Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have said this before but even in the world of god, dreams, spirituality, the 10th dimension, things may work differently but that difference can be described and is science. Even if no rules apply that is  a thing that can be described and science can attempt to work it out to make the dream world consistent with the known world. If there is a different so far unknown world.

Apparently you think that science knows everything 5555555555555555555

 

Science can only deal with what it can measure.

It is impotent to measure faith or belief.

Even some scientists admit there is much out there that they don't understand.

Edited March 20, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[Fat is a type of crazy]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Apparently you think that science knows everything 5555555555555555555

Science doesn’t know anything for sure. I am saying that unless there is somewhere in the universe where thought and questions are impossible you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is. If you see the sunset you mentioned it makes you believe in god. You could stop there and have faith that it is god. Or you can ask yourself why you think it is a sign of god ie what is the feeling that suggests god, could there be other explanations, what might god be that makes me feel this way. Those questions are the beginnings of science. The alternative of faith might work better for you and that’s fine. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Fat is a type of crazy

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Science doesn’t know anything for sure. I am saying that unless there is somewhere in the universe where thought and questions are impossible you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is. If you see the sunset it makes you mentioned it makes you believe in god. You could stop there and faith that it is god. Or you can ask yourself why you think it is a sign of god ie what is the feeling that suggests god, could there be other explanations, what might god be that makes me feel this way. Those questions are the beginnings of science. The alternative of faith might work better for you and that’s fine. 

One can think of nature at it's most microscopic and realise that it was created or one can be of the opinion that it is all just an accident. I believe it was created, but do you think it is all just an accident, and if so we are just an accidental species, of no more importance than an ant or a cockroach?

[mauGR1]

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

you can consider what is going on where you are and if you don’t simply rely on your feelings, but feelings can be a factor, but look at what is going on and attempt objectivity that is all science is.

That's a good point, yet it appears that materialistic science doesn't have a high opinion of " feelings ".

Instead,  spiritual science gives a lot of importance to feelings, which are connected with imagination and desire, which are connected with thoughts, which are connected to actions and results in the material world.

All of this " soup" ingredients are the ingredients of your spiritual body, which is called " soul".

[Tippaporn]

9 hours ago, Elad said:

I'm afraid you and Seth are just wrong about time. Time is real, its relative and there is no absolute time in the universe, the notion of NOW universally doesn't exist. Time being relative has been verified experimentally with atomic clocks on satellites orbiting the Earth. For satellites in orbit there's two factors of time dilation going on, gravitational time dilation where clocks in a weaker gravitational field tick more rapidly, and there's time dilation due to special relativity where moving clocks tick more slowly.

 

For satellites in a low Earth orbit where the orbital speed is higher then the effects of special relativity dominates and the clocks on board tick more slowly relative to Earth based clocks. For satellites in a high Earth orbit (like our GPS at 20,000 km above the Earth's surface) where orbital speeds are much slower, then the gravitational time dilation dominates and those clocks tick faster than the Earth based clocks. In fact there exist an orbit where both effects of time dilation cancel each other out which is about 1.5 Earth radii or 3,200 km above the surface, and clocks there keep in sync with Earth clocks.

 

If time was just an illusion as you say, then why do we have to correct for these effects on our GPS because if we didn't make these corrections, then the errors in positions of GPS receivers would accumulate at the rate of tens of km per day. The fact that we have to make these corrections verifies that time is real.

And BTW its not just the clocks that are ticking more slowly/rapidly, if a human was in the same reference frame as the clock then their heartbeat, metabolism and any biological processes slow down or speed up relative to someone on Earth. These effects are very small for Earth orbits but when speeds are close to the speed of light or gravity is very strong then the effects are significant. 

 

I noticed you were using relativity of simultaneity in relation to events within our past and future light-cones. Did you know that relativity of simultaneity is specific to space-like separated events (i.e. events that are not causally connected and not within our past and future light-cone) where two space-like events are simultaneous in one frame of reference, are not in other frames. In fact the ordering of events can be reversed for space-like events, if event 1 precedes event 2 in one frame, then there will exist a frame where event 2 precedes event 1.

No paradoxes involved here because the events are not causally connected.

 

For time-like separated events (i.e. events that are causally connected and therefore within your past and future light-cone) then the ordering of events cannot be reversed nor can they be simultaneous no matter what the reference frame. For time-like separated events the causal event always precedes effect.

 

@Tippaporn you should take some time to study special relativity, to where you can read Minkowski  spacetime diagrams, use the Lorentz transformations and understand the relativity of simultaneity, then come back here and tell us if you think time is real. ????    

All you are describing here, Elad, is how time works in our physical reality.  I'm well aware of how it works here.  Yes, time is real.

"Time is real, its relative and there is no absolute time in the universe, the notion of NOW universally doesn't exist."

