Do you believe in God and why

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

The Buddha explains, I am only concerned about the suffering I can not be concerned about questions that have no answer ,questions that do nothing to reduce suffering, and are only a waste of the limited time we have.

I think the parable can be found on this very thread, and it's indeed food for thought.

Yet, the concept of "wasted time" is debatable, imho.

If my children were starving, for example, it would be wasted time to argue about God, but if i have to choose between discussing sports, women's antics or politics, i'd find the "God debate" more interesting.

[CharlieH]

Often peoples attitudes toward a subject, are more interesting than the subject, and infinetly better than "tales from the bar stool" ????

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I think the parable can be found on this very thread, and it's indeed food for thought.

Yet, the concept of "wasted time" is debatable, imho.

If my children were starving, for example, it would be wasted time to argue about God, but if i have to choose between discussing sports, women's antics or politics, i'd find the "God debate" more interesting.

Yes indeed

I am in the US now (will be back home in a couple of months) , Funny that I have started considering Thailand home. 

Anyway , 3:25 am here, I went to sleep about 8pm and woke up 6 hours later 2am , I don't seem to be able to get back on US time. Good time to talk about god.

 I also find these conversations more enjoyable than sports (other people's accomplishments)  and politics is becoming not only frustrating but also depresing. 

 So nothing wrong having a conversation about the possibilities, as long as we realise that that's what they are "Possibilities".

 Along with many other possible and perhaps more probable possibilities. 

What disturbs me about these questions is that there are those who have developer a power structure behind one possibility, they have organised (organised religion) and are actively pursuing the exclusion of even considering other possibilities. 

 Stagnation happens when people and society stops exploring possibilities.  

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

What disturbs me about these questions is that there are those who have developer a power structure behind one possibility, they have organised (organised religion) and are actively pursuing the exclusion of even considering other possibilities. 

 Stagnation happens when people and society stops exploring possibilities.  

 

Well, it has been debated before, but perhaps it's worth to say it again.

Apparently, to develop from a tribal society to a modern, organised society, religion, together with military power, were necessary tools.

I agree with you that, unfortunately, every power structure becomes, soon or later, prone to abuse by the people who have the power.

[Sunmaster]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, it has been debated before, but perhaps it's worth to say it again.

Apparently, to develop from a tribal society to a modern, organised society, religion, together with military power, were necessary tools.

I agree with you that, unfortunately, every power structure becomes, soon or later, prone to abuse by the people who have the power.

"God give me the serenity to accept things which cannot be changed; Give me courage to change things which must be changed; And the wisdom to distinguish one from the other."
Reinhold Niebuhr

It is very unlikely that one of us can change the course of any major religion, but what we can (MUST) change is ourselves and never get complacent with what we have achieved (in terms of personal development).

Nice to have an agnostic (or believer?) and a negative agnostic (had to look that one up) joining the conversation. What has been said about "never being able to understand God" might be true, but that should not stop us from trying. Even if we can understand a tiny fraction of it, it will be far more valuable than sitting around and doing nothing.
                                                      To know yourself is to know God. 
Herein lies the core of the whole discussion in my opinion.

By learning who you truly are, you can move from "believing" to "knowing". This will open a completely new dimension to our life, and as a natural evolution, will bring the much needed revolution of the things we couldn't change in the first place.

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

To know yourself is to know God. 

Completely agree, in the core of every sentient being, there is a spark of the supernatural.

It's also quite easy to get there, all we have to do is to remove the unnecessary.

Yet the supernatural chose to have a physical body, and apparently, while living this life, we are creating the seed for the next.

Edited December 1, 2019 by mauGR1

[finnishmen]

NO,ALL bible have true writed manytime new, all in bible have big <deleted>, some old man in desert has tell old <deleted> storyes and some has write to many paper this and westerns has found papers in cave3 and church made all this story together and lie lot more and has only before old mens story and no true newer. big <deleted> all god and jesus and childrens storys. only totally idiot can believe story what not have true. many arghelogy,and histories and peoples and church has last 2000 year try search anythin what this big lie have true but anythink argument not has found 2000 year. some scam have and all has made church and catholic church has made all lot. big scam.

