Do you believe in God and why

[sirineou]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, i will repeat myself, but i guess you haven't read the whole thread.

Let's have a look at life on this planet, minerals, plants, animals and humans.

Many degrees of consciousness, human consciousness differ a lot among the whole bunch.

Is it logic to think that, given the countless stars, that human consciousness is at the top ?

I think not.

So it's logic, imho to think that if there are lower levels of consciousness, there are higher ones.

For example, those which can be experienced with meditation.

If the space is infinite, so is consciousness.

There are lower levels of perception, not consciousness, consciousness is the process of processing perceptions.

Through meditation you might be able to  heighten you perceptual levels by eliminating distractions, but you are still operating with in the physical realm and not the meta. 

Meta: Greek for after. 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

There are lower levels of perception, not consciousness, consciousness is the process of processing perceptions.

Through meditation you might be able to  heighten you perceptual levels by eliminating distractions, but you are still operating with in the physical realm and not the meta. 

Meta: Greek for after. 

I disagree with almost everything you say, respectfully, but i blame it on different education, language, and many other factors.

When we are on this levels of discussion, defining the words is important.

If you had ever tried higher levels of consciousness, you would agree that "consciousness" is not easy to define with words, let alone diminish it as a "process".

Try again.

[mauGR1]

51 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

This is not any shocking revelation or even news at all to any who pay attention! You've already alluded to as much and even said as much while not using the word. Good for you and your honesty in "comung out". 

 

While there is no evidence that any artist is/was anything but naturally talented, can understand you admiring them immensely. I do too. 

 

That said...Eddie Van Halen made the extraordinary Hendrix seem mundane, but Eddie is still not supernatural. IMO...that is. ????

What do you mean for "supernatural" ?

What do you think about "anthropocentrism" , do you think is logical to assume that humans are the greatest force and consciousness in the vast universe ?

Now, suppose you have a human body, where exactly is consciousness located ? In your brain ?

Seriously, consciousness as a whole, must be bigger than 7 billion human brains, personally i am convinced that consciousness permeates the whole thing.

Perhaps it would be a stretch to say that every single atom is self conscious, but perhaps not.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I disagree with almost everything you say, respectfully, but i blame it on different education, language, and many other factors.

When we are on this levels of discussion, defining the words is important.

If you had ever tried higher levels of consciousness, you would agree that "consciousness" is not easy to define with words, let alone diminish it as a "process".

Try again.

You misunderstand , consciousness is the result of a process  .

It is not a thing, it doesn't have a location, it is abstract 

It is the relationship between brain and mind, Consciousness resides in the mind. 

  Meditation removes the resistance of distractions resulting in more efficient processing of input

Resulting in a better result. Nothing metaphysical about it.  

     So does a very sophisticated,  AI,  self aware computer possesses  consciousness, and if so what is its metaphysical connection.

https://becominghuman.ai/can-machines-be-conscious-yes-here-is-why-71d32685b72d 

"So ,Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

 Philip K. Dick

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by sirineou

[Elad]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Once you admit that physical senses are limited, and human science is based on the physical perception of the physical world, there you have your answer.

Yes, but our 5 physical senses has allowed us to develop scientific instruments giving us extra senses. We can now detect radio waves, infrared, x-rays, gamma rays, magnetic fields etc... things we could never do with the senses we are born with.     

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

What do you mean for "supernatural" ?

What do you think about "anthropocentrism" , do you think is logical to assume that humans are the greatest force and consciousness in the vast universe ?

Now, suppose you have a human body, where exactly is consciousness located ? In your brain ?

Seriously, consciousness as a whole, must be bigger than 7 billion human brains, personally i am convinced that consciousness permeates the whole thing.

Perhaps it would be a stretch to say that every single atom is self conscious, but perhaps not.

Supernatural would be something not bound by the laws of nature and natural forces. Consciousness doesn't qualify as I'm in 100% agreement with @sirineou and he has already explained it clearly. Also, there is no evidence of any cumulative consciousness. 

 

I try not to assume too much. I don't assume humans are the greatest force in the universe or even here on Earth. As there is zero evidence of any supernatural or extra-natural forces, so nothing (yet) to consider.

 

Anthropocentrism is a fine word and until it can be demonstrated that we are not the only "intelligent beings". Is it possible...of course. At present, to the best of cumulative human knowledge...there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.  When/if that evidence comes, then that would be the time to start figuring out and contemplating what it means and the consequences...both good and bad. 

