Do you believe in God and why

[Ventenio]

scientists and religious nut jobs are both crazy; however, i would trust a scientist over a bible beater.  we don't even know the perfect diet after a zillion years, and dark matter is some gravity something or well we were 99 percent sure now, after we published our work and got paid, we really don't know.  but i feel scientists TRY to use their brain.  and that's enough for me.  

 

if i had to guess, the average IQ of a scientist is about 130.  average IQ of a bible worshiper is 80. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religion requires men in funny hats to explain it. I came to my conclusions without the benefit of any men in funny hats. Ergo- not religion.

Religion has always existed in some form, as a method of control of the tribe and/or as an explanation for mysterious and powerful phenomena that is beyond human control. No funny hats required.

 

Anyway, no holy book says we become pure energy after death.

 

The Vedic/Buddhist concepts of Karma seem like pure energy to me. Of course, such ancient people did not have our modern understanding of the nature of matter and energy, and such concepts most probably resulted as an explanation for effects which can now be explained through our understanding of genetics and epigenetic inheritance.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41437-018-0113-y

 

If mankind doesn't become extinct through our incompetence or a comet striking the planet, IMO we evolve to become pure energy, just in time for the end of the universe.

 

According to recent observations, the expansion of the universe is not yet slowing down (as Stephen Hawking used to think). It's expanding at an accelerating rate, hence the hypothesis of the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy as an explanation.

 

It's even possible that there are extremely distant galaxies beyond the detection of our telescopes, which are travelling faster than the speed of light. The time scale of the entire evolutionary process of life on our planet, around 3.6 billion years, could be a very tiny period compared to the estimated life of the entire universe before, or even if, it eventually collapses on itself.

[Elad]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The universe is made up of matter. Particles that annihilate themselves are not going to make much of anything.

In the early universe there was an imbalance of particle antiparticle production, for every billion antimatter particles there was a billion plus 1 matter particles. Equal amounts of matter/antimatter were annihilated and the remaining matter particles are what we observe in the universe today. The cosmic microwave background radiation which we can observe today is the leftover radiation produced from the annihilation process.

 

We don't understand why there was a matter/antimatter asymmetry in the early universe, so it can be a 'gap for the Gods' for now.

[canuckamuck]

On 11/3/2019 at 6:57 PM, Elad said:

In the early universe there was an imbalance of particle antiparticle production, for every billion antimatter particles there was a billion plus 1 matter particles. Equal amounts of matter/antimatter were annihilated and the remaining matter particles are what we observe in the universe today. The cosmic microwave background radiation which we can observe today is the leftover radiation produced from the annihilation process.

 

We don't understand why there was a matter/antimatter asymmetry in the early universe, so it can be a 'gap for the Gods' for now.

That there was an antimatter/matter imbalance is simply a hypothesis. 

The something from nothing concept is a real bugaboo.

[Sunmaster]

Glad to see this thread is still going. I skimmed the past 20 pages...some good points there. ????

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

That there was an antimatter/matter imbalance is simply a hypothesis. 

The something from nothing concept is a real bugaboo.

Science requires a precise definition of the words used. What is the precise meaning of 'nothing'? Is a photon nothing? It doesn't appear to have any mass. Is a the force of gravity nothing?

 

I would suggest that 'nothing' is a word used to describe anything which we cannot detect. To claim that something can come from nothing is merely to state that we do not know what that 'something' came from.

[canuckamuck]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Science requires a precise definition of the words used. What is the precise meaning of 'nothing'? Is a photon nothing? It doesn't appear to have any mass. Is a the force of gravity nothing?

 

I would suggest that 'nothing' is a word used to describe anything which we cannot detect. To claim that something can come from nothing is merely to state that we do not know what that 'something' came from.

You might be onto something. We have no instruments or formula to detect God.

[CMNightRider]

Proverbs 28:13 People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

Proverbs 28:13 People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy.

Good point! Bad behaviour is bad, by definition. However, there is sometimes a problem in defining precisely what type of behaviour is bad, and/or how bad it is. It's not an either/or situation. There's a spectrum of behaviour from extremely good to extremely bad.

 

There is also the problem that many people conceal from themselves their own bad behaviour, or sins, and are therefore unable to confess.

[Elad]

20 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

That there was an antimatter/matter imbalance is simply a hypothesis. 

The something from nothing concept is a real bugaboo.