[Elad]

On 11/28/2019 at 2:28 AM, Sunmaster said:

No.

I don't endorse the concept of a Creator because I have "faith" or "believe" (aka hope) it to be true. I endorse it because that's the undeniable truth I've been confronted with, and there's no better or greater evidence than that. For me at least. 
When you dream, you are certain that everything is real, the emotions you feel seem real, the thoughts you think (however irrational) seem rational and plausible to you in the dream state. Yet, when you wake up from the dream, you have no doubts as to which reality was the dream state and which one is the wake state. In the same manner, when you "awaken" to a higher consciousness, you have no doubt about which reality is "more real" and no matter what other dreamers try to tell, you will always know.

There's no need for faith, like you don't need faith to know you're not asleep right now.
I don't expect others to believe me, but encourage anyone with an honest thirst for truth to find out by themselves.

"That's because ultimately, religion/faith/spiritual experiences provide zero evidence to support an intelligent design". 

This statement is correct only if you take science to be your framework to provide evidence. As previously discussed, science is but one of the methods to make sense of reality and albeit a good one, it only describes 5% of the universe (I take your word for it). There is however evidence that very well supports the concept of a Creative Source, you just have to widen your perspective.

How do you know that these 'spiritual experiences' you're having isn't just you developing an ability to over stimulate areas of the brain, that otherwise wouldn't be in normal everyday living. That being the part of the brain for awareness.

 

Have you ever felt like you're being watched or there's a presence somewhere around you, which can happen when you're alone in a quiet eerie place, your sense of awareness rises, you look around and no ones there. On another occasion you look around and see someone in the distance, and on those occasions, where you saw someone, it may cause you to feel that you had some sort of sixth sense going on, you knew that person was around without the need of the five physical senses, but in reality it was just a coincidence that on this occasion someone happened to be passing by.

 

Spiritual experiences through meditation could have a similar effect, only more intense, to the point where the area of the brain for awareness is stimulated so much that the person would feel an overwhelming presence all around he/she.

 

So, a true master of spiritual experience through meditation, is merely, a master of over stimulating certain areas of the brain that normally wouldn't be in everyday life experience.    

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/29/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sunmaster said:

“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

Max Planck (German theoretical physicist whose discovery of energy quanta won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918)

 

The stream of human knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality. The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.

James Jeans (English physicist, astronomer and mathematician.)

 

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.

Albert Einstein (German-born theoretical physicist who developed the theory of relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics. His work is also known for its influence on the philosophy of science)

 

Hmmm, they must all be delusional and irrational fools then....who would have thought....

I'd love to see them say Einstein is wrong!

If Jesus Christ himself came down from heaven and performed miracles, they'd still not believe.

 

It's apparent that there are two types of posters on here- the ones prepared to actually debate and use reason to advance their case, whichever side they are on, and the ones that just repeat the same insults over and over again, page after page after page. They don't have anything new to add, so I don't get why they bother. It's obvious that they are not going to change anyone's mind. 

NB, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just answering the OP's question.

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, Elad said:

So, a true master of spiritual experience through meditation, is merely, a master of over stimulating certain areas of the brain that normally wouldn't be in everyday life experience.    

You don't "know" that. It's just your opinion.

 

Can you not accept that just perhaps it might actually be reality, rather than imagination. 

Given no one can prove it's imagination, it must be possible that it's reality.

 

If you have any actual proof that it's imagination, please link it.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/29/2019 at 7:35 PM, Tagged said:

But everything in religion, is 100% settled and understood, by those who believe, even it is not 100% by the book! 
 

amazing

Why do you keep referring to religion when only one poster is from a religious stance? The rest of us stopped talking about religion a long time ago.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/30/2019 at 2:23 AM, partington said:

However what is actually being claimed, using the same metaphor, is that the orgasm exists somewhere outside time and space before you experience it, and then continues to exist eternally as a thing in the same realm of reality after you have briefly interacted with it, and ceased to experience it.

LOL.

Whatever happens in this instant will exist till the universe ends, and depending on what happens then, perhaps for ever.

