Do you believe in God and why

[Tippaporn]

7 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

Perhaps Matthew 7:6 applies

Not by any stretch of the imagination.  It means simply this: "To leave a situation alone so as to avoid worsening it."

[mauGR1]

31 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I am not in a position (and believe nobody can) to determine who may possibly fabricate this event, and who's not.

Really ?

Why not do some honest scientific work, and try to find evidence or, at least, analyze the clues ?

You can tell a tree by its fruit.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

The obvious conclusion is that "God" does not exist. It's an answer proposed by utilising Occam's Razor

Occam's Razor is William of Ockham's device, or better understood as rule of thumb, in analyzing problems in order to provide for the best (hopefully true) explanation.  A rule of thumb touted by some to be an infallible method which always produces the correct answer.  Used by those who are weak on argumentative skills and hope to triumph in an argument by merely invoking, "Occam's Razor!"  I know, it's laughable but plenty of people do attempt it.

 

Now, canuckamuck challaenged you:   "I would love to see you lay out your argument, determining God doesn't exist, using Occam's razor methodology."

 

But I doubt, in fact I know, that you won't take him up on it.  In order to successfully argue one view over another one needs a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the subject matter . . . from both sides.  What are the odds of ThaiBunny being so well rounded?  Let's start the bidding at "0" and see if it's possible to move up from there.

 

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

I never pretend that.

 

It only state that some (As Sunmaster) had a nice encounter with "God" (or whatever one want to call it) and it changed positively their life.

 

Others received from "God/or whatever" the order to kill or doing other terrible things, and it changed dramatically their lives.

 

I believe they all encounter an "event".

 

I am not in a position (and believe nobody can) to determine who may possibly fabricate this event, and who's not.

Why would some people have a positive experience from an "encounter" with "God" and why would others have a destructive experience from a supposedly identical "encounter" with "God?"

 

I'll take, "What are beliefs?", Alex for $100..

 

[ThaiBunny]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Not by any stretch of the imagination.  It means simply this: "To leave a situation alone so as to avoid worsening it."

My French master at school once remarked to me about teaching a new intake of students "The pearls may be genuine but the swine are imitation". It's a comment I feel applies in many situations - this thread in particular

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

My French master at school once remarked to me about teaching a new intake of students "The pearls may be genuine but the swine are imitation". It's a comment I feel applies in many situations - this thread in particular

Without even needing to argue or comment on your point I'll ask only, then why are you torturing yourself by posting on this thread?  Wouldn't it be easier to just leave it alone?

[ThaiBunny]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

 I would love to see you lay out your argument, determining God doesn't exist, using Occam's razor methodology.

The simplest answer (ie. using Occam's Razor) as to why "God" permits evil to exist is to remove God from the equation altogether. It doesn't determine whether God exists as it's not possible to prove any such thing; anyone's position on God (and my favourite position is 69, followed by 68) is merely an inference or a set of inferences based on your subjective perceptions. Go and listen to the podcasts I listed if you need to understand how perception works

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why would some people have a positive experience from an "encounter" with "God" and why would others have a destructive experience from a supposedly identical "encounter" with "God?"

 

I'll take, "What are beliefs?", Alex.

 

Not sure i understand the last line, however i see it this way.

Along with the Absolute source, 3 main forces exist, creation, preservation and destruction: That according to Hindus, and i accept this.

Christians have a more cryptic (to me) definition of the trinity: father, son and holy spirit.

A few years ago, while in some sort of meditation trance, i had the vision of an atom as the trinity, nucleus, electrons and the power who keep them together.

 

However, those primeval forces are responsible of the creation of countless entities, like faith,hope, charity, but also selfishness, fear, hate, and those entities themselves are responsible for the creation of countless other self conscious entities, who can occasionally incarnate in human or super-human bodies.

 

Now, if someone told me that he has seen God, i would be a bit skeptical, but i wouldn't necessarily dismiss his vision as fantasy or hallucination.

