Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

@VincentRJ

 

I have to compliment you, Vince.  We've had a lot of exchanges of the years (that long?) but one thing I've noticed about you is that, unlike many other posters, you are NOT narrow-minded.  Quite the opposite.  And for that I have utmost respect for you. 

 

I had an idea just now that might provide some clarity to you about science and the methodology of science.  We had gone round on this before.  Now elsewhere on this forum I had posted an analogy which I think quite fittingly explains my views here.  But to repurpose it to include science requires a mere tweaking.  Hope you enjoy. 

 

**********

 

Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object.  They are each asked to interpret what this object is.  The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision.  Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool.  The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match.  Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well.

 

Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it.  And so he takes a few steps back.  Now more of this object is revealed to him.  He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him.

 

A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive.  B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back.

 

A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same.  B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception.  Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's.  And so a heated argument begins.

 

A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives.  B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives.  That is not the problem as B once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has.  But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently.  B communicates what he perceives back to A.  A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive.  And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be.  For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well.  And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist.

 

B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive."  B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point.  A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense.  In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is.  B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set.  But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him.

 

A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it.  In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too.  And I'm not crazy!!  You're crazy!!!"

 

A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!"

 

**********

 

So here's my tweaking.  A, who has his nose damn near pressed against the object he is trying to discern has a limited field of vision.  Let's assume that limited vision to be A's 'one' reality, the physical world and universe.  That is all that A is aware of . . . as long as his nose is pressed up against it for he is therefore unable to discern that which he cannot perceive.  Let's also say that that particular view of A's is individual, independent, and quite valid as itself.  Yet it is only a part of this greater humongous object.  We'll also say that this individual, independent, and quite valid portion has it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Let's call these laws what they are, as A knows them to be - the laws of physics.  Let's call the attributes, or the main attribute, objectivity.

 

Now stepping back A could see that his particular view, which represents only a small portion of this object, is only one of many.  A mosaic, if you will.  But A could, rather than stepping back, slide his nose along the surface of the object until, from A's new perspective, his view is of something else.  Another mosaic.  Now this new view of an entirely different mosaic would also be individual, independent, and quite valid, and with it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Yet the attributes are completely different, as are it's governing laws.  The laws of the previous mosaic do not apply to this mosaic.  Nor do the laws of this new mosaic apply to the previous one.

 

So in conclusion, A then realises that in his probing of his mosaic, in an effort to understand what it is and how it works, the tools and methodologies he uses to explore his mosaic cannot be used on, or in, another mosaic.  For the characteristics and attributes and laws are completely different.  A cannot use his tools and methodologies there so, though he understands now that other mosaics indeed exist, he also understands now that there is no way to bring proof of that mosaic's existence to his previous mosaic.

 

And so that is my analogy to explain my endless insistence that our science's methodologies are useless in proving so much else that exists because it's existence is in quite different terms.  In other words, subjective reality cannot be proven to exist in objective terms.  Such as a thought, an idea, for instance.  We can prove their existence only via their effects on objective reality.  But we cannot prove the existence of the thing itself objectively.

 

The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists.  Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air.  Or the ether, whichever you prefer. 

 

One other point I'd like to make is that there are indeed a set of universal laws which apply to all realities.

 

Let me know if this makes sense to you.  I'm curious. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

The thesaurus....at least one book we all have in common. 🤣

Thesaurus Rex...

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/17/2024 at 3:03 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

Just poking fun, TBL.    Waltzing?  Does anyone do that anymore? 

I used to every Saturday night, when there was an old tyme dance. But that was way back before the world went mad and started saying there was more than one gender and it's OK to be a cat.

A simpler and a better world, at least for us western people.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Thesaurus Rex...

 

 

I'd have given you 50 thumbs up, but alas I'm restricted to one.

[Red Phoenix]

8 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Thesaurus Rex...

 

 

~Naaah, It's a Tippasaurus - the even more verbose version of the dreaded Thesaurus...

= = =

No offence meant Tippa, just poking some harmless fun (but with an underlying message)...

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/17/2024 at 3:04 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

No do post a video of you "shaping" (if you dare).  THAT would be fun to watch. 

I dare not as if it got onto social media the ladies would be throwing their underwear at me ( think Tom Jones x 100 ) wherever I go, and I can't be responsible for the stores running out.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/16/2024 at 4:46 PM, Tippaporn said:

Man, I would love to replicate that ideal again here. 

Hmmmmm. Last time I had with a relationship like that was in 1969. The only time in my life when I made friends easily was from 1969 to 1978, but that was so different from my present life it could have been in an alternate universe. If God almighty came in my door and asked me when I'd like to live forever ( think groundhog day ) it would be that decade of my life.

It's a bit sad that all my best days were so long ago.

