Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Assurancetourix said:

Man is an animal like the lion or the earthworm ..

Are you talking from experience ?

As far as i know, we have a physical body (animal) sensations and desires (animal) but the similarities stop there.

[Assurancetourix]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

but the similarities stop there.

Nobody knows about that ...

In fact, Man is certainly not the ultimate creation.
When we see what He is capable  to destroy his planet, we must ask ourselves some questions.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, Assurancetourix said:

Nobody knows about that ...

Pls, do some research.

 

1 minute ago, Assurancetourix said:

In fact, Man is certainly not the ultimate creation.

This i believe is true, so do you believe in a creator ?

 

2 minutes ago, Assurancetourix said:

When we see what He is capable  to destroy his planet, we must ask ourselves some questions.

Yes, there are indeed questions to ask. But that's a very complex issue.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i respect your sensible approach, it's not easy to find something wrong in your posts ????

Oh! Dear me! And I thought I was being controversial. ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't know where the confusion is between yours and my posts, so lets forget about that. I am interested in your opposition to Sunmaster's idea.

Firstly Sunmaster holds the position that there is a creative force that preexists science.

Therefore it is logical for him to say that the creative force is responsible for the realities that science can discover. And not the other way around.

In other words science may be limited in what it can discover about the creator. But the creator's existence is not reliant on science's ability to detect the creator.

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks ????????

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Oh! Dear me! And I thought I was being controversial. ????

Well, in general, i have been criticising your excessive reliance, imho, on "official science".

On the specific of the reincarnation subject, anything can be said, but personally the more i look into it, the more is difficult to draw conclusions, both from the points of view of "official science" and "spiritual science".

Although i think it's possible for extremely developed souls (Some Tibetan Lamas come to mind) to choose their future incarnations.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

I don't know where the confusion is between yours and my posts, so lets forget about that. I am interested in your opposition to Sunmaster's idea.

Firstly Sunmaster holds the position that there is a creative force that preexists science.

Therefore it is logical for him to say that the creative force is responsible for the realities that science can discover. And not the other way around.

In other words science may be limited in what it can discover about the creator. But the creator's existence is not reliant on science's ability to detect the creator.

So...sure, I guess, as a matter of personal opinion, feeling, preference or assumption...anyone can claim anything and it would be logical for them to accept and defend it, no matter how absurd. Is that what you're saying?

 

Here's my reply...

 

Firstly, I hold the position that there is insufficient evidence for said creative force, so I reject it. Therefore it is logical for me to say that no creative force (eternal source) is responsible for anything and not the other way around. In other words...science may be limited to what it can discover about the supernatural, but a creator's existence and participation is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such or anything supernatural. 

 

The difference is that the scientific community (the experts in these areas of study) tend to go with along with the second position. When has any scientific explanation or answer ever been..."god" or "creator"? Pretty sure that answer is...never. Sometimes it's "don't know", but yet to ever be "god" or "creator". 

 

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Inner Worlds: a term used by Plato and commonly used in psychology meaning the psychological states of a person. But also spiritual states that you can access through meditation for example. Even your imagination is part of your inner world. Do you really want me to give you evidence for that??

Wider view: Simple, when you live in a city located in a valley, your view is limited by the surrounding houses and if you don't travel, for all you know, that's the whole world right there. On the other hand, if you go trekking on that mountain right next to the city, you will gain a very different perspective...a wider view from which things take on a new meaning.
The same thing happens when you grow up. Your awareness of the world expands in stages, you transcend and include bigger and bigger circles of life. This is not spiritual mumbo jumbo, but behavioral psychology.
What makes you think that your present level of awareness is the end of the evolution?

Spoiler alert: It's not!

 

First let's remember  the context of what we are talking about.

"Why would you think that? Maybe we have different concepts of what spirituality is, but I see no problem for them to work together.
In fact, they are working together right now in the way I understand the world.  "

So I don't dispute that inner places exist , in fact it would be impossible  for outer places to exist without inner places , simply the other side of the coin, What I dispute is the notion that this "inner worlds" exist on a different plane , a "spiritual plane"  simply there is no evidence,It is not a credible claim .Invoking Plato's name does not give it any more credibility. 

These inner worlds are simply part of the physical word that Science is beginning to access now.Nothing spiritual about them,

Don't get me wrong, I allaude and appreciate your spirituality, it involves imagination, the greatest gift bestowed upon as by the muses.