If one had a telescope capable of seeing what was happening on another planet, someone having an orgasm if you would like to stay with that, then what you would be looking at would be as far back in the past as the distance of that planet is from you, given the speed of light that brings the image to you. So if we had the ability to see someone having an orgasm on a planet a million light years away, the actual orgasm would have occurred a very long time ago, but we could still see it in our magical telescope.

[partington]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'd love to see them say Einstein is wrong!

If Jesus Christ himself came down from heaven and performed miracles, they'd still not believe.

 

It's apparent that there are two types of posters on here- the ones prepared to actually debate and use reason to advance their case, whichever side they are on, and the ones that just repeat the same insults over and over again, page after page after page. They don't have anything new to add, so I don't get why they bother. It's obvious that they are not going to change anyone's mind. 

NB, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just answering the OP's question.

The opinions of a scientist about supernatural beings, consciousness, thought, and so on have no more weight or bearing than the opinions of a grocer or plumber about these topics.  Science is not like religion: there are no appeals to authority or texts as being true because their source is so great or so smart.

 

Any scientist, be they Einstein or Joe Soap,  must provide evidence for any scientific proposal they put forward as being true. This evidence must be evaluated by scientific peers, repeatable by other workers, and shown to be consistent with past and future observations if they are to be held scientifically "true".  

 

If a scientist who is an expert in some field makes an unevidenced assertion about some other field, or some religious or quasi-religious spiritual belief he happens to hold, and this assertion is not supported by experimental evidence, mathematics or other criteria that can be verified by others, then this is simply a random opinion that carries no special weight at all. A scientist can bs as easily as a banker. 

 

Once trespassing outside the boundaries of their own work carried out using the scientific method, a scientist has no special authority whatsoever.

 

 

Edited December 1, 2019 by partington

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, AussieBob18 said:

and yet I know that time started with the big bang

Excellent post BTW.

 

Time in THIS universe started with the big bang, but this universe may be only the latest in an infinite number of universes. It's possible that everything goes into a black hole and the matter emerges into a new universe after another big bang.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, partington said:

The opinions of a scientist about supernatural beings, consciousness, thought, and so on have no more weight or bearing than the opinions of a grocer or plumber about these topics.  Science is not like religion: there are no appeals to authority or texts as being true because their source is so great or so smart.

 

Any scientist, be they Einstein or Joe Soap,  must provide evidence for any scientific proposal they put forward as being true. This evidence must be evaluated by scientific peers, repeatable by other workers, and shown to be consistent with past and future observations if they are to be held scientifically "true".  

 

If a scientist who is an expert in some field makes an unevidenced assertion about some other field, or some religious or quasi-religious spiritual belief he happens to hold, and this assertion is not supported by experimental evidence, mathematics or other criteria that can be verified by others, then this is simply a random opinion that carries no special weight at all. A scientist can bs as easily as a banker. 

 

Once trespassing outside the boundaries of their own work carried out using the scientific method, a scientist has no special authority whatsoever.

 

 

Once trespassing outside the boundaries of their own work carried out using the scientific method, a scientist has no special authority whatsoever.

 

 

Surely that would apply to every atheist on this thread? None of them have any proof other than their opinion that God does not exist.

 

BTW, given that "God" invented the universe, science comes from God and God can make science do what ever God wants it to. Ie, "God" is outside the boundaries of "science", and is unprovable either way using the limited science that humans understand.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, partington said:

Once trespassing outside the boundaries of their own work carried out using the scientific method, a scientist has no special authority whatsoever.

 

I find amusing the way atheists use "science" and "scientists" to deny the existence of a supreme being, yet when a scientist happen to be a believer, suddenly he has "no authority whatsoever".

[partington]

45 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I find amusing the way atheists use "science" and "scientists" to deny the existence of a supreme being, yet when a scientist happen to be a believer, suddenly he has "no authority whatsoever".

It's not hard. An unevidenced assertion that something is true is not worth anything whoever it comes from.

 

Asserting something is true is the claim. Saying you don't believe that assertion because there's no evidence  is not a claim- it's the response to a claim.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, partington said:

It's not hard. An unevidenced assertion that something is true is not worth anything whoever it comes from.

 

Asserting something is true is the claim. Saying you don't believe that assertion because there's no evidence  is not a claim- it's the response to a claim.