[thaibeachlovers]

41 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists.  Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air.  Or the ether, whichever you prefer.

and on that I agree 100%. Having experienced many inexplicable events, the very idea that everything can be explained scientifically is a nonsense.

[Sunmaster]

53 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

@VincentRJ

 

I have to compliment you, Vince.  We've had a lot of exchanges of the years (that long?) but one thing I've noticed about you is that, unlike many other posters, you are NOT narrow-minded.  Quite the opposite.  And for that I have utmost respect for you. 

 

I had an idea just now that might provide some clarity to you about science and the methodology of science.  We had gone round on this before.  Now elsewhere on this forum I had posted an analogy which I think quite fittingly explains my views here.  But to repurpose it to include science requires a mere tweaking.  Hope you enjoy. 

 

**********

 

Imagine two people standing in front of an object of immense proportion, both standing with their noses almost touching this object.  They are each asked to interpret what this object is.  The one person, we'll refer to him as individual A, begins to provide his conclusions based on what data is apparent within his field of vision.  Now this person makes use of only their intellect as his perceptive tool.  The other person provides his conclusion and the two conclusions basically match.  Yet this other individual, we'll call him individual B, makes use of not only his intellect as a perceptive tool but his intuition as well.

 

Now whilst A is accepting the reality of this object at face value, given, of course, the amount of data he has to work with B's intuition is telling him that there's more to this object than what he is able to observe whilst his nose is pressed up against it.  And so he takes a few steps back.  Now more of this object is revealed to him.  He continues to step back, further and further until the entirety of the object is viewable to him.

 

A questions not that what he perceives is all that there is to perceive.  B's intuition causes him to question and that questioning is precisely what leads B to step back.

 

A then begins a conversation with B and asks whether his perception is the same.  B responds that, no, from his new vantage point his perception is greater since he has much more data available to him than he had with his much narrower perception.  Therefore his perception of what this object is does not match A's.  And so a heated argument begins.

 

A accuses B of being stupid for not perceiving what A perceives.  B shouts back, as there is quite some distance between them now, that he does indeed perceives what A perceives.  That is not the problem as B once had the limited perception and data set that A currently has.  But from his new vantage point, and with the new data available which this vantage point affords, he is able to perceive as A but also to perceive differently.  B communicates what he perceives back to A.  A has taken his limited perception and limited data set at face value, and furthermore firmly believes this to be the only perception possible of this object, as he also believes that what he perceives is all there is to perceive.  And so A yells back at B accusing him of being delusional for what he claims his perception to be.  For if what B claims to exist, per his perception and greater data set, is true then A would, or should, be able to perceive it as well.  And since A cannot perceive it then what B perceives cannot exist.

 

B shouts back at A, "Well, then, step back a bit to where I am and you, too, will be able to perceive what I perceive."  B then begins to provide to A the added data which was impossible to have from his initial vantage point.  A then accuses B of being non-rational and making no sense.  In return A provides B with his rationale and logic which supports the "truth" of what this object is.  B then counters to A with the fact that A's rationale and logic only appear sound given A's limited data set.  But with a greater data set then A's logical flaws would become apparent to him.

 

A refuses to suspend his beliefs as to what this object is and so refuses to step back from it.  In fact he indignantly shouts to A, "Well, what you're saying is crazy talk and no way am I going to go your way as I would then be crazy, too.  And I'm not crazy!!  You're crazy!!!"

 

A then exists the thread with a "humph!!!"

 

**********

 

So here's my tweaking.  A, who has his nose damn near pressed against the object he is trying to discern has a limited field of vision.  Let's assume that limited vision to be A's 'one' reality, the physical world and universe.  That is all that A is aware of . . . as long as his nose is pressed up against it for he is therefore unable to discern that which he cannot perceive.  Let's also say that that particular view of A's is individual, independent, and quite valid as itself.  Yet it is only a part of this greater humongous object.  We'll also say that this individual, independent, and quite valid portion has it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Let's call these laws what they are, as A knows them to be - the laws of physics.  Let's call the attributes, or the main attribute, objectivity.

 

Now stepping back A could see that his particular view, which represents only a small portion of this object, is only one of many.  A mosaic, if you will.  But A could, rather than stepping back, slide his nose along the surface of the object until, from A's new perspective, his view is of something else.  Another mosaic.  Now this new view of an entirely different mosaic would also be individual, independent, and quite valid, and with it's own unique attributes, characteristics and laws.  Yet the attributes are completely different, as are it's governing laws.  The laws of the previous mosaic do not apply to this mosaic.  Nor do the laws of this new mosaic apply to the previous one.