Here, in your admission that time is relative, you seem to be agreeing with what I am saying here:

"It should be understood that the key take away, or the key understanding to be had, is that time is only  . . . only . . . something that is experienced as such and such or so and so."

My above statement is pointing out, and in complete agreement with your admission that time is relative.  Our experience of time is relative to our particular position in a physical reality which has that experience of time, one moment following another with each moment fading into what we then call past, built into the cake.  That, my friend, is too self-evident to require any further explanation.

What you have not considered yet, logically deduced from the fact that you have not addressed this very crucial point, is my statement that you, and we, are always in the NOW.  We are never outside of it.  Our experience is always in the present moment.  Our experience doesn't occur in the past, nor does it occur in the future.  Our experience occurs only in the present moment.  That fact must be accounted for, included in any equation which attempts to define and explain the reality of time.

Time is relative.  And it can be experienced in many different ways other than our "normal" experience of it.  There exist systems of reality in which time can be experienced in reverse.  And for the inhabitants of that system of reality that would be their "normal" perception of time.  And their experience of time would be built into their cake.  And then there are realities in which time doesn't even exist.  I fully understand and am aware of how unfathomable that statement would be to comprehend.  And yet I say it nonetheless.

Now you might think that I've now totally gone off the deep end by merely alluding to the existence of other realities.  I am now spouting complete and utter nonsense andy you may be thinking to yourself that you might be better of to simply dismiss me altogether and conclude that I'm off my rocker.  So I will say that the single most reason which is the culprit for preventing any true understanding of time, along with so much else, is the idea that physical reality is all there is.  Until folks get past the idea that physical reality, our precious and beloved physical reality, is not the only one.

I understand fully that folks who believe that physical reality is all there is will continue in their attempts to explain what reality is and how it works using the false assumption that there is only one reality which exists and will never then understand the true nature of even our reality, let alone an understanding of how our reality fits in with all other realities.   For they are all connected.

So do you now dismiss me as a kook, Elad?  Read Seth's many discussions and explanations of what time is if you're interested in gaining a different perspective.  If you insist on maintaining your current perspective because your "fine with it" then I'm fine with that, too.  But I will tell you, whether you agree or not, whether you like it or not, that your current perspective is extremely limited.

Anyway. I appreciate your very well thought out response and the fact that you've cut out some of your precious time (excuse the pun) to reply as a serious person.  I just hope that you understand and grant that I, too, am a very serious person.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One can think of nature at it's most microscopic and realise that it was created or one can be of the opinion that it is all just an accident. I believe it was created, but do you think it is all just an accident, and if so we are just an accidental species, of no more importance than an ant or a cockroach?

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans. 

[mauGR1]

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

Likely we are the same. Maybe humans are significantly different to other life forms through evolution rather than god anointing us in some way. We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness,We can have man made rules that killing a cockroach is less significant because we perceive them as less alive in a sense based on awareness, consciousness, and the way they live. Not and the way they live. Not sure justified or not. Keep in mind the sunset you find beautiful is in the environment in which humans evolved. Warm weather, beautiful things etc feel good for us, in my opinion, as an adaption by humans to the world not a god made world created to be beautiful to humans. 

Warning, you are a little step away from being a believer. 

.. just if you start asking yourself whether consciousness originates from humans, or, most likely  imho, it's already here and there, regardless of our life on this tiny planet.

[KhunLA]

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO you've joined the club of people that think Religion IS God, instead of ABOUT God.

It's not essential to be religious to believe that God exists.

Incorrect again.  Was never religious.  Although belief in GOD and Jesus, go hand in hand in Christianity.   Religions are a total joke, and I can't believe anyone attempts to follow their silliness, as almost impossible, and why they/ALL members of are hypocrites ... IMHO

 

I'm not seeing the good works of GOD, if exists, then the Devil is kicking his A$$ in human's world.   Aside from people killing people for sport, and the constant wars for profit, someone please explain creating cancer for kids to suffer with while wasting away to death.

 

Do that, and you'll convert me.  Good Luck

Edited March 20, 2023 by KhunLA

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

please explain creating cancer for kids to suffer with while wasting away to death.

Why only children? You can ask why God created cancer for all. Or simply ask, why did God create death. 
Should everything created last forever? Would that be practical? Would you want to be immortal? Why?

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Incorrect again.  Was never religious.  Although belief in GOD and Jesus, go hand in hand in Christianity.   Religions are a total joke, and I can't believe anyone attempts to follow their silliness, as almost impossible, and why they/ALL members of are hypocrites ... IMHO

 

I'm not seeing the good works of GOD, if exists, then the Devil is kicking his A$$ in human's world.   Aside from people killing people for sport, and the constant wars for profit, someone please explain creating cancer for kids to suffer with while wasting away to death.