 

If you're suggesting a supreme being or supernatural entity/force/consciousness/ whatever of some sort...IMO you've got a LONG wait. Presently zero reason to assume such a thing. 

 

The Polyatheist ????

 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Skeptic7

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Fact is, we have no bloody clue how the universe really works. Science has still no idea what dark matter is, what "junk" DNA is, what gravity is and how the universe started in the first place. 

Science can't even understand why we don't use most of our brain, but they claim to "know" about God and how the universe came into being. Pathetic.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Elad said:

Yes, but our 5 physical senses has allowed us to develop scientific instruments giving us extra senses. We can now detect radio waves, infrared, x-rays, gamma rays, magnetic fields etc... things we could never do with the senses we are born with.     

So what. We can detect some piffling "waves" etc, but we can't make life, or a galaxy. WE know nothing yet. If humans exist long enough ( which is unlikely ) we might even start to use all our brain and actually understand more about the supernatural.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

Sorry I laughed , I don't mean any disrespect to mauGR1  who seems to be a very nice guy and genuinely interested in the subject , but your response was very funny.

Of course opinions will differ, Like the proverbial  bodily orifice we all have one. It is when we "come down to brass tacks" that things get dicey   

 

How can "brass tacks" be significant when we don't even understand what "God" is? This debate seems to be between those that think that "God" is definable by humans, and those that accept that the supernatural is real, even if we don't understand how it works or what it even is.

To say that a force that can create galaxies is understandable by primitive humans that can't even cure cancer is, IMO, laughable.

Everything I believe about the creator is based on faith, which is not measurable by science, any more than emotion, or wonder is.

I continue to be boggled by the assumption that if we are told often enough that God isn't real that we will just stop believing. To stop believing I'd require some sort of proof that God doesn't exist and of course there isn't any.

Lack of proof that God exists is not surprising to me as God is beyond the understanding of any human.

[Tagged]

16 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

 

 

I try not to assume too much. I don't assume humans are the greatest force in the universe or even here on Earth. As there is zero evidence of any supernatural or extra-natural forces, so nothing (yet) to consider.

 

 

 

You just do not look deep enough in to your innerself

 

[sirineou]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Science can't even understand why we don't use most of our brain, but they claim to "know" about God and how the universe came into being. Pathetic.

Science does not claim to know anything about god, you all do. That's why there is no such thing as the Science of God. there is only belief.  

 Science does not know anything about god and neither do you.( when I say you I mean your side) You theorise, you believe, you have a conjecture about god, you readily admits that god is outside your understanding yet you argue for his existence. 

There is no 'science" there is the science of a particular discipline dependant on the scientific process of verification. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Deny what?

 

If one doesn't believe in spirit, no problem with that. 

If one doesn't believe in spirit AND from the height of his ignorance [as in not knowing] proclaims that spirit doesn't exist, then that is a long way from admitting: I don't know. 

 

That's what you've been doing all along.

There's this huge part of the human condition that you know nothing about, neither personally through direct experience, nor even intellectually through having read books about it....yet you think you have the authority to declare your opinion the end of all things. 

 

Now, I know this comment will put you in yet another trolling frenzy, but for once, take a deep breath, then another, and another one...turn off the internet, go talk to your flowers or take some nice pictures of insects or whatever makes you happy...let it sink in for a while, sleep on it...and tomorrow, when your mind is fresh and relaxed...tell me again how you're fine with just not knowing. 

I thought we were not going to feed the troll. I haven't been on for a while and now I see it's mainly just the troll doing what trolls do now. Not long ago it was like the end of the thread had been reached, but if it's just this circular argument reacting to a troll, perhaps it is time to call it a day. Pity, as it was informative for a very long time.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Science does not claim to know anything about god, you all do. That's why there is no such thing as the Science of God. there is only belief.  

 Science does not know anything about god and neither do you.( when I say you I mean your side) You theorise, you believe, you have a conjecture about god, you readily admits that god is outside your understanding yet you argue for his existence. 

There is no 'science" there is the science of a particular discipline dependant on the scientific process of verification. 

 

I agree with you. What I don't understand is why you seem to be on a crusade to convince those like me that we are wrong, instead of leaving us to our beliefs which do nothing to hurt anyone.

