a result of the Covid-19 situation, is 'asymptomatic', meaning 'not symptomatic', or 'not having symptoms'.

 

Other common examples are, amoral, apolitical, asocial, aperiodic, arhythmic, agrammatical, and interestingly 'aliteracy' which has a different meaning to illiteracy. A person who is illiterate doesn't know how to read, whereas a person who is aliterate tends to lack an interest in reading, although they are able to read if they must.

 

Even when a baby is born without a penis or vagina, he/she can be described as 'agenital'.
 

[Peter Denis]

16 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Actually, the prefix 'a', meaning 'not', is used a lot in the English language. It's a very useful letter.

 

An example which currently appears frequently in the media as a result of the Covid-19 situation, is 'asymptomatic', meaning 'not symptomatic', or 'not having symptoms'.

 

Other common examples are, amoral, apolitical, asocial, aperiodic, arhythmic, agrammatical, and interestingly 'aliteracy' which has a different meaning to illiteracy. A person who is illiterate doesn't know how to read, whereas a person who is aliterate tends to lack an interest in reading, although they are able to read if they must.

 

Even when a baby is born without a penis or vagina, he/she can be described as 'agenital'.

Like in amazing Thailand ????

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

It's up to you what to believe for you

Yes, up to me.

[Walker88]

10 hours ago, JensenZ said:

What God was doing before he created heaven (our universe) and Earth is covered in the Bible, but why must God be doing something? That's a human construct in our physical realm. We must do things because time is passing and we are aging. The reason why he created Earth is also covered. I'm not going to go into it here, but you can look it up if you're interested.

 

This leads me to the conclusion that spirit beings (God, Satan, Angels) live in a different dimension from our physical world and universe. The concept of time doesn't exist in a dimension without decay. Time is ultimately a measure of decay. It's our physical world which decays, not the realm of spirit beings which is timeless. Earth was created with a time limit. Our universe is too large to grasp even at the speed of light and concept of infinity confounds the mind. The concept of eternal existence is impossible to grasp because we are bound to a universe that measures time. To us everything has a beginning and an end.

 

 

Oh jeeeez. So you've got a 'book' that proves what you need to believe. How terribly convenient.

 

Curious as to what liars and lunatics get their drivel into a book over a 400 year period that some people still believe even after science has rendered virtually everything in said book false?  Why "Two Corinthians" and not Jim Jones or L Ron Hubbard? Why Paul of Tarsus and not Paul of McCartney? Why didn't Matt or Luke tell everyone that 1600 or so years in the future a guy named James would commission a Final Editing of the supposed 'word of god'?

 

On what basis do you 'conclude' "that spirit beings live in a different dimension". Is that like Shirley MacLaine?

 

Since Francis Bacon came up with the Scientific Method, not only did human knowledge progress at an ever-accelerating pace and explain most of the mysteries lesser befuddled minds attributed to a wide variety of Skydaddies, but a strict methodology was developed for separating reality from wishful thinking and superstition.

 

I never understood the wild leap from "the Universe couldn't just spring into being" (actually, it could, and it is also here, unlike all the thousands of manufactured deities) to 'there is only one god' (It's always "mine") and you can't eat meat on Fridays or can't let women go with their faces uncovered or can't covet any neighbor's wife or goods lest one burn forever. The willful embrace of abject ignorance has not done our species any good. Science first erased the literal interpretation of everybody's "holy" books and made them figurative. Science has also erased the figurative nonsense, but many refuse to accept the reality of reality, and have a pressing need to believe something is in control and gives a hoot they exist.

 

If I had to choose---and I don't---but if some theistic belief was required by law, I'd either go with Zeus (impish, sometimes nasty and vindictive, occasionally incompetent deities that badly need endless praise and thanks---which is to say honest gods) or I'd go with teams of superior beings that take turns creating Universes and then vote on which Universe was more entertaining. There's no need for monotheism; that's just a tool to make praying easier for the scared and insecure who cannot face mortality and universal indifference.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Walker88

[yodsak]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

There is and has been only one God,

 

[yodsak]

[luckyluke]

42 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, you are repeating yourself to death...simply because you have nothing else to contribute other than the same old "all opinions are equal" nonsense. 

