Do you believe in God and why

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Easy.  What is your belief about death?  We know science hasn't proven that one.  But assuredly you have your own belief about what becomes of you, or not, at that moment.

Not sure what you mean by science hasn't proven death. Plenty of evidence that we die. Not much that we live on. Evidence from those that came back to life, say on the operating table, or people talking about past lives, is normally interesting but disappointing.  

Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence. 

I like your point that given we have a limited life span we can't wait for science to discover everything so you can theorise and here's hoping you can find new things. But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us. 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Did i say that hierarchy is "a absolute structure ".

No, i didn't. 

A higher consciousness implies a higher responsibility. 

You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant. 

Mother earth has the power of making life possible or impossible, the sun as well, just to mention the most obvious, so why deny hierarchies?

Point taken.

Hierarchy definition
: any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

There's no ranking in creation.  Again, each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part.  A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

No ranking.

"You have the power to make the world a better, or a worse place to live, more power than a bird or an elephant."

I totally disagree based on what I wrote above.  I give much more credit, and power, to the rest of nature to make this world a better place.  The idea of "lowly" creatures is a false one.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

For how long did humans really had this power to control the environment around themself? 
 

Or is the problem carbon dating to give an exact dating of humans in comparison to life on planet earth?

Those are good questions, and i read avidly every day, to find out some answers.

Script is only about 5 or 10 thousand years old, before that we can rely on oral traditions, bible, mahayana, veda etc. 

I dare to think though, that all the forms of life exist in the spiritual worlds, and there's no linear "time" and "space", perhaps a spiral.

Our extraterrestrial visitors could be humans travelling on the waves of time,  for what we know..

[Hummin]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

That's what I'm I'm trying to find out, observing nature, thinking, reading and thinking again, and writing and reading posts on this thread.

Sometimes I meet strangers in real life who i can have some meaningful conversation, but it doesn't happen often enough. 

I think that observing animals is an easy way to understand different stages of consciousness, and i consider them my little brothers. 

But, of course, maybe you know better. 

I have stated before I know very little about this life, world, dimension and time being we are living in, but I manage to separate information Im able to consume, and try not to get stuck In wormholes. Meaning being superior to other creatures, and take the bait for another pissing contest. 
 

I try not to limit myself believing humans is superior to our surroundings, neither Im superior to other humans, just because I believe I understand more than most. I could be mislead to believe so after measuring my logical and problem solving IQ, but those numbers says very little in fact when it comes to the wider aspects of life. 

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

The idea of "lowly" creatures is a false one.

You said that, not me.

We are part of the creation, but dogs don't throw nuclear bombs, and whales sing, but they don't write symphonies. 

Humans have been given some power on nature, our choice whether make it better or worse. Apparently we are failing, but we can take responsibility and improve it.

Have you ever walked into a jungle? It's more difficult than walking on a path in a countryside, believe me.

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I have stated before I know very little about this life, world, dimension and time being we are living in, but I manage to separate information Im able to consume, and try not to get stuck In wormholes. Meaning being superior to other creatures, and take the bait for another pissing contest. 
 

I try not to limit myself believing humans is superior to our surroundings, neither Im superior to other humans, just because I believe I understand more than most. I could be mislead to believe so after measuring my logical and problem solving IQ, but those numbers says very little in fact when it comes to the wider aspects of life. 

I also know very little, but I'm not giving up yet.

We both like to watch the nature for inspiration, if we come to different opinions, that's very good !

I'm reasonably sure that we can find many answers to our questions, even conflicting truths, and i can accept that you and @Tippaporn don't like, or don't see the hierarchies in the visible and invisible worlds.

I don't expect other people to see it in the same way that i see it though. 

[Tippaporn]

8 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Not sure what you mean by science hasn't proven death. Plenty of evidence that we die. Not much that we live on. Evidence from those that came back to life, say on the operating table, or people talking about past lives, is normally interesting but disappointing.  

Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence. 

I like your point that given we have a limited life span we can't wait for science to discover everything so you can theorise and here's hoping you can find new things. But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us. 

I admit I worded that badly.  What I meant was science has not proven what happens to us when we die.  That is what I intended to express.

"But you'll need science to prove it to the rest of us."

I like you, Fat is a type of crazy.  So don't take this the wrong way.  That's your problem, not mine.  I could care less about what proof science demands.  If science wishes to invalidate my experience because they don't have their required proof then again, that's their problem and I could care less.  Science does not hold a monopoly on discerning reality properly.  When you make a statement such as that it exposes your belief that science does indeed have a monopoly on what is true and what is not.