I know why the troll is trolling as that's what trolls do, but I had thought better of you.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I agree with you. What I don't understand is why you seem to be on a crusade to convince those like me that we are wrong, instead of leaving us to our beliefs which do nothing to hurt anyone.

I know why the troll is trolling as that's what trolls do, but I had thought better of you.

I couldn't care less what you believe.no skin off of my nose. 

This is a Thread concerning this issue, your side takes one side , our side takes the other and we are having a conversation to keep our minds sharp and entertained.

I have a very good elderly friend who is a born again Christian, she is the mother of a girl I dated when I was a young man, she loved me like a son and was very disappointed when it did not worked out with her daughter.

We remained friends over the decades.

   Her faith works for her, If I had a conversation with her concerning her faith, and convinced her she was wrong, I would have nothing to replace her faith with since she is an old lady, and not intellectually motivated or capable.  

I would cause her great harm, so I never go there, I politely and respectfully listen to her knowing that her faith brings her confort. Her Religion is not all she is, she is many good things, religion is only one of those things. I love all of her. 

   I am sure you are also a very nice man, and if we knew each other I am also sure we could be good friends.

I am sure you are a lot more than your religion. and if we were friends and you did not want to talk about it, or even if you wanted to talk about it, and  I thought I would harm you by talking about it, I would never go there also, why would I want to harm my friend? 

But you come to this Thread and it seems to me you do want to talk about it. so we do, I try to be respectful, sometimes I fail but not intentionally.

I apologise if I caused you distress.   

[Sunmaster]

42 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Science does not claim to know anything about god, you all do.

'Science doesn't claim to know anything about God." Maybe so, but some scientists and most atheists here use science for their claims that God doesn't exist. You included. 

 

Quote

That's why there is no such thing as the Science of God. there is only belief.  

 

Quote

 Science does not know anything about god and neither do you.( when I say you I mean your side) You theorise, you believe, you have a conjecture about god, you readily admits that god is outside your understanding yet you argue for his existence. 

There is no 'science" there is the science of a particular discipline dependant on the scientific process of verification. 

 

Please do some research into what yoga and meditation are and can do, then come back and try again. 

Edited January 24, 2020 by Sunmaster

[AsianAtHeart]

3 hours ago, Elad said:

Yes, but our 5 physical senses has allowed us to develop scientific instruments giving us extra senses. We can now detect radio waves, infrared, x-rays, gamma rays, magnetic fields etc... things we could never do with the senses we are born with.     

Well, this is one of those classic examples for the weakness of so-called "science."  Scientists in general seem unable to properly count the senses.  We have more than five.  The sense of balance/orientation is, for some odd reason, generally not considered.  But it certainly is a unique sense.  So we have six senses, not five.  The so-called "sixth-sense," which even has a dictionary entry as "a supposed intuitive faculty giving awareness not explicable in terms of normal perception," should be bumped up to seventh place. 

 

The fact that virtually all scientists in the world can only count their senses with the five fingers on one hand does not establish the veracity of having only five.  "Science" says five, but there are provably more than five.  So much for "science."

 

It is the same with God.  Scientists attempt to say there is no God.  They are simply ignorant.

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

'Science doesn't claim to know anything about God." Maybe so, but some scientists and most atheists here use science for their claims that God doesn't exist. You included.

We seem to go around in circles, I never said god does not exist, I only said that there is no evidence that it exists, a very big difference. 

I can't even tell you that leprechauns don't exist, I can only say that there is no credible evidence that they do. 

If you say leprechauns exist , all i can say is Wow !! realy , what is your evidence?

Would you not say the same?  So why not about god.?

 

 

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, sirineou said:

You misunderstand , consciousness is the result of a process  .

It is not a thing, it doesn't have a location, it is abstract 

It is the relationship between brain and mind, Consciousness resides in the mind. 

  Meditation removes the resistance of distractions resulting in more efficient processing of input

Resulting in a better result. Nothing metaphysical about it.  

     So does a very sophisticated,  AI,  self aware computer possesses  consciousness, and if so what is its metaphysical connection.

https://becominghuman.ai/can-machines-be-conscious-yes-here-is-why-71d32685b72d 

"So ,Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"

 Philip K. Dick

 

Oh, the intricacies of semantics.

As far as i am concerned, consciousness (self) is the divine bit in us, yes it resides in the mind (soul)

The mind (soul) grows according to consciousness, and connects the physical body and the spirit.