 

And I will continue to do it.

 

You'r not particular Sunmaster, and your method ( meditation ) is only one way among others.

I am however convinced that meditation may be the best way for you, and many others.

 

I am agree that "all opinions are equal" is nonsense,

providing that the  discussed matter is measurable, and accepted as such by everyone.

 

Belief, religion faith, gods, creators... are not,

and thus every opinion here about, is equal. 

[teatime101]

4 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

matter can not come from nothing.

How do you explain God's eternal existence, not to mention omniscience and omnipotence? You can't, you just believe it. At least matter coming from nothing is supported by evidence.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

And I will continue to do it.

 

You'r not particular Sunmaster, and your method ( meditation ) is only one way among others.

I am however convinced that meditation may be the best way for you, and many others.

 

I am agree that "all opinions are equal" is nonsense,

providing that the  discussed matter is measurable, and accepted as such by everyone.

 

Belief, religion faith, gods, creators... are not,

and thus every opinion here about, is equal. 

First off, what makes you think I may have a superiority complex? Because I'm pointing towards common misunderstandings in a field I'm somewhat familiar with? Because I express my opinion based on my own experience and studies? Because I did have a life-changing experience? Does that make me "superior" or simply put me in a position to provide a point of view that is perhaps uncommon? 

Second, "only one way among others"....what does that even mean? A way to go where? To achieve what exactly? Is it "a way to live"? I agree, it's one among many. One can live in ignorance and arguably live a normal life. But if you mean "a way to become one with the Supreme", then there are ways that are more conducive and efficient, and then there are ways that are counterproductive. They are certainly not all equal. I'll take Buddha's opinion about the nature of reality over yours any day, that's for sure. ???? 

 

12 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

providing that the  discussed matter is measurable, and accepted as such by everyone.

If you want to discuss only matters that are measurable, you are posting in the wrong thread. I'm surprised you haven't realized that until now.

 

 

 

[fredwiggy]

6 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

How do you explain God's eternal existence, not to mention omniscience and omnipotence? You can't, you just believe it. At least matter coming from nothing is supported by evidence.

No evidence whatsoever , because it isn't possible. You believing a scientists guesses shows that you have faith in a human, who is imperfect. A creator makes sense, to anyone not gullible or a fool. God's eternal existence is way over our heads, and you can ask him when you die, although there probably isn't an answer we could understand. The topic was about do you believe in God and why, and I've said faith. Some might have been taught to believe in scientists because they can prove some things. I can't prove God exists,and no one can prove otherwise.

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

First off, what makes you think I may have a superiority complex? Because I'm pointing towards common misunderstandings in a field I'm somewhat familiar with? Because I express my opinion based on my own experience and studies? Because I did have a life-changing experience? Does that make me "superior" or simply put me in a position to provide a point of view that is perhaps uncommon? 

Second, "only one way among others"....what does that even mean? A way to go where? To achieve what exactly? Is it "a way to live"? I agree, it's one among many. One can live in ignorance and arguably live a normal life. But if you mean "a way to become one with the Supreme", then there are ways that are more conducive and efficient, and then there are ways that are counterproductive. They are certainly not all equal. I'll take Buddha's opinion about the nature of reality over yours any day, that's for sure. ???? 

 

If you want to discuss only matters that are measurable, you are posting in the wrong thread. I'm surprised you haven't realized that until now.

 

 

 

I had also an uncommon experience, I don't constantly write about it.

 

There are many ways to reach happiness, serenity.

 

In the particular matter we discuss here in this topic, I don't consider ignorance as a synonym of illiterate/uneducated, but as uninformed.

Many people live in ignorance of others experiences, but are perfectly happy and serene with their own,

or/and have experienced it, but didn't come to the same results they experience with their own method.