The matter/antimatter imbalance is part of the big bang theory which is the best current model for the very early universe. The annihilation of each particle/antiparticle produces two high energy photons (gamma rays). The number of photons observed in the CMBR is around 2 billion per matter particle in the observable universe today, which gives the imbalance of a billion antiparticles to a billion plus 1 particles. The gamma radiation that was produced in the period of annihilation, is now observed as low energy microwaves (CMBR) due to the expansion of the universe over the last 13.7 billion years.

 

Most people think of 'nothing' as a vacuum that contains no matter/energy or radiation, but the vacuum still has properties, its got 3 spatial dimension and 1 dimension of time making it 4d spacetime.

A true nothingness would be no matter, no radiation, no time and no spatial dimensions, but that, we cant even imagine because we only know of something. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

A true nothingness would be no matter, no radiation, no time and no spatial dimensions, but that, we cant even imagine because we only know of something. 

I agree. You've expressed it better than I did in post #3225.  ????

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

A true nothingness would be no matter, no radiation, no time and no spatial dimensions, but that, we cant even imagine because we only know of something. 

That is the nothingness that I'm asking about. How can something come from that nothing?

I guess I'm also asking how "God" came into being to create everything?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Good point! Bad behaviour is bad, by definition. However, there is sometimes a problem in defining precisely what type of behaviour is bad, and/or how bad it is. It's not an either/or situation. There's a spectrum of behaviour from extremely good to extremely bad.

 

There is also the problem that many people conceal from themselves their own bad behaviour, or sins, and are therefore unable to confess.

Bad is sometimes subjective. Our conscience is our guide, unless we are a psychopath. We all, except psychopath's, know when we do something wrong.

That's where opinion comes in. Some on here think prostitution is evil, others do not. In the end, if we think it's bad, it's bad for us, but not always bad for others.

Is it bad to kill someone like Hitler before he came to power and potentially save millions- that is the question that only we as individuals can answer.

 

In a previous post I remarked that the ability to feel emotions of love and appreciation of beauty are God given. I'd like to add the ability to appreciate music. Music like all sound is just a collection of vibrations. We have the ability to love or hate the sounds that we call music.

Religion certainly has some great sounding music. Can't beat "Jerusalem" for a song that creates feelings.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I would suggest that 'nothing' is a word used to describe anything which we cannot detect. To claim that something can come from nothing is merely to state that we do not know what that 'something' came from.

Sooooo, if we accept there is something out there that we do not know, is it not possible that that is "God"?

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

You might be onto something. We have no instruments or formula to detect God.

and yet, and yet, there are people on this thread that claim that they KNOW that god does not exist, and that science supports their view point.

55555555555555555555

[canuckamuck]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

A true nothingness would be no matter, no radiation, no time and no spatial dimensions, but that, we cant even imagine because we only know of something. 

Spirit does not require any of these parameters

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Spirit does not require any of these parameters

That's how I see it too. Spirit is the most fundamental "building block" of everything there is and permeates everything.

True nothingness would mean going beyond the concept of Spirit, to find a state where Spirit ceases to exist, and that in turn would mean that Spirit is not the Ultimate, the Absolute Force. That would put us out of unity, back to duality (I/0) and would be a contradiction in terms as what God/Spirit is.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

That's how I see it too. Spirit is the most fundamental "building block" of everything there is and permeates everything.

True nothingness would mean going beyond the concept of Spirit, to find a state where Spirit ceases to exist, and that in turn would mean that Spirit is not the Ultimate, the Absolute Force. That would put us out of unity, back to duality (I/0) and would be a contradiction in terms as what God/Spirit is.

We have gone beyond the concept of 'spirit', and have found a state where the Spirit ceases to exist. It's called a 'Vacuum'. No life-form, that we know, can exist in a vacuum.

 

The word 'spirit' is derived from the Latin 'Spiritus' meaning 'Breath' and 'Spirare' meaning 'Breathe'. Even very ancient people would have known how vital is breathing for survival. However, air is invisible, although one can feel its presence when one breathes, or when one moves quickly, or when the wind blows. This invisible quality of the air we breathe would have been a very mysterious situation for ancient peoples.

 

An invisible substance that is vital for life, fits the general meaning of 'spirit' throughout the ages, wouldn't you think?

 

There are also many quotes from the Bible that support this general meaning of the word. Here's one.



"Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
 

[Sunmaster]

I've read your reply a few times now but I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... 

Spirit, or God, or whatever you would call the Ultimate Source is (and must be by its own definition) beyond duality, so there can't be a state where it exists and another one where it doesn't. That would be duality.
 