The brain is a very sophisticated processor, and possibly the most refined part of the physical body.

Consciousness (self) is much bigger than a little human brain, and can grow indefinitely, to the point of embracing the whole universe and beyond.

 

I will leave AI alone for the moment, but i'm sure it can be an interesting subject of conversation.

[Sunmaster]

14 hours ago, sirineou said:

There are no "spiritual realities" this is something you guys made up but offer no proof because no proof exists.

I'm sorry, are these not your words? This statement seems quite definite to me.

I also told you that there's plenty of proof for you and anyone willing to find out by themselves. If you don't believe holy books, spiritual teachers or anyone else, would you believe yourself and your own experience?
 

The evidence lies in the time proven path that seekers have taken to free themselves from the shackles of delusion and find union with the Supreme Being. (I wholeheartedly disagree with others who believe we can not understand God). The path has it's own rules and laws and the experiences therein are repeatable by everyone who walks it. Hence the definition "science of Yoga"....because you can independently verify the truthfulness of the claims. 

 

Now that you know about the way to verify the claims and find evidence for them, what will you do about it? Will you go on harking on that there is no evidence or will you actually try to find it?

Surely, a good scientist will not exclude something a priori when there are so many indicators to the contrary. A good scientist will be free of preconceptions and go in with a clear, unbiased mind and a healthy, childlike curiosity. A good scientist will not let his belief system limit the data sources for his hypotheses, nor will he refute any conclusion that doesn't fit in his belief system.

What kind of scientist are you?
 

[Skeptic7]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I thought we were not going to feed the troll. I haven't been on for a while and now I see it's mainly just the troll doing what trolls do now. Not long ago it was like the end of the thread had been reached, but if it's just this circular argument reacting to a troll, perhaps it is time to call it a day. Pity, as it was informative for a very long time.

Bye-eee! 

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, Elad said:

Yes, but our 5 physical senses has allowed us to develop scientific instruments giving us extra senses. We can now detect radio waves, infrared, x-rays, gamma rays, magnetic fields etc... things we could never do with the senses we are born with.     

Nobody denies that.

Yet it has been seen already in history that science without moral standards is dangerous.

Unfortunately, science is in the pocket of the higher bidders, and that doesn't leave a lot of space for high moral standards.

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I thought we were not going to feed the troll. I haven't been on for a while and now I see it's mainly just the troll doing what trolls do now. Not long ago it was like the end of the thread had been reached, but if it's just this circular argument reacting to a troll, perhaps it is time to call it a day. Pity, as it was informative for a very long time.

Months ago i had some similar thoughts, but just yesterday i was thinking that "the troll", in a way, is the beating heart of the thread.

You can't deny he's consistent in his Believe System

He might even be a believer, cleverly disguised as a atheist redneck, playing devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

Perhaps without some trollish post, i did that too, this thread would have died already.

 

Btw, "love your enemy" in its simplicity, is a hard, but surely a very direct way to get some glimpse of enlightenment, or so i am told.

[WalkingOrders]

I try to differentiate between belief, and faith. I have faith which is to say I have hope. Therefore I carry on in the hope of the promises of Christ, that there is a creator of all and this creator is good. I can pronounce my own belief all day long in terms of the Apostles creed for example, and get caught up in my own doubts. After all, how can I claim any first hand knowledge to support any of this belief? What proof can I offer? None, that can be construed as, or rises to the level of, scientific evidence. I see no requirement from God, or do not suppose one, that says I am required to have belief. I proceed on faith, and evidently I need only have the amount equivelent to a mustard seed, or a very small amount. Ok thats my theology for the day.

[WalkingOrders]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:27 PM, mauGR1 said:

We can't understand the concept of infinite, we can't understand lots of other things.

I think it's logical to think there are superior beings, and an intelligent design.

You don't throw around randomly screws and bolts and metal planks to build an airplane, right ?

People who mock God, mock something they don't understand.

I do understand the concept of infinite. Quite clearly.

[WalkingOrders]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:28 PM, marcusarelus said:

How about those who deny medical treatment to their children in the name of god?  How about those who stone women in the name of god?  How about those who commit mass suicide in the name of god?  Is that OK?

I don't know what this has to do with the question of believing in God. How about things that are NOT OK, and NOT done in the name of any God? Why does ones expressing a personal belief in God or not, require one to defend that belief by attacking the beliefs held by others? Or their moral failings? Or the morality or immorality of the actions of others? If that question is put forward then surely criticisms of religion(s), are valid to the question, but here the question only asks for a personal response to the belief in God.