That sounds perfectly logical, yet if you accept the fact that scientific evidence is based on the physical senses, and the physical senses are imperfect, one could say that your response is fallacious.

It's hard to deny the existence of consciousness, but how can you prove it ?

[partington]

Senses don't have to be perfect to provide evidence, and no-one claims that they have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to provide evidence that is greater than zero, which is what unevidenced claims provide.

 

My eyesight is not perfect but I can see a car coming towards me even without my glasses and jump out of the way.

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you keep referring to religion when only one poster is from a religious stance? The rest of us stopped talking about religion a long time ago.

You just referred to JC performing miracles as an example...hmmmm, let's see....exactly 2 posts before you posted this one. 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, partington said:

Senses don't have to be perfect to provide evidence, and no-one claims that they have to be perfect.

They just have to be good enough to provide evidence that is greater than zero, which is what unevidenced claims provide.

 

My eyesight is not perfect but I can see a car coming towards me even without my glasses and jump out of the way.

"Zero" cannot be perceived by the physical senses, yet you are using it to support your theory.

The concept of "zero" comes from intuition, and you cannot provide evidence for the existence of intuition too.

Without consciousness, there would be no "zero", no "intuition" and no debate.

So, where this "consciousness" comes from ?

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You don't "know" that. It's just your opinion.

 

Can you not accept that just perhaps it might actually be reality, rather than imagination. 

Given no one can prove it's imagination, it must be possible that it's reality.

 

If you have any actual proof that it's imagination, please link it.

He queried as to whether the poster had considered these effects of meditation. He did NOT state them as fact. It's ironic that you, of all people, should ask for proof or a link...when you have opined boldly for 8 months without providing a shred of proof or evidence or a link for any of it. 

 

The truth here is that we nonbelievers have provided scientific links, articles, videos, studies...but then you and your ilk deny Deny DENY. Divert and call science and the scientific method useless and incapable. So even if he did direct you...you would cover your eyes/stick fingers in ears and disregard, as you and others have done from the beginning. ???? ????

[Sunmaster]

9 hours ago, Elad said:

How do you know that these 'spiritual experiences' you're having isn't just you developing an ability to over stimulate areas of the brain, that otherwise wouldn't be in normal everyday living. That being the part of the brain for awareness.

 

Have you ever felt like you're being watched or there's a presence somewhere around you, which can happen when you're alone in a quiet eerie place, your sense of awareness rises, you look around and no ones there. On another occasion you look around and see someone in the distance, and on those occasions, where you saw someone, it may cause you to feel that you had some sort of sixth sense going on, you knew that person was around without the need of the five physical senses, but in reality it was just a coincidence that on this occasion someone happened to be passing by.

 

Spiritual experiences through meditation could have a similar effect, only more intense, to the point where the area of the brain for awareness is stimulated so much that the person would feel an overwhelming presence all around he/she.

 

So, a true master of spiritual experience through meditation, is merely, a master of over stimulating certain areas of the brain that normally wouldn't be in everyday life experience.    

I've asked myself the same question actually.

Imagination is defined as, “The ability to imagine things that are not real; the ability to form a picture in your mind of something that you have not seen or experienced; the ability to think of new things, or something that only exists or happens in your mind.”

 

Intuition, on the other hand, is defined as, “The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning, or a thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.”

Imagination is defined as being separate from experience. You can't just imagine to have a kundalini awakening...it's a real and very strong physical process (but not only physical) that has been well documented over and over again throughout thousands of years. I had no idea what it was at the time, so how could I have imagined it? Even IF I had imagined it, wouldn't it be strange that this experience coincided with what so many others have experienced? To remind you, I was an atheist at that time and had no connection to anything spiritual whatsoever.
I did learn a lot about myself and life in general on that day. There was no conscious reasoning involved. Knowledge simply presented itself to me in a moment of complete clarity.

Now, you could argue that all this came from some chemical imbalances, obscure neurons firing, or dark matter flowing through my head, but that would explain nothing. I'm pretty sure there were chemical processes at work that normally are dormant, but were they the cause or the effect? You may believe they are the cause, but for me, after what happened and after 20+ years of my own research, only the latter can be true.