Remember, too, that facts are relative to the reality in which they exist.  But since I imagine that you believe in the existence of only a single, solitary reality . . . this one . . . then that pearl of wisdom is worthless to you.

"Science doesn't prove absolutely - it says what is most likely based on evidence."

Hey, that's exactly what I do!  The difference between us is what science accepts as valid evidence and what I accept as valid evidence.  Science, as with politics, too often excludes all of the evidence.  They throw away the bits and parts they can't get to fit.

As to theorising . . . many of science's theories are, and I know VincentRJ takes particular exception to this phrase, little more than scientific fairy tales.  I laugh at theirs and they, and you, laugh at mine.  I guess that puts us on equal footing? 
 

[Tippaporn]

41 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Both of you have completely missed my point.

My apologies if I have.

[Tippaporn]

28 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Those are good questions, and i read avidly every day, to find out some answers.

Script is only about 5 or 10 thousand years old, before that we can rely on oral traditions, bible, mahayana, veda etc. 

I dare to think though, that all the forms of life exist in the spiritual worlds, and there's no linear "time" and "space", perhaps a spiral.

Our extraterrestrial visitors could be humans travelling on the waves of time,  for what we know..

If you're an avid reader try reading this.

 

1972 - Seth Speaks.pdf

[mauGR1]

Just now, Tippaporn said:

My apologies if I have.

No need mate, yet what you say is not untrue. 

Truths can be apparently conflicting, and my ability with words is not great. 

Sometimes words in general are not able to describe  spiritual realities. 

That said, hierarchies exist, higher and lower are just words to define their essence, and don't imply arrogance or a feeling of superiority on my side.

Air and fire, are above earth and water, and so on.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

You said that, not me.

We are part of the creation, but dogs don't throw nuclear bombs, and whales sing, but they don't write symphonies. 

Humans have been given some power on nature, our choice whether make it better or worse. Apparently we are failing, but we can take responsibility and improve it.

Have you ever walked into a jungle? It's more difficult than walking on a path in a countryside, believe me.

I made the statement but didn't intend to imply that it was your meaning.

Animals don't throw nuclear bombs because they know better. 

Animals contributions to the world are obviously different that ours.  It's said that we are the thinking part of nature.  That's our contribution.  Or at least one of them.

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If you're an avid reader try reading this.

 

1972 - Seth Speaks.pdf 966.53 kB · 1 download

Thanks, but it's terrible on my phone, and I don't have computer. 

I prefer books. 

I told you already, that what I have read from Seth's resonate very well with me, i would define it knowledge from above.

However, as I told you , i chose already a master, and he gave me so much to think about, probably enough for more than a few lives.

I invite you to try to pass the concepts you find important in your readings through simple words, that would be convenient for our chat.

 

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Animals don't throw nuclear bombs because they know better. 

Or because they cannot build them, they cannot even build a decent musical instrument...

Well, i don't want to insist and bother you with my illogical logic, so let's agree to disagree on this one.

[Hummin]

43 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I also know very little, but I'm not giving up yet.

We both like to watch the nature for inspiration, if we come to different opinions, that's very good !

I'm reasonably sure that we can find many answers to our questions, even conflicting truths, and i can accept that you and @Tippaporn don't like, or don't see the hierarchies in the visible and invisible worlds.

I don't expect other people to see it in the same way that i see it though. 

It is not we or I do see the hierarchies, it is just that hierarchies just forms and exists in a moment of time, before it takes a new form or new the top of food chain takes over. 
 

For an instance, an human tribe of todays creatures, put them in to the jungle naked and without tools, and se how far from their nature they have come. Im sure the natives and those who have lived on very little alike Isaan people would survive longer than you and me alike, but it should tells us how far from the top of food chain we have become, with or without a consensus soul. 
 

we are just as anyone else controlled by nature, and god is nature. 

[Tippaporn]

4 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Or because they cannot build them, they cannot even build a decent musical instrument...

Well, i don't want to insist and bother you with my illogical logic, so let's agree to disagree on this one.

My point is, which I think you're missing, is that every creature has something different to offer the world.  Just because animals, or plants, can't offer what we as humans can doesn't mean that their contributions to the world are any less.  Or even that they don't have the power to make the world a better place.  They do.  But the way they make the world a better place is different than the ways in which we can make the world a better (or worse) place.