 

So in conclusion, A then realises that in his probing of his mosaic, in an effort to understand what it is and how it works, the tools and methodologies he uses to explore his mosaic cannot be used on, or in, another mosaic.  For the characteristics and attributes and laws are completely different.  A cannot use his tools and methodologies there so, though he understands now that other mosaics indeed exist, he also understands now that there is no way to bring proof of that mosaic's existence to his previous mosaic.

 

And so that is my analogy to explain my endless insistence that our science's methodologies are useless in proving so much else that exists because it's existence is in quite different terms.  In other words, subjective reality cannot be proven to exist in objective terms.  Such as a thought, an idea, for instance.  We can prove their existence only via their effects on objective reality.  But we cannot prove the existence of the thing itself objectively.

 

The idea that everything can ultimately be proven scientifically is an idea which is grounded in, and wholly dependent upon, the idea that objective reality is the one and only reality which exists.  Destroy the idea of a single reality and the idea which existence is dependent upon vanishes into thin air.  Or the ether, whichever you prefer. 

 

One other point I'd like to make is that there are indeed a set of universal laws which apply to all realities.

 

Let me know if this makes sense to you.  I'm curious. 

Now let me introduce fellow C.

He sees A and B bickering over the object's look, endlessly discussing this and that propriety. C is not satisfied with any of it.
He read somewhere that there is an even better way to know the object than to just stepping back and looking at it and then describing it. He heard that the best way to know the object is to close his eyes, step away from all the mind stuff and identify with the object, in other words....become one with the object. So he does that and thus gains an even higher vantage point of understanding the object, which is now no longer an object, but his own body. He understands that all other vantage points are too limited to grasp the full existence of the object as they still rely on the mind to translate what they see into words. Being the object gives C a complete, immediate and natural understanding, without the filters and distortions of the mind.

Happily, C tells both A and B about his discovery. They look at him in disbelieve. A thinks he's even crazier than B. B takes out his notebook and tries to tell C that what C is saying does not match what the notebook is saying and tells C that he must be mistaken. If C could only study his notebook better, he would see the error too.
So C smiles at himself and goes for a walk.

Edited January 18 by Sunmaster

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

Thesaurus Rex...

 

 

 

Plain English:  That was frickin' awesome, RP.

 

Tippers speak:  I extend my benediction for the boisterous cachinnate you conferred.  I retained that meritorious lampoon for posterity. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/17/2024 at 3:08 PM, Tippaporn said:

 

Odd.  I can't find it on YouTube. 

Perhaps not. It was a big hit for Orbison, but not Shepard, though I prefer her version- much more gutsy.

If you can watch Ally McBeal it's in episode 11 of season 2

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps not. It was a big hit for Orbison, but not Shepard, though I prefer her version- much more gutsy.

If you can watch Ally McBeal it's in episode 11 of season 2

 

I was a bit surprised.  I mean, you can find almost anything on YouTube.  (Except Hendrix as his sister is vigilant about having them removed on copyright grounds.  She wants every last penny that her brother earned for herself.)

 

Edited January 18 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

24 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmmm. Last time I had with a relationship like that was in 1969. The only time in my life when I made friends easily was from 1969 to 1978, but that was so different from my present life it could have been in an alternate universe. If God almighty came in my door and asked me when I'd like to live forever ( think groundhog day ) it would be that decade of my life.

It's a bit sad that all my best days were so long ago.

 

Wanna be my friend, TBL?  Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs. 

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs.

Hey, waddabout me?!

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

I was a bit surprised.  I mean, you can find almost anything on YouTube.  (Except Hendrix as his sister is vigilant about having them removed on copyright grounds.  She wants every last penny that her brother earned for herself.)

 

Alas you can't find "anything" on U Tube, especially the clips I want to watch. I'm an AKB48 fan, but it's hard to find anything that's very good of them. Lots of clips but mostly rubbish, and they are pants on anime.

[Tippaporn]

37 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~Naaah, It's a Tippasaurus - the even more verbose version of the dreaded Thesaurus...

= = =

No offence meant Tippa, just poking some harmless fun (but with an underlying message)...

 

 

Ya know if yer not careful then sooner or later I'm gonna come after your ar$e and sue you to kingdom come.  First an assault when you shoved me (hard) and now making me into a parody.  Hmm . . . What would be the criminal offense for that.  I'll have to consult my attorney and get back to ya.  Until then, just don't leave the country. 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Wanna be my friend, TBL?  Of course if we do that 60's or 70's style we'll need some drugs. 

Perhaps I'm unusual but I never had any illegal drugs except a bit of weed in 1977 which did absolutely nothing for me. Never bothered after that.

[cncltd1973]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:25 AM, ivor bigun said:

 

It has fasinated me for years that people can believe in god and that Jesus was born to his virgin mother .

When you realize that there are so many billions of planets across hundreds of billions of light years.