 

Do that, and you'll convert me.  Good Luck

God didn't specifically design cancer in children. Nature isn't perfect, and people are not born perfect. Disease is part of nature. You might as well ask why species kill other species for food- isn't it a tragedy that lovely lambs are killed so we can eat yummy food?

My question to you is that if you don't believe in God, why do you think cancer in children is bad? Isn't it just part of life? Do you think God is human, and decided that it would be a good idea to give cancer to children?

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Do that, and you'll convert me.  Good Luck

Not interested in converting anyone. Believe in whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.

I'm on here to take part in the conversation and to hopefully learn something. None of us know everything and learning is always good.

[KhunLA]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

God didn't specifically design cancer in children. Nature isn't perfect, and people are not born perfect. Disease is part of nature. You might as well ask why species kill other species for food- isn't it a tragedy that lovely lambs are killed so we can eat yummy food?

My question to you is that if you don't believe in God, why do you think cancer in children is bad? Isn't it just part of life? Do you think God is human, and decided that it would be a good idea to give cancer to children?

And there's the spin, if it's good, God created, did it, if not, then it's something else, 'works in mysterious ways', and now, 'it's nature'.

 

Did not God create everything ?

 

Sounding like a movie script ... this scene I love, classic by Byrne, and @ 2:10, ????

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by KhunLA

[KhunLA]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Why only children? You can ask why God created cancer for all. Or simply ask, why did God create death. 
Should everything created last forever? Would that be practical? Would you want to be immortal? Why?

Now you're getting silly.   Why create a life, to simply have it die, before born, just after born, or suffer for years.

@thaibeachlovers

Yes .. it's nature, that's all it is.   For anyone, think to come up with that idea, is about as F'd up as can be.   And I'm supposed to believe and worship that ?

 

Don't think so.   That's an A$$hole, and we'll have words if God's real ????

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

And there's the spin, if it's good, God created, did it, if not, then it's something else, 'works in mysterious ways', and now, 'it's nature'.

Well, it is nature, isn't it?
Your assumption is that because cancer in children exists (or simply put, death exists), then that means there can't be a God. 
So my question is, what should God do to satisfy your sense of justice and make you happy? Eliminate all diseases and death? Animals shouldn't kill each other? People shouldn't kill animals for food? 

[KhunLA]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not interested in converting anyone. Believe in whatever you want. Makes no difference to me.

I'm on here to take part in the conversation and to hopefully learn something. None of us know everything and learning is always good.

I learned all I needed, to realize it's a farce.

Agnostic - Christian - Agnostic - Atheist

 

When ignorant, nothing made sense, then became an ignorant Christian, and it all seemed to make sense.   Then thought about it, and actually researched this Jesus guy and not even sure he existed.

 

Not believing, and now everything DOES make sense.  Belief in God is control, nothing else, nothing more, especially in religion.

 

People see the light when they find GOD.

I saw the light, when I stopped believing.

Edited March 20, 2023 by KhunLA

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

The relativity of simultaneity seems to be a condition unique to the physical/material universe or 3D (4D if you count time). The timelessness Tippaporn is talking about(Ithink), becomes plausible when talking about higher dimensions (5D+). 

In essence, the relativity of simultaneity is bound to 3D and doesn't apply to 5D+.

 

In that sense, you may be both right.

As with soooo much else, a true paradox as both answers are indeed correct.  Time exists and time does not exist at the same time (again, excuse the pun).  The paradox is solved by understanding that time exists differently depending on what system of reality one is looking at.  Again, time is relative.  One may eventually come to an even truer understanding of time when the realisation dawns that time is simply a mental construct.

OMG, did I really say that? 

I'm furiously trying to delete that statement but it won't erase itself!!  Oh, well, I guess I'll have to live by my words. 

[mauGR1]

20 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The paradox is solved by understanding that time exists differently depending on what system of reality one is looking at.  Again, time is relative.  

Holy words. 

I think Louis Armstrong, also known as Satchmo, or "the angel of harlem, would agree.

 

 

[Sunmaster]

 

I'm a visual learner, so this is my take on the question of time.

I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say

1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). 

I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer.
 

An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. 

This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center.

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

 

 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

 

I'm a visual learner, so this is my take on the question of time.

I imagine a rotating disc, the "disc of creation". As we know, the edges of the disc will rotate much faster than the center. The closer we get to the center, the lower the speed. Imagining the center being close to infinite (say

1×10−a gazillion), makes time at that point close to zero (timeless/NOW). 

I also imagine there to be a slope, with the highest point in the center. That way, the center has a 360 degree view of the whole disc at all times. The closer you get to the edge, the less of the disc is visible to the observer.
 

An observer on the edge of the disc will experience time very differently from an observer on other points of the disc, closer to the center. For the observer on the edge, time seems to be linear, with a past, a present and a future, but for the observer closer to the center, those 3 points are observable and coexist all at the same time. 