 

It is your opinion that I am posting in the wrong thread if I am posting about matters that are measurable, well it is not my opinion.

Which shows, we also here, have a different opinion.

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I had also an uncommon experience, I don't constantly write about it.

 

Yeah, what's your uncommon experience? An independent thought? ???? 

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Yeah, what's your uncommon experience? An independent thought? ???? 

You should  more attentively read this topic.

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

You should  more attentively read this topic.

I have a few suggestions for you as well, but I better keep them for myself. ???? 

[luckyluke]

13 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I have a few suggestions for you as well, but I better keep them for myself. ???? 

 I am open to good advises.

Of course if they are biased, better restrain.

[JensenZ]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

No i don't. To understand a post you need to take it with in the context of a conversation. 

If you follow the exchange a couple of post back,( #8182 ) "What God was doing before he created heaven (our universe) and Earth is covered in the Bible, but why must God be doing something? That's a human construct in our physical realm. We must do things because time is passing and we are aging. The reason why he created Earth is also covered.   " and a claim was made that " "This leads me to the conclusion that spirit beings (God, Satan, Angels) live in a different dimension from our physical world and universe. The concept of time doesn't exist in a dimension without decay. Time is ultimately a measure of decay. "

To which I replied :

"Didn't god create man in his own image? " Then it was replied back :

"I know the verse, but don't understand what is meant by it. " to which i replied:

"Well if man is create in gods image , why does god need legs if not to walk? "

The answer of course is ; because he exists in a plane where time exists otherwise he would not have legs, Arms, or a beard that requires time to grow.

 

 

You're just going around in circles. You think God exists in a plane where time exists because he's growing a beard because he looks exactly like man because you read "God created man in his image".

 

For the record, I have no idea what God looks like and he probably cannot be viewed or conceived from our dimension at all, but I don't believe he walks around on legs or has a beard growing. If you think he has a beard, you obviously think he is a man. Why would you attribute a gender to God. I don't think he has any need to reproduce.

 

The Bible is hard to decipher and people can debate the meaning of single texts for their lifetime, but you just go ahead and assume a literal meaning and continue on as though it is an indisputable fact.

[JensenZ]

5 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Which "Truth" is the "Real Truth".?

 

As mentioned before, I had an experience,  where I found out there is nothing, no creator, no God. 

 

Now I know there are others who had a different experience (Called Revelation) in which they found a God/Creator or... 

 

Is my experience the real "Truth"?

 

Is it theirs? 

 

 

 

I can find happiness and serenety in my way, others find it in another way. 

 

No path is better/worse,

as we don't know how, and what, someone else is feeling, using his proper way. 

No one should even use the word "truth" in a religious discussion. Probably half the wars in history were fought over disagreements over "truth". At times in history if you disagreed with the church's official "truth" you could be burned at the stake for heresy.

[JensenZ]

2 hours ago, Walker88 said:

Oh jeeeez. So you've got a 'book' that proves what you need to believe. How terribly convenient.

 

Curious as to what liars and lunatics get their drivel into a book over a 400 year period that some people still believe even after science has rendered virtually everything in said book false?  Why "Two Corinthians" and not Jim Jones or L Ron Hubbard? Why Paul of Tarsus and not Paul of McCartney? Why didn't Matt or Luke tell everyone that 1600 or so years in the future a guy named James would commission a Final Editing of the supposed 'word of god'?

 

On what basis do you 'conclude' "that spirit beings live in a different dimension". Is that like Shirley MacLaine?

 

Since Francis Bacon came up with the Scientific Method, not only did human knowledge progress at an ever-accelerating pace and explain most of the mysteries lesser befuddled minds attributed to a wide variety of Skydaddies, but a strict methodology was developed for separating reality from wishful thinking and superstition.