It must be great to believe in a God and that one day you will be reunited with your loved ones a lady once said to me that she knows she will meet Jesus when she dies,i thought gosh he must be busy sitting down with the billions of people who die.

Do you really believe in him or any of the other Gods ?

 

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

Freud said we create religions to escape the punishment of things we did wrong, it's one of the earliest traumas we go through as children so we create that escape through faith. Hitchens says all religion is man made because there is more than one religion. I think the metaphysical energy that inhabits all living things is called nature. When you die, return to the light - that is the source of energy from where we came and from where we will go, perpetually perceiving experience like a nerve ending for nature to perceive existence. Nature is the organism and we are a product within that process. The first Hermetic principal: the All is mind, the universe is mental.

[Tippaporn]

43 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

. . . (but with an underlying message)...

 

 

 

Huh?  I don't get it.   

 

And if I did then my excuse is that I'm too old to change. 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Now let me introduce fellow C.

He sees A and B bickering over the object's look, endlessly discussing this and that propriety. C is not satisfied with any of it.
He read somewhere that there is an even better way to know the object than to just stepping back and looking at it and then describing it. He heard that the best way to know the object is to close his eyes, step away from all the mind stuff and identify with the object, in other words....become one with the object. So he does that and thus gains an even higher vantage point of understanding the object, which is now no longer an object, but his own body. He understands that all other vantage points are too limited to grasp the full existence of the object as they still rely on the mind to translate what they see into words. Being the object gives C a complete, immediate and natural understanding, without the filters and distortions of the mind.

Happily, C tells both A and B about his discovery. They look at him in disbelieve. A thinks he's even crazier than B. B takes out his notebook and tries to tell C that what C is saying does not match what the notebook is saying and tells C that he must be mistaken. If C could only study his notebook better, he would see the error too.
So C smiles at himself and goes for a walk.

 

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today.  The thanks I get . . .  

 

In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid.  It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule.  Sorry, Sunmaster. 

[Sunmaster]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today.  The thanks I get . . .  

 

In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid.  It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule.  Sorry, Sunmaster. 

You say that as if a threesome were a bad thing...ts ts ts
I thought you were open-minded...

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

~Naaah, It's a Tippasaurus - the even more verbose version of the dreaded Thesaurus...

= = =

No offence meant Tippa, just poking some harmless fun (but with an underlying message)...

 

 

Like I said, I had 120+ kilo bear down on my lithe 61+ kilo frame, pounded into kitty litter with a concrete floor as padding, and I immediately jumped up and shook it off.  Nah, you don't weigh that much.  Do you?   

[Chris Daley]

Thank you God for killing all the babies in the middle east.  After all God moves in mysterious ways.

[Tippaporn]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

You say that as if a threesome were a bad thing...ts ts ts
I thought you were open-minded...

 

Are you admitting to having a tryst?  Sinner!!  And your greater self didn't reject you for your impurity?  Good luck connecting with your greater self now after your drunken escapade this past New Year's Eve. 

 

Now that we've swept the eggshells away and understand each other, I can now tell you a deep secret.  Someone once confided to me that they thought you were a cheap Charlie in passing out deserved reactions. 

[Tippaporn]

5 minutes ago, Chris Daley said:

Thank you God for killing all the babies in the middle east.  After all God moves in mysterious ways.

 

Showing off your ignorance?

[Sunmaster]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Are you admitting to having a tryst?  Sinner!!  And your greater self didn't reject you for your impurity?  Good luck connecting with your greater self now after your drunken escapade this past New Year's Eve. 

 

Now that we've swept the eggshells away and understand each other, I can now tell you a deep secret.  Someone once confided to me that they thought you were a cheap Charlie in passing out deserved reactions. 

You said it first... "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The cave in the Himalayas will be there waiting for me for when I'm ready. 

Are you saying I'm not stroking egos enough? 
There you go: 

[Chris Daley]

I wonder what part of killing babies is ''all knowing'' ''all seeing''  or ''all powerful.''

 

''Thou shalt not kill.'' punishment by death.  It's all good stuff.

[Sunmaster]

I made a neat little sandbox for the Trolls to play in, but they still prefer to come here. Go figure...

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

Man, between you and RP you boys are drubbing my ar$e today.  The thanks I get . . .  

 

In all seriousness, though, you're analogy is invalid.  It violates the "two's company, three's a crowd" rule.  Sorry, Sunmaster. 

Seriously though, what do you think about the 3rd option. Maybe that's what Seth meant by "becoming the thought"?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

You said it first... "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." The cave in the Himalayas will be there waiting for me for when I'm ready. 

 

Don't forget to leave your mailing address for your family. 

 

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Are you saying I'm not stroking egos enough? 
There you go: 

 

My ego thanks you. 

 

Unfortunately there's no <whipping> emoticon for yours.