Spiritual worlds are (at least) as real as the physical world we are in.

[ThaiBunny]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Without even needing to argue or comment on your point I'll ask only, then why are you torturing yourself by posting on this thread?  Wouldn't it be easier to just leave it alone?

I'm waiting for the swine to turn

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I'm waiting for the swine to turn

That's too cryptic for me, but i would guess you are enjoying this thread quite a lot ????

[Tippaporn]

3 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I'm waiting for the swine to turn

Up to you, my friend.

[ThaiBunny]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Up to you, my friend.

It always is. I suppose I could have attributed it to my innate sense of noblesse oblige

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Really ?

Why not do some honest scientific work, and try to find evidence or, at least, analyze the clues ?

You can tell a tree by its fruit.

I maybe express myself wrongly again. 

I mean I am sure people encounter some "events" and some fabricate them. 

Who can claim "my events are real ones, but those of my neighbour are fabricated". 

Of course to each of us in particular to believe all of tbem, some of them, or none of them. 

 

 

[Sunmaster]

4 hours ago, luckyluke said:

That's rather an enjoyable experience.

And apparently changed your life. 

 

It can however be different.

 

I read  that

some were visited by "God" and were ordered to kill, and they obey.

 

It changed their life too.

 

 

We know very little as to how Spirit communicates with us, in general and in the specific example(s) you mentioned. Btw, got a link to where you read that? 
If one is ready to kill someone, regardless if they blame "God" for it or not, don't you think they might not be the most reliable sources of information? Or maybe you would believe them because it suits your bias? 

What I know is that when you are really "visited by Spirit", you translate that energy in the form you are best familiar with. Hence a Hindu will see Vishnu, Brahman or another one of the thousands of God-manifestations, a Christian will see angels or Jesus, an Buddhist will encounter a formless state, an atheist may experience a feeling of unlimited, unconditional love. If Spirit chooses to communicate with you in such a manner, why would it appear in a form that is strange or frightening to you, or talk to you in a language you don't understand? 



 

[luckyluke]

24 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

few years ago, while in some sort of meditation trance, i had the vision of an atom as the trinity, nucleus, electrons and the power who keep them together.

It happened to me also that I saw, feeled "things", this was I think because I drunk too much Belgian beers. 

So I thought it was my imagination due to some excess. 

Maybe it wasn't and it was also some kind of vision. 

[VincentRJ]

20 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Very well worded, i would simply say that to put all one's faith in science to answer all questions, can backfire, as it creates a wall of prejudice, which obstructs the flow of intuitions.

18 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Aside from that, so many lesser questions have been answered by science, albeit oftentimes (and I mean oftentimes) unsatisfactorily in my opinion.  While I appreciate science and would never deny it's proven value I am not by any means a disciple of science.  I understand many are in the sense that they willingly and unquestioningly would believe any utterance emanating from the mouth of science.  It's not so much that a part of me is overly skeptical to an unhealthy degree but rather I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity.

 

I'm getting a sense of confusion here regarding the importance and the role of science in our future well-being. I think we need to distinguish between the 'authority' of science, as displayed by those with invested interests and biases in a particular aspect of scientific inquiry, and the actual, true nature of the methodology of science, which requires repeated experimentation and observations under controlled conditions, with complete objectivity and truth-seeking in mind.

 

Any fatal flaw in science is not due to 'pure objectivity', but is due to the opposite; a lack of pure objectivity, which occurs frequently in this modern era of government-funded and corporate-funded research.

 

Many of the great scientists in the past were self-funded and therefore were free of the influence of invested interests and the need to use their research to earn a living. Charles Darwin is an excellent example. Despite being raised as a Christian, he was able to allow his objectivity to prevail and gradually became an 'agnostic' on the issue of the existence of God.