[mauGR1]

58 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I've read your reply a few times now but I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... 

Spirit, or God, or whatever you would call the Ultimate Source is (and must be by its own definition) beyond duality, so there can't be a state where it exists and another one where it doesn't. That would be duality.
 

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

An invisible substance that is vital for life, fits the general meaning of 'spirit' throughout the ages, wouldn't you think?

 

There are also many quotes from the Bible that support this general meaning of the word. Here's one.



"Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
 

VincentRJ is trying to say that air (a physical element) and the spirit (God) are one and the same, which imo is completely wrong and not even worth discussing.

[ravip]

Do you believe in God and why?

No. Because it is a business.

[giddyup]

On 11/5/2019 at 4:15 PM, CMNightRider said:

Proverbs 28:13 People who conceal their sins will not prosper, but if they confess and turn from them, they will receive mercy.

Have a watch of this, might free your mind from superstition and myth.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by giddyup

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I've read your reply a few times now but I'm still not sure what you're trying to say... 

Spirit, or God, or whatever you would call the Ultimate Source is (and must be by its own definition) beyond duality, so there can't be a state where it exists and another one where it doesn't. That would be duality.
 

I've read his post once and understood it absolutely. Have not been privy to what you're on about in any of your posts. 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

 

VincentRJ is trying to say that air (a physical element) and the spirit (God) are one and the same, which imo is completely wrong and not even worth discussing.

If I was trying to say that, I would have said it. I'm not so incompetent that I have difficulty in expressing what I mean.

 

Spirituality and God are different concepts, although they are sometimes related. For example, Buddhism is very much involved in spirituality, but considers the concept of a Creator God beyond our knowledge and that investigating the issue is a waste of time, because there are more important issues to address, such as human suffering.

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

If I was trying to say that, I would have said it. I'm not so incompetent that I have difficulty in expressing what I mean.

 

Spirituality and God are different concepts, although they are sometimes related. For example, Buddhism is very much involved in spirituality, but considers the concept of a Creator God beyond our knowledge and that investigating the issue is a waste of time, because there are more important issues to address, such as human suffering.

I regard Buddha's message as very modern, perhaps the best in our age, but the fact that investigating the supreme being is a waste of time is pretty much an interpretation.

While having the greatest respect for science, science is based on the 5 senses, thus i think it's absurd to think that one can measure God, or see or hear God: in this sense, surely it would be a waste of time.

Another interpretation of Buddhism could be that he foresaw the fanaticism and the bigotry of his official religion, and just wanted to clear the spiritual path from the unnecessary debris.

[VincentRJ]

39 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I regard Buddha's message as very modern, perhaps the best in our age, but the fact that investigating the supreme being is a waste of time is pretty much an interpretation.

Everything we know or think is an interpretation, without exception, and that interpretation is based upon the characteristics and limitations of our species, Homo Sapiens. Every other species on the planet is also limited in their interpretation of everything they perceive, in accordance with their stage of development on the evolutionary scale. 

 

We can only speculate and imagine how an ant interprets the presence of a human being, or cow, that stamps around its nest, or even on its nest, with the thunder-like, or earthquake sounds from the stamping feet. ????

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

We can only speculate and imagine how an ant interprets the presence of a human being, or cow, that stamps around its nest, or even on its nest, with the thunder-like, or earthquake sounds from the stamping feet. 

Well, given the size of the brain and the complexity of the nervous system, i would argue that is easy for a human to speculate on the life of ants, than the opposite.

Obviously there is a hierarchy of power on this planet, and given that there are countless planets in the universe, we could easily deduct that the hierarchies expand in countless directions.

Hence humans are not likely to be the top of the evolution chain, and given that our senses and intelligence are somehow limited, my logic tells me that there are countless inferior and superior beings which we can't detect.

 

Apparently the monotheistic theory "won" over the polytheistic theory just for political reasons, but given that everything which has a beginning, has also an end, i would not discount so easily the possibility of a non-born eternal being, or conscious conscience.

 

[Sunmaster]

10 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

I've read his post once and understood it absolutely. Have not been privy to what you're on about in any of your posts. 

I believe I'm not the one to blame for that....

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I believe I'm not the one to blame for that....

Assuredly...you are. But then you believe all kinds of unfounded things, so at least you are consistent. 

[Sunmaster]

It's a matter of perspectives. Have you had my experiences, you would have assuredly come to similar conclusions.