 

I never understood the wild leap from "the Universe couldn't just spring into being" (actually, it could, and it is also here, unlike all the thousands of manufactured deities) to 'there is only one god' (It's always "mine") and you can't eat meat on Fridays or can't let women go with their faces uncovered or can't covet any neighbor's wife or goods lest one burn forever. The willful embrace of abject ignorance has not done our species any good. Science first erased the literal interpretation of everybody's "holy" books and made them figurative. Science has also erased the figurative nonsense, but many refuse to accept the reality of reality, and have a pressing need to believe something is in control and gives a hoot they exist.

 

If I had to choose---and I don't---but if some theistic belief was required by law, I'd either go with Zeus (impish, sometimes nasty and vindictive, occasionally incompetent deities that badly need endless praise and thanks---which is to say honest gods) or I'd go with teams of superior beings that take turns creating Universes and then vote on which Universe was more entertaining. There's no need for monotheism; that's just a tool to make praying easier for the scared and insecure who cannot face mortality and universal indifference.

Excuse me sir. There's no need to rant. This is philosophy, not science. We are all stating opinions, none of which can be proven in the traditional manner. You asked what God was doing before he created the Earth and I told you there is an answer, with emphasis on AN answer. You were scoffing, thinking no one has an answer. Suggesting God would be bored is suggesting he's like humans and needs to keep himself occupied as he passes the time away. It suggests very limited thought has gone into the subject.

 

You're mistaken if you think science has disproved the existence of God. You've made up your mind, so we will leave it there. Quora has endless debates on Evolution vs Creation so I'll give that a miss here. 

 

By the looks of it you're an individual that has come to this discussion only to scoff. Perhaps you had a traumatic experience with some religious cult? You seem angry. It's a common response when people discuss these subjects.

 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by JensenZ

[fredwiggy]

35 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Excuse me sir. There's no need to rant. This is philosophy, not science. We are all stating opinions, none of which can be proven in the traditional manner. You asked what God was doing before he created the Earth and I told you there is an answer, with emphasis on AN answer. You were scoffing, thinking no one has an answer. Suggesting God would be bored is suggesting he's like humans and needs to keep himself occupied as he passes the time away. It suggests very limited thought has gone into the subject.

 

You're mistaken if you think science has disproved the existence of God. You've made up your mind, so we will leave it there. Quora has endless debates on Evolution vs Creation so I'll give that a miss here. 

 

By the looks of it you're an individual that has come to this discussion only to scoff. Perhaps you had a traumatic experience with some religious cult? You seem angry. It's a common response when people discuss these subjects.

 

 

I'm a believer and ask myself, and others, the same question. If God was here forever, then why did he wait until recent time to make the universe? Was the universe made and then God got around to putting life on earth afterwards? But maybe God doesn't experience time like we do, with our calendar, the earth's path around the sun etc. I think there is other life on other planets in other solar systems/ Maybe not life like us. Maybe we are the only ones that rebelled so much we needed Christ. What about neanderthal and Cro-magnon man? Of course they existed, but weren't like us. Did God make them to give us history? I believe that we all came from Adam and Eve, and that he made races at the Tower of Babel. If God can create a universe from his mind, surely he can do a lot more. Some do have bad experiences where God was involved, cults, abuse from parents, children dying, and they either blamed God or lost faith. Some, like Job, had everything taken away and still believed. Then there are others, like myself, that have had bad experiences that I didn't cause that made me mad at God because he didn't "do" anything, at least that I could see. Some think everything happens for a reason, and there's some truth to that, because God can see the big picture and what we think is the right way, is wrong for our future. I married a Thai, and have a daughter. Now I have to try and bring her up believing God exists and Buddha is probably in hell, as he didn't have any use for God. My wife says the same thing, especially when she's angry with me. I don't see God, where is he? Trying to change that thinking after 40 years of Buddhism isn't going to be easy, but I don't want to see my wife go to hell. When she dies, she will meet God, and then she'll understand we don't come back, reincarnated as something or someone. But then it will be too late, and her last thought will be, I should have listened to my husband.