 

In his later private autobiography, Darwin wrote of the period from October 1836 to January 1839:

 

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst on board the Beagle........ I had gradually come, by this time, to see that the Old Testament from its manifestly false history of the world, with the Tower of Babel, rainbow as a sign, etc., etc., and from its attributing to God the feelings of a revengeful tyrant, was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindus, or the beliefs of any barbarian."

 

In the introduction to his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

 

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin

[ThaiBunny]

22 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I maybe express myself wrongly again. 

I mean I am sure people encounter some "events" and some fabricate them. 

Who can claim "my events are real ones, but those of my neighbour are fabricated". 

Of course to each of us in particular to believe all of tbem, some of them, or none of them. 

The value of eyewitness testimony in criminal trials has been devalued recently - https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/eyewitness-testimony-may-only-be-credible-under-these-circumstances. You can google for multiple similar articles

 

The experiences we have are usually disjointed and disconnected. In order to make sense of them we go over and over them in our mind, trying to reconcile or even ignore the inconsistencies so that eventually we end up with a coherent narrative which must be what happened. There are multiple experiments where several eye-witnesses to the same event came up with differing accounts. In their minds they fabricated nothing. To some extent everything that happens to everyone is "fabricated" for that same reason

 

A recent article in MAUgr1's favourite reading material, New Scientist magazine, suggested that, in effect, at the individual level there is no such thing as a real event. Our individual experience is the story we tell ourselves about who were are. As I recall Sunmaster's facile response was to repeat the Freudian paradigm of ego, id and superego, although not in those terms, as if that was some profound religious insight rather than a now-discredited set of ideas

[UbonThani]

Car crashes are real.

[CMNightRider]

Romans 1:18 “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.”  

 

“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork”(Psalm 19:1) and God’s “eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Rom 1:20).

 

The reason that the torture and death of the first followers of Jesus is so significant, is because they were tortured for saying that they had witnessed the risen Christ.

 

Common sense should tell you there is no one willing to be tortured to death over a lie.  Don't think for one moment we are not going to be judged for what we do in secret.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 2/20/2020 at 11:33 PM, Tippaporn said:

Dark chocolate is the best.  Although, I would never refuse milk chocolate.    You can keep the white chocolate, though.

Belgian white chocolate is rubbish. The supermarket ran out of the proper stuff and I had to resort to Belgian- yuk.

The next time they had the proper stuff I bought 10 bars.

[mauGR1]

11 hours ago, luckyluke said:

I maybe express myself wrongly again. 

I mean I am sure people encounter some "events" and some fabricate them. 

Who can claim "my events are real ones, but those of my neighbour are fabricated". 

Of course to each of us in particular to believe all of tbem, some of them, or none of them. 

 

 

I think this time i understand what you mean, my point is that you can spot the liars, if you put a little work into it.

"You can tell a tree by its fruit".

[mauGR1]

11 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm getting a sense of confusion here regarding the importance and the role of science in our future well-being. I think we need to distinguish between the 'authority' of science, as displayed by those with invested interests and biases in a particular aspect of scientific inquiry, and the actual, true nature of the methodology of science, which requires repeated experimentation and observations under controlled conditions, with complete objectivity and truth-seeking in mind.

 

Any fatal flaw in science is not due to 'pure objectivity', but is due to the opposite; a lack of pure objectivity, which occurs frequently in this modern era of government-funded and corporate-funded research.

No confusion from me, and the contradiction between "true science" and the "authority of science" is not a new thing.

The fact is that the scientists, well, most of them, have always been in the pocket of those who pay the bills.

[luckyluke]

12 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

got a link to where you read that? 

Google : " God told me to kill". 

[luckyluke]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

my point is that you can spot the liars,

Maybe. 

But I think  it depends on the approach : 

It can be :

" I am prepare to believe it" 

or

" This stuff is total fantasy" 

 

One need of course to have an open mind, but where to draw the line? 

 

Is an encounter with "God" plausible or is it pure fantasy?

 

Is for instance the tin foil hat theory plausible or pure fantasy?

 

For some it is unimaginable and offensive to compare. 