Nothing new can be achieved before it can be imagined.

   Though I appreciate your explanation of what "wider" and "view" mean and how these word work together,

I think that by our conversation you would by now have figured out that I have reasonable good command of the English language. When I asked :

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

Wider view? please explain 

 it was in response to : 

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

And he's by far not the only one to see that science and spirituality are not at odds at all when you shift your perception to a wider view.

 which you failed to do.

Perhaps your disagreement stems from having different definitions of what spirituality means, which is why in an earlier post  I provided you with a set of definitions for spirituality and science. Do you have a different definition and if so how? And how would your definition make Spirituality compatible with science Please be specific, 

 

[sirineou]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The reason why materialists feel the need to oppose the existence of the spiritual is:

Spirituality forces people to expand their concept of the universe to include elements of intention and purpose instead of merely physical laws and random chance.

I appreciate imagination as much as the next person, perhaps even more so. 

Nothing new can be accomplished before it is imagined. But just because we imagine something it does not mean that it is always true and can be discovered, only if we looked some more.

I imagine you you gone!! yet there you are annoying me. (I know mission accomplished)???? just an example of the limitations of imagination. 

People have being looking for proof of the existence of the spiritual world since they discovered fire, and yet still no proof. But I admire your sides persistence and appreciate your effort,  please continue looking and when you do discover it , announce it's discovery telepathically because materialists are way too lazy to attend the conference, and prefer to lay there and wait for "random chance" to do thing for as. 

[canuckamuck]

44 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

So...sure, I guess, as a matter of personal opinion, feeling, preference or assumption...anyone can claim anything and it would be logical for them to accept and defend it, no matter how absurd. Is that what you're saying?

 

Here's my reply...

 

Firstly, I hold the position that there is insufficient evidence for said creative force, so I reject it. Therefore it is logical for me to say that no creative force (eternal source) is responsible for anything and not the other way around. In other words...science may be limited to what it can discover about the supernatural, but a creator's existence and participation is irrelevant, as there is no evidence of such or anything supernatural. 

 

The difference is that the scientific community (the experts in these areas of study) tend to go with along with the second position. When has any scientific explanation or answer ever been..."god" or "creator"? Pretty sure that answer is...never. Sometimes it's "don't know", but yet to ever be "god" or "creator". 

 

Just for contrast to your comments, which is the standard materialist view. Here is a Biblical view of the wisdom of man and the existence of a creator.  

 

Romans 1: 19-25 (NASB)

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, 

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

Just for contrast to your comments, which is the standard materialist view. Here is a Biblical view of the wisdom of man and the existence of a creator.  

 

Romans 1: 19-25 (NASB)

19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, 

Couldn't care less what the Bible claims...nor the Quran. You could just as well quoted The Lord of The Rings or Star Wars and it would have proved the same...nothing. Once again, this is a "presuppositional" argument. I reject your Holey Book. Here's what you are doing...

 

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

 

Muslims do it too. They point to their Holey Book like everyone accepts it. Christians don't...Jews don't...atheists don't. I reject all of them. This was about science and spiritualism being compatible. My position is they're not. Quoting from a suspect, inaccurate book of myths and fables isn't convincing in the least and gets us nowhere closer to a "creator" nor anything supernatural.

 

It's true because the bible..quran...whatever book says it, is not a convincing argument. 

[canuckamuck]

7 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Couldn't care less what the Bible claims...nor the Quran. You could just as well quoted The Lord of The Rings or Star Wars and it would have proved the same...nothing. Once again, this is a "presuppositional" argument. I reject your Holey Book. Here's what you are doing...

 

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

 

Muslims do it too. They point to their Holey Book like everyone accepts it. Christians don't...Jews don't...atheists don't. I reject all of them. This was about science and spiritualism being compatible. My position is they're not. Quoting from a suspect, inaccurate book of myths and fables isn't convincing in the least and gets us nowhere closer to a "creator" nor anything supernatural.

 

It's true because the bible..quran...whatever book says it, is not a convincing argument. 

But it is not presuppositionalism. It is an article about the evidence available to those who will see it for what it is.

So the evidence is the natural world, not the printed word. Or am I presupposing that there is a natural world?

[Skeptic7]

11 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

But it is not presuppositionalism. It is an article about the evidence available to those who will see it for what it is.

So the evidence is the natural world, not the printed word. Or am I presupposing that there is a natural world?