Ever see an animal of one species helping an animal of another?  Go on YouTube.  What "power" they have is simply different than what we have.

I recall a video someone posted here a good while back.  It was a behavioural scientist who was comparing chimps to humans.  He was holding an experiment with the chimp and some children to see if the chimp could behave in a certain fashion comparable to the children.  He then mentioned having an epiphany in which the sudden realisation dawned on him that chimps couldn't do what people can.  I shook my head thinking of the money he had spent on the higher education he received in order to come to that conclusion.

[Hummin]

17 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Or because they cannot build them, they cannot even build a decent musical instrument...

Well, i don't want to insist and bother you with my illogical logic, so let's agree to disagree on this one.

Nature creates chain reactions even inside our bodies all the time! We just able to copy nature

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

It is not we or I do see the hierarchies, it is just that hierarchies just forms and exists in a moment of time, before it takes a new form or new the top of food chain takes over. 

Yes ! Absolutely, everything is relative to time/space.

I'm sure that we don't really disagree, it's just that we have occasionally different points of view and perspectives. 

[mikebike]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Take your pick, dude.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Church+burned&atb=v314-1&ia=web

It's too easy to find info.  I do know what you're on about.

Seems like most of the perps were disenchanted Christians... how does that fit ur narrative?

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

My point is, which I think you're missing, is that every creature has something different to offer the world.  Just because animals, or plants, can't offer what we as humans can doesn't mean that their contributions to the world are any less.  Or even that they don't have the power to make the world a better place.  They do.  But the way they make the world a better place is different than the ways in which we can make the world a better (or worse) place.

Ever see an animal of one species helping an animal of another?  Go on YouTube.  What "power" they have is simply different than what we have.

I recall a video someone posted here a good while back.  It was a behavioural scientist who was comparing chimps to humans.  He was holding an experiment with the chimp and some children to see if the chimp could behave in a certain fashion comparable to the children.  He then mentioned having an epiphany in which the sudden realisation dawned on him that chimps couldn't do what people can.  I shook my head thinking of the money he had spent on the higher education he received in order to come to that conclusion.

Yes, i get your point very well, and i am a bit sad that you don't get mine.

It's ok, I can live with it ????

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

a life as a dog is surely less boring than a life as a worm.

How is it even possible to make a statement like that with a straight face?

 

For it to have any salient value you would have to first prove either of those animals feel "boredom", otherwise u r just spewing words.

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Life is also about value fulfillment.

No. It is not. It is about fulfilling biological directives.

 

Value fulfillment is a very debatable concept.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

How is it even possible to make a statement like that with a straight face?

 

For it to have any salient value you would have to first prove either of those animals feel "boredom", otherwise u r just spewing words.

Sorry, but i am reasonably sure that my explanations would have no value for you, so I'm not even trying. 

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

If humans was not bored, we would not been here

???????????? never heard anyone describe evolution as "boredom driven" before! Great comedy! ????????????

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

You hit the nail on the head, Hummin.  Each and every indivualised part of creation is as vital to creation as each and every other individualised part.  A king is no more worthy or profound than a beggar.

I'm sorry, you are seriously going to argue that a random serf's life was as valuable to human progress as Shakespeare's? ????????????

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

What I meant was science has not proven what happens to us when we die.

And it never will. We will never know.

 

Do you advocate filling that gap with spiritualism or god?

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, mikebike said:

???????????? never heard anyone describe evolution as "boredom driven" before! Great comedy! ????????????

I have to agree with you here, whether it's evolution or creation/evolution,  both material and spiritual , boredom has not much to do with it.

It's more about hard work imho. 

[mikebike]

14 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Sorry, but i am reasonably sure that my explanations would have no value for you, so I'm not even trying. 

Wow. How condescending of you.

[Hummin]

8 minutes ago, mikebike said:

???????????? never heard anyone describe evolution as "boredom driven" before! Great comedy! ????????????

Here, meaning this platform, or wasting time on any platform on internet like most of us do, like we do something important. Maybe changing somebody’s view, ????

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

I have to agree with you here, whether it's evolution or creation/evolution,  both material and spiritual , boredom has not much to do with it.

It's more about hard work imho. 

I would not becto sure, boredom can create great things under right circumstances, but it was not my point of my post where my meaning was cut down to one single sentence, and changed meaning to evolution. 
 

However social media will change humans future and will eventually be part of our evolution? Or not?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Wow. How condescending of you.

You are very condescending, i could never aspire to that level.

Can you read your own posts ?

Well try, and be honest, if you can ????