[Skeptic7]

8 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Months ago i had some similar thoughts, but just yesterday i was thinking that "the troll", in a way, is the beating heart of the thread.

You can't deny he's consistent in his Believe System

He might even be a believer, cleverly disguised as a atheist redneck, playing devil's advocate for the sake of the discussion.

Perhaps without some trollish post, i did that too, this thread would have died already.

 

Btw, "love your enemy" in its simplicity, is a hard, but surely a very direct way to get some glimpse of enlightenment, or so i am told.

The only problem is your side's definition of "troll" is anyone whom disagrees with you and your woo. No offense, but that seems to be the truth. The "troll" is obviously not a troll at all, but rather someone that presents sound, valid, reasonabl challenges to the preconceived notions, gross assumptions and wild inaccuracies. Perhaps previously the challenger was a tad bit too "in yo face" blunt...but has softened the approach as of late due sensitivities displayed by the other side. Plenty of the same has been fired back this way and even a couple retractions...so the playing field is even. It seems you already agree...yes?

[PremiumLane]

In the 21st Century and with the access to information that we have, to believe in a god means you are either lonely, deluded, or disingenuous. Cos all they have is faith. 

[Tagged]

6 minutes ago, PremiumLane said:

In the 21st Century and with the access to information that we have, to believe in a god means you are either lonely, deluded, or disingenuous. Cos all they have is faith. 

A good thing is the understanding of the need for a faith for most people. Tribes need a belief on common ground to work, and good leaders often understand that, as evil leaders. 

 

Latest is how Trump is fishing for votes in the more far out christians by taking part of the yearly marches against abortion. I do not Believe for one second who could care less about abortion or not, if it was not a huge part of his voters is far out right wings christians. 

[WalkingOrders]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:40 PM, reenatinnakor said:

Every culture have their own beliefs and comfort system and superstitions. We all know here in Thailand monks are revered and Thais think they can grant wishes... Which as we all know is <deleted>, as I keep telling the gf, if monks really could grant wishes then there'll be no poor people in thailand. For the west the idea of jesus and god is our comfort system. For the chinese it's the idea of bai san, or respecting the dead.

I'm atheist and only believe in science but I do respect others superstitions and beliefs as long as they respect mine to not believe! Off course at the end of the day there is definitely no God like there was no Zeus, or Thor, or Posseidon. Man just hasn't had enough time to prove it yet. Last week we were finally able to see what a black hole looks like. One day we will be able to prove there's no God despite the fact that the burden of proof should be on those that believe there is a God.

I think its an over simplification to claim either that all Monks are revered by Thai, or that all Monks think they can grant wishes, or that all Thai believe such things. Bad monks fill the news, media, and folklore of Thailand. Reverence given to Monks is formality which is typically given, and heartfelt  but Thai are very aware of bad monks, in the same way the west is aware of bad religious leaders.

 

On the other hand, not being buddhist, but having spent some time in two remote temples in Thailand, that were a long jouney of a few days to get to, I was honestly struck by the compassion of these Monks truly living in a very isolated setting. They truly live their entire life in service to the visitors of the Temple, and I assume to foster the teaching of the Buddha through selfless action. I have also seen similiar actions by the Missionairies of Charity founded by Mother Theresa. Amazing people.

[StreetCowboy]

3 hours ago, AsianAtHeart said:

Well, this is one of those classic examples for the weakness of so-called "science."  Scientists in general seem unable to properly count the senses.  We have more than five.  The sense of balance/orientation is, for some odd reason, generally not considered.  But it certainly is a unique sense.  So we have six senses, not five.  The so-called "sixth-sense," which even has a dictionary entry as "a supposed intuitive faculty giving awareness not explicable in terms of normal perception," should be bumped up to seventh place. 

 

The fact that virtually all scientists in the world can only count their senses with the five fingers on one hand does not establish the veracity of having only five.  "Science" says five, but there are provably more than five.  So much for "science."

 

It is the same with God.  Scientists attempt to say there is no God.  They are simply ignorant.

Which scientists say that there is no God? 
Is that a large proportion of scientists?  How does that compare with traffic wardens? They meet all sorts, and if they say that there is no God, then at least we can conclude that he has no car.