Wow. Look up evidence. Regardless what you believe...think we can all agree that we are sharing this reality in what we perceive as our natural world. Thailand...Thai Visa Forum...this discussion...wives...gf's...food...drink...hobbies, whatever. Try not eating or going without water for an extended time or not paying your bar tab or bills or following the Visa laws and we'll all pretty much end up in some state of trouble and/or distress. All the above examples are easily believed and proved with evidence, if necessary. Think alibis or documents. Tell me you won the lottery and just bought a new car...I have no reason to doubt you. Tell me you bought a flying dragon that eats unicorns, <deleted>s gold and grants wishes...I'll be a bit skeptical. Evidence would be asked for and if not provided...I would reject your claim. If your claim is that only you can see it, then I don't believe you. I don't think anyone, even here on this thread, that is going to believe you. Though based on all these months of torture...a select few just might! 

[canuckamuck]

8 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Wow. Look up evidence. Regardless what you believe...think we can all agree that we are sharing this reality in what we perceive as our natural world. Thailand...Thai Visa Forum...this discussion...wives...gf's...food...drink...hobbies, whatever. Try not eating or going without water for an extended time or not paying your bar tab or bills or following the Visa laws and we'll all pretty much end up in some state of trouble and/or distress. All the above examples are easily believed and proved with evidence, if necessary. Think alibis or documents. Tell me you won the lottery and just bought a new car...I have no reason to doubt you. Tell me you bought a flying dragon that eats unicorns, <deleted>s gold and grants wishes...I'll be a bit skeptical. Evidence would be asked for and if not provided...I would reject your claim. If your claim is that only you can see it, then I don't believe you. I don't think anyone, even here on this thread, that is going to believe you. Though based on all these months of torture...a select few just might! 

My dragon eating unicorn doesn't believe in you either.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

My dragon eating unicorn doesn't believe in you either.

Checkmate...again. 

[Tagged]

5 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Checkmate...again. 

I have seen som pretty deleted things in my life, but never seen a unicorn eat a dragon! 

 

Hm, so many people believe in unicorns and dragons, and I have never seen anyone. So, if I see one, or both, I guess the dragon, would eat the unicorn. Just basic common sense i Believe

[Elad]

15 hours ago, pookondee said:

I think by now, its well known that world scientists have proven (and nearly all agree) that our world (as it is)

could not possibly have come into existence with the culmination of a few random variables.

 

I believe this whole Hadron collider business has been geared up for this cause..

To prove whether the very first minute  particle of matter, life, could have come into existence from nothing.

 

The fact that they will never be able to prove it, is in itself evidence that a being greater than us brought all this into existence.

The large Hadron Collider produces collision energies of 14 TeV. The energy per particle in the early universe would've been >14 TeV, so their plan is a new particle collider 'The Future Circular Collider' (FCC) which will reach collision energies of around 100 TeV, and hopefully recreate the conditions at times shortly after the big bang.

 

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/future-circular-collider

[sirineou]

15 hours ago, pookondee said:

The fact that they will never be able to prove it, is in itself evidence that a being greater than us brought all this into existence.

It is called god of the gaps. God resides in the gaps of out understanding, as we learn more,  god retreats to smaller and smaller places. 

Why does there need to be a god to initiate the big bang ? is it possible that the big bang was not the beginning but simply part of a larger process, which is  also part of an even larger system and so on and so forth. perhaps a snake eating its tail among a field of snakes eating their tail.

Why do we need to worry an spend energy  on things that might or might not exist outside our reality?

Why do we need a god that explains nothing? 

[sunnyboy2018]

On 10/25/2019 at 12:05 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

What are you smoking? It must be pretty good stuff!

Im not smoking anything. I'm merely pointing out that heaven/paradise will be full of religious zealots, nutters, bombers, martyrs non of whom I wish to spend eternity with..Would you?  Though I guess if you have lived in CM you have had a taste of Hell. What are you drinking BTW?

[sunnyboy2018]

God is all around us and makes us feel warm and safe. Oh no! Thats my central heating!

[canuckamuck]

8 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Checkmate...again. 

The term is stalemate.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The term is stalemate.

Careful, they hate the truth

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, sirineou said:

Why do we need to worry an spend energy  on things that might or might not exist outside our reality?

Why do we need a god that explains nothing? 

Good questions, and I have an answer. ????