 

For others it is the same, it is all fantasy. 

 

Who is right and who is wrong?

 

Here also some will pretend that their sources are real, others simply won't accept them. 

 

We have here a member who pretend that everything is to be found in a book (Bible) and that everything in it is the truth and the only truth. 

 

I am convinced he really believe this. 

 

Some will laugh that away, 

but than being convinced that their "belief" is authentic. 

 

Not an easy stuff for  non-believers. 

 

Is all those stuff fantasy? 

 

More easy for the ones who  belief in their own particular "Belief". 

 

For them fantasy is the other ones belief, their is authentic, and claim they can proof it. 

 

However their proof is not always considered as  such by everyone. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

3 hours ago, luckyluke said:

Maybe. 

But I think  it depends on the approach : 

It can be :

" I am prepare to believe it" 

or

" This stuff is total fantasy" 

 

One need of course to have an open mind, but where to draw the line?

That's a good question, and the answer cannot be but subjective.

In general, i am quite skeptical myself, but my experiences brought me to believe that the physical reality is more "flexible" than we are taught to believe, and it is wise to keep an open mind.

So it's entirely possible that something is pure fantasy for you, and in the same time reality for me.

[mauGR1]

17 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

A recent article in MAUgr1's favourite reading material, New Scientist magazine, suggested that, in effect, at the individual level there is no such thing as a real event. Our individual experience is the story we tell ourselves about who were are

Lol, good shot, but no cigar, you missed the target.

Not only i completely agree, in this case, with your magazine, but i also regard "true" science as one of the best proves of the existence of intelligent design.

As i believe that we have to work to make a better world, with respect to all living beings, i think that science can become at times, an aberration, as in the case of vivisection; in that case science is not "good" and not "true".

[canuckamuck]

18 hours ago, ThaiBunny said:

The simplest answer (ie. using Occam's Razor) as to why "God" permits evil to exist is to remove God from the equation altogether. It doesn't determine whether God exists as it's not possible to prove any such thing; anyone's position on God (and my favourite position is 69, followed by 68) is merely an inference or a set of inferences based on your subjective perceptions. Go and listen to the podcasts I listed if you need to understand how perception works

I give you credit for replying at least, but your attempt was miserable. You have applied an assumption as fact and allowed that to be your evidence.

Your claim that, God allows evil so therefore He does not exist, is based on your belief that evil is God's error. But evil is not God's error, rather it is the result of disunity with God. God desires true relationship, not slaves. So God allows people to go their own way. The result however is evil. How we deal with evil and how we recognize God in a world of evil and good, either puts us back in relationship with God, or it leaves us to separation from God.

[luckyluke]

5 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Your claim that,... 

 

That's what "belief" is in many cases. 

 

Someone has an opinion about something, another one claim that it is totally wrong, that his opinion is the only right one. 

 

So can we state in the example here above that one of the two is right and one not? 

 

O should we state that both are right because both believe they are right.

 

And that there is no opinion which is better/more accurate than another, except in the individuals mind. 

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

O should we state that both are right because both believe they are right.

This makes sense.

 

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

And that there is no opinion which is better/more accurate than another, except in the individuals mind. 

This makes less sense, imho.

There are "opinions" which are more accurate, and less accurate "opinions".

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, luckyluke said:

That's what "belief" is in many cases. 

 

Someone has an opinion about something, another one claim that it is totally wrong, that his opinion is the only right one. 

 

So can we state in the example here above that one of the two is right and one not? 

 

O should we state that both are right because both believe they are right.

 

And that there is no opinion which is better/more accurate than another, except in the individuals mind. 

 

Yes you are right. But his destruction of God through the use of Occam's razor failed because it was based on a singular view of God.

That is not to say my view is not also based on belief. But his idea of God was not based on anything more than his idea as an atheist. So his argument is meaningless to anyone he disagree's with. People who believe in God do not generally consider evil to be God's error.  Some do discount the problem of evil though.