 

Let's assume again that everything happened only in my mind. If the results of such an "imagination" are radically life changing and empowering (as they were), then that could be a HUGE scientific breakthrough and it wouldn't really matter if it happened "only" in ones mind or came from somewhere else. 
I do wish science would spend more time and effort to research these things...

 

Let's not forget that countless people detail the same (kundalini) experience throughout 1000s of years all over the world, ...unique cases, totally unrelated to each other by time, culture and belief systems. 
How can they all "imagine" the same thing? Yet, they all have certain aspects in common: the same physical processes, the same sense of awe and wonder, the same imparting of instant knowledge, the same clarity, the same deep connection to the world and Spirit. The odds go far beyond randomness and indicate a common ground for all of them.

 

Whatever you call it, it's undeniable that there is something and should (MUST) be taken into account by science. It must be explored and researched, so that in the end there won't be any doubt left if it's imagination or intuition.
 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I do wish science would spend more time and effort to research these things...

Probably no scientist would want to as they involve things that would question the existence of science as it is known.

How can one scientifically prove something that is in one's mind, and not measurable?

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

How can one scientifically prove something that is in one's mind, and not measurable?

Yet, instead of simply admitting that science cannot know everything, they say that if it can't be measured it cannot exist.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, partington said:

It's not hard. An unevidenced assertion that something is true is not worth anything whoever it comes from.

 

Asserting something is true is the claim. Saying you don't believe that assertion because there's no evidence  is not a claim- it's the response to a claim.

Given it is impossible to scientifically prove that god does not exist, everything you say applies to atheists as well.

If "God" was disprovable by primitive human science, God wouldn't be much of a being that can create life the universe and everything.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet, instead of simply admitting that science cannot know everything, they say that if it can't be measured it cannot exist.

That, presumably, is because they think present day science is capable of disproving the supernatural, when it's far too primitive to even come close. In cosmic terms, human scientists know nothing. They can't even cure cancer or stop people destroying the environment.

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That, presumably, is because they think present day science is capable of disproving the supernatural, when it's far too primitive to even come close. In cosmic terms, human scientists know nothing. They can't even cure cancer or stop people destroying the environment.

Yep, it's quite funny how some materialistic people pretend they have some authority. Like ants trying to understand human beings, they simply don't have a clue.

I can respect Anthropocentrism as an opinion, not as a fact, it's more or less like saying that planet earth is the centre of the solar system, while it's clear that it's not.

[Sunmaster]

10 hours ago, partington said:

The opinions of a scientist about supernatural beings, consciousness, thought, and so on have no more weight or bearing than the opinions of a grocer or plumber about these topics.  Science is not like religion: there are no appeals to authority or texts as being true because their source is so great or so smart.

 

Any scientist, be they Einstein or Joe Soap,  must provide evidence for any scientific proposal they put forward as being true. This evidence must be evaluated by scientific peers, repeatable by other workers, and shown to be consistent with past and future observations if they are to be held scientifically "true".  

 

If a scientist who is an expert in some field makes an unevidenced assertion about some other field, or some religious or quasi-religious spiritual belief he happens to hold, and this assertion is not supported by experimental evidence, mathematics or other criteria that can be verified by others, then this is simply a random opinion that carries no special weight at all. A scientist can bs as easily as a banker. 

 

Once trespassing outside the boundaries of their own work carried out using the scientific method, a scientist has no special authority whatsoever.

 

 

If the opinions of a comedian are being posted to make a point, then there should be no problem highlighting the opinions of well respected scientists.

To say that the opinion of a grocer or plumber carries the same weight as that of a world class scientist is a feeble attempt at downplaying their views because they are inconvenient. Otherwise we would now have millions of quotes about life from Johnny the plumber and Jimmy the grocer on the internet.
"Sometimes life is like a blocked sewer pipe. Just use the plunger of your imagination and you'll be free"
????????????

[ravip]

On 12/1/2019 at 9:19 AM, mauGR1 said:

Yep, and commenting with sad little faces on other people's posts, without saying anything pertinent to the topic.

It does say something about you and your culture

Oh la la... God said to forgive. If someone slaps you turn the other cheek etc. A firm believer can avoid an argument easily, me thinks... ????