 

All creatures live in an environment of uncertainty. If one is an insect, such as a beetle, dragonfly or ant, a bird can swoop down any time and gobble you up. If you are a male Lion you will likely be killed by another male Lion, and both male and female Lions will likely be killed by some two-legged creature with a spear or a gun.

 

If you are a two-legged hominid, there is always a risk of being attacked by another group of hominids who want to expand their territory. In addition to attacks from other predatory creatures, and males fighting to the death for the privilege of mating, there is the uncertainty of dying from disease, accidents, food shortages, bolts of lightning from the sky, floods, landslides, hurricanes that blow down trees, forest fires, and so on.

 

As Hominids gradually developed into the Homo Sapiens Sapiens species (us), with a capacity for language and abstract thought, all these uncertainties became the cause of significant anxiety because we were able to imagine and speculate and think about all the awful things that might happen.

 

Animals without the capacity for language and abstract thought tend to live in the present. Humans tend to worry about all sorts of things, even trivial things that are not dangerous at all.

 

If there is a drought resulting in food shortages, animals without abstract thought will just automatically and instinctively deal with it, moving the best they can to whatever location has a source of food. However, humans will tend to worry about the future effects of the drought as the drought continues, and the worse the drought becomes the more they will worry, and cry in anguish and despair.

 

This is where religion plays a significant role; to counteract the uncertainty, reduce the anxiety, and provide hope that all will be well in the future. Praying to God, or in the past making animal or even human sacrifices to some God, in order to end the drought, has in reality no effect on the duration of the drought, but it does have a significant effect in reducing the anxiety of the population who believe in that God and the associated religious rituals.

 

Does this answer your questions? ????

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

This is where religion plays a significant role; to counteract the uncertainty, reduce the anxiety, and provide hope that all will be well in the future. Praying to God, or in the past making animal or even human sacrifices to some God, in order to end the drought, has in reality no effect on the duration of the drought, but it does have a significant effect in reducing the anxiety of the population who believe in that God and the associated religious rituals.

 

That's about right.

So, if happiness implies freedom from anxiety, and happiness is one of the main goals for every man, can we say that believing in a Superior Being is not only convenient but quite rational ?

[pookondee]

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

It is called god of the gaps. God resides in the gaps of out understanding, as we learn more,  god retreats to smaller and smaller places. 

Why does there need to be a god to initiate the big bang ? is it possible that the big bang was not the beginning but simply part of a larger process, which is  also part of an even larger system and so on and so forth. perhaps a snake eating its tail among a field of snakes eating their tail.

Why do we need to worry an spend energy  on things that might or might not exist outside our reality?

Why do we need a god that explains nothing? 

I'd guess the "fear of God" was needed originally, to keep us from killing each other like animals.

Then money (greed) came along, and the rich rulers realised they needed to manipulate religion to control the plebs, otherwise be ousted from their castles by hordes of angry, poor, hungry people.

 

You must admit, if not just for control, religion fails spectacularly with all the stories invented "on the run".

Kinda like a kid inventing new excuses after "the dog chewed my homework".

 

For now, it seems religion is carried on for the snowflakes of the world, who need some meaning in their lives.

 

Otherwise we all just animals, akin to a larger species of ants who colonize our nests throughout the world..

Live, die and go back to dust, in random fashion, like everything else on Earth.

 

For the egotistical, who breed simply to "carry on their name" this is a thought to  horrible to contemplate.

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

That's about right.

So, if happiness implies freedom from anxiety, and happiness is one of the main goals for every man, can we say that believing in a Superior Being is not only convenient but quite rational ?

Not really. Believing in a Superior Being is more like a 'substitute' for rationality. Thousands of years ago when people had no understanding of the causes of frightening events like thunder and lightning, droughts and floods, the illusion or feeling of hope that praying to a particular God could influence such catastrophic events could have been beneficial.

 

There would have been some negative effects, such as fighting and killing those who did not support your belief, in order to strengthen your own belief, which continues to the present day. However, if one has little rational understanding of the natural processes in the environment, there is not much one can do to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters, and being anxious and stressed about the future serves no purpose.

 

In such circumstances one can be rational like the Buddhists and Daoists and 'go with the flow', or irrational like the God believers and assume that, when the drought eventually breaks, it is because you prayed to your God and he responded.
 