This model explains the paradox Tippaporn was talking about. Time exists, is relative to the distance from the center, becomes less binding the closer we get to the center, and ceases to exist at the center.

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

 

 

Excellent, although diagrams can only be a pale reflection of " all that exist", this is a good one !

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Not believing, and now everything DOES make sense.  Belief in God is control, nothing else, nothing more, especially in religion.

Where do you get that from- that's religion?

 

IMO God created the  material that became the universe and created the physical laws that allowed that material to become stars and planets etc. So disease is as a result of creation happening, not because God wants children to die horribly.

Actually, why would God care about children dying? Isn't a force that can create the universe above and beyond such, when God also created black holes that can swallow entire solar systems with all the life in them.

Might as well ask why God created humans that killed whales barbarically.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

 And I'm supposed to believe and worship that ?

That's up to you. Believe or don't believe, it's your choice. The Inquisition ended a long time ago.

 

It must be a bit of a problem for you though. If God doesn't exist, then cancer in children is just the way it is, with nothing to blame it on.

Can you explain how the universe began if it wasn't created? Did that big cloud of gas floating around in empty space just magically appear out of nothing? Do you think that something can come out of nothing?

Edited March 20, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[KhunLA]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Where do you get that from- that's religion?

 

IMO God created the  material that became the universe and created the physical laws that allowed that material to become stars and planets etc. So disease is as a result of creation happening, not because God wants children to die horribly.

Actually, why would God care about children dying? Isn't a force that can create the universe above and beyond such, when God also created black holes that can swallow entire solar systems with all the life in them.

Might as well ask why God created humans that killed whales barbarically.

So you just believe, God basically started everything, and it now just runs on auto pilot, the good and the bad.

 

Do you believe in a heaven & hell (afterlife) ?

Do you believe in prayer, and being answered ?

If answered (saved from terminal illness), God's miracle ?

if not answered, 'works in mysterious ways' BS ?

 

If God created everything, who or what created God, or are we going with the 'always was, always will be' theory.  And there is no other or need to be, it's just is.

 

All of which, none can be proved or disproved. 

 

Just the Christian Bible is so wacked, you'd have to be total idiot to believe any of that.  No need to attempt to disprove that, it does that all by itself.

[save the frogs]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

You must be a genius. I humbly bow down to your higher intellect.  

no, i never said i was a genius.

but you guys won't stop talking about abstract concepts (that may or may not make any sense) to make yourselves look smart.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by save the frogs

[save the frogs]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So, where is God in this model? "God" is the center of the "disc of creation", all seeing, all knowing, timeless. But God is also the disc itself. There is nothing in creation that is not God. 

God is timeless.

that is DEEP!

Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep.

 

[Sunmaster]

5 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

no, i never said i was a genius.

but you guys won't stop talking about abstract concepts (that may or may not make any sense) to make yourselves look smart.

So you're saying you don't understand the concepts we discuss and you blame us for that!?

That's funny. Funny. Funny. Funny. 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Sunmaster

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

God is timeless.

that is DEEP!

Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep.

 

Anyway, I thought you left the discussion already. 3-4 times actually. 

Are you some kind of masochist? 

[save the frogs]

you have entered a dimension beyond time and space.

you have entered the twilight zone.

 

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

you have entered a dimension beyond time and space.

you have entered the twilight zone.

 

The only twilight zone is the space between your ears.

And I'm not even joking.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

no, i never said i was a genius.

but you guys won't stop talking about abstract concepts (that may or may not make any sense) to make yourselves look smart.

A lot of the concepts discussed here aren't abstract at all.  It's probably the case where you fail to understand something and then due to your failure to understand it you classify it as abstract.  That way you can pretend that it's not a lack of understanding on your part . . . why it's simply a bunch of stupid, meaningless abstract concepts.

"(that may or may not make any sense)"

 

What a joke.

In any case, you come here with the sole intention of disparaging everyone here.  You create endless conspiracy theories and never back them up with anything other than your divisive and derogatory opinions.  We're gurus.  We're false prophets.  We're just trying to deceive people.  We're attempting to make ourselves look smart.  And again, all you have is your opinion.  Which, quite frankly, is worthless.  And embarrassing.  But I'm sure you're the type of guy who can act like an utter fool and not feel the slightest tinge of embarrassment.  No shame.

Take some good advice, save the frogs.  Be a serious person, show some personal integrity . . . both of which you are capable of displaying . . . or else go get a life.  Do something worthwhile and uplifting for yourself.

 

Edited March 20, 2023 by Tippaporn

[save the frogs]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

The only twilight zone is the space between your ears.

And I'm not even joking.

yep, and you're a hamster on a wheel.

we're on page 564.

KhunLa is still asking the same question.

and you think it's because people are slow

rather than admit that there's a problem with your explanations.