[Skeptic7]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Careful, they hate the truth

Careful...with telling untruths. 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Not really. Believing in a Superior Being is more like a 'substitute' for rationality. Thousands of years ago when people had no understanding of the causes of frightening events like thunder and lightning, droughts and floods, the illusion or feeling of hope that praying to a particular God could influence such catastrophic events could have been beneficial.

 

There would have been some negative effects, such as fighting and killing those who did not support your belief, in order to strengthen your own belief, which continues to the present day. However, if one has little rational understanding of the natural processes in the environment, there is not much one can do to alleviate the consequences of natural disasters, and being anxious and stressed about the future serves no purpose.

 

In such circumstances one can be rational like the Buddhists and Daoists and 'go with the flow', or irrational like the God believers and assume that, when the drought eventually breaks, it is because you prayed to your God and he responded.
 

As discussed previously, the notion of "modern man intelligent, ancient man stupid" is one i disagree with.

While is undeniable that the abstract intelligence has progressed in modern times, that has happened to the detriment of other kinds of intelligence. We are just starting to see the effects of computers and internet on the youngest generations, and it doesn't look nice.

Also, you are comparing relatively few inquisitive minds of today with the population of yesterday, which is not fair. As you know very well, the masses are rather ignorant even today, and obviously there were a minority of inquisitive minds in the past.

And the cherry on the cake, Buddhist-rational vs God believers-irrational, i am quite surprised to hear that from you !

If you have been travelling on some Thai roads, you might ask yourself if you are really sure of that.

 

So, the fact that we know today, for example, how to explain thunders or earthquakes in scientific terms, has more to do with the development of accurate tools, thanks to the industrial revolution, than the increase of intelligence in humans.

You would surely have a hard time to convince a Neanderthal man to work in a factory or an office, they were not so stupid as you seem to believe ????

 

 

[Sunmaster]

18 hours ago, sirineou said:

Why do we need a god that explains nothing? 

I beg to differ. 
In my case, through the experience I had 20 odd years ago, my most fundamental questions about myself, the world and the connection between the 2 were answered. As a former atheist, it became impossible to deny the existence of Spirit/ Force/ Tao/ God.

Far from being nothing....it was everything!

Now, if you have a materialistic understanding of the world, you will say it just happened in my head, ...it's subjective and since I can't prove it scientifically, I can't reproduce it, it's basically of no consequence.
Well, it may be irrelevant for you guys, but it was life changing for me, so it really doesn't affect me if others think I'm delusional.

You do realize that we're talking in circles here?
Atheists demand scientific evidence to prove there is an Eternal Source. 

Theists point out that the search for the Source is a subjective endeavor and if they want evidence, they have to start practicing one or the other spiritual practice. 
Atheists can't be bothered, don't believe it will show anything and don't believe in a Source a priori. 
Theists raise their hands in despair.

Atheists think they've "won" the argument because no (scientific) evidence was provided, so they can sit back and pat themselves on the shoulder.

Repeat ad nauseam.

GOD HAS TO BE EXPERIENCED.

Everything else might be interesting intellectually or mildly entertaining, but at the end of the day is not the real thing.

As far as I'm concerned, I said what I had to say about the topic and will go on holiday. Wish you a happy debate.

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Sunmaster

[sirineou]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

As discussed previously, the notion of "modern man intelligent, ancient man stupid" is one i disagree with.

While is undeniable that the abstract intelligence has progressed in modern times, that has happened to the detriment of other kinds of intelligence. We are just starting to see the effects of computers and internet on the youngest generations, and it doesn't look nice.

Also, you are comparing relatively few inquisitive minds of today with the population of yesterday, which is not fair. As you know very well, the masses are rather ignorant even today, and obviously there were a minority of inquisitive minds in the past.

And the cherry on the cake, Buddhist-rational vs God believers-irrational, i am quite surprised to hear that from you !

If you have been travelling on some Thai roads, you might ask yourself if you are really sure of that.

 

So, the fact that we know today, for example, how to explain thunders or earthquakes in scientific terms, has more to do with the development of accurate tools, thanks to the industrial revolution, than the increase of intelligence in humans.

You would surely have a hard time to convince a Neanderthal man to work in a factory or an office, they were not so stupid as you seem to believe ????

 

 

 What did did the hungry man say to the Buddhist Hotdog vendor?

  Make me one with everything

we are talking in circles because you are not talking about god in the conventional sense which is what I think this thread is about. IMO in that sense you are an atheist also.

Why cant you be spiritual and an Atheist?

Edited November 17, 2019 by sirineou