Do you believe in God and why

[ThaiBunny]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

A bit defensive, but fair enough, you are safe (for now)

That you needed to ask it confirms my suspicion that you are not one of the brightest bulbs in the chandelier of this thread

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

That you needed to ask it confirms my suspicion that you are not one of the brightest bulbs in the chandelier of this thread

Please keep it civil guys.

[mauGR1]

13 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

That you needed to ask it confirms my suspicion that you are not one of the brightest bulbs in the chandelier of this thread

If it doesn't offend you, i'll take that as a compliment

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Anyway, my question above is serious and if any atheist out there would like to have a gander at it I'd be interested to hear the answer(s).  I hope I don't get ignored.

Having been on this thread since the very beginning, among the regular posters, the only "atheist" from whom you can expect an intelligent answer to your question, is @VincentRJ

I certainly wouldn't expect one from ThaiBunny.  He seems to be good only at clever replies but when it comes down to actual substance . . . 

 

Come on, ThaiBunny, I'm egging you on to take me up on my offer.  LOL

 

Let's hear you explain in precise terms what reality is and how it really functions in all of it's aspects.  Speak to us of who we are, where we come from, where we go when we're all done here, what role we play in this creation.  What is energy?  Where does it come from?  Is it exhaustible?  Can it be destroyed?  Explain to us precisely how random combinations of genes evolved to form a literally countless numbers of different life forms.  Explain to us the math behind it.  How long it would take monkeys to write Shakespeare based on randomness and given the supposed age of the universe?  How about the big bang?  How all of this was created from nothingness.  Where and how did something come from nothingness?  What was the process?  How did it unfold?  What was the spark?  What initiated it?  What is inspiration?  Is it real or imagined?  Where does it emanate from?  What is human emotion?  Where does human emotion come from?  What creates emotion?  What is emotions function?  What is thought?  Where does thought come from?  What do thoughts do?  What effects do they have on your body?  On the world?  What is time?  How was it created?  Is time constant?  How does all of the above and more tie together, function seamlessly together?

 

Will you gift us your knowledge or will you present us simply with another clever remark?  Or will you slink away and ignore the post?  You seem to be the answer man so please enlighten us all.

 

Now, perhaps you'll admit that you don't have all of the answers and if so then explain to us how it is that you know with certainty that any of the other answers here are not correct?

 

Crickets?  Or no?

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I certainly wouldn't expect one from ThaiBunny.  He seems to be good only at clever replies but when it comes down to actual substance . . . 

Perhaps i am wrong, but certain reactions from certain people when you talk about God or Spirituality, could mean that they've had some less than pleasant experiences with monks, priests or organised religion.

Personally i've been lucky, the priests i had the chance to meet in my youth, were all quite decent folks; actually the one i really liked, happened to fall in love with a girl and quit the Church.

[luckyluke]

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Speak to us of who we are, where we come from, where we go when we're all done here, what role we play in this creation.  What is energy?  Where does it come from?  Is it exhaustible?  Can it be destroyed?  Explain to us precisely how random combinations of genes evolved to form a literally countless numbers of different life forms.  Explain to us the math behind it.  How long it would take monkeys to write Shakespeare based on randomness and given the supposed age of the universe?  How about the big bang?  How all of this was created from nothingness.  Where and how did something come from nothingness?  What was the process?  How did it unfold?  What was the spark?  What initiated it?  What is inspiration?  Is it real or imagined?  Where does it emanate from?  What is human emotion?  Where does human emotion come from?  What creates emotion?  What is emotions function?  What is thought?  Where does thought come from?  What do thoughts do?  What effects do they have on your body?  On the world?  What is time?  How was it created?  Is time constant?  How does all of the above and more tie together, function seamlessly together?

 

I suppose there are different kind of answers to those questions, and that no one is particularly right. 

 

What concern myself, I could and still can easely live a happy live without knowing the answers. 

 

But we are all different of course. 

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 

I suppose there are different kind of answers to those questions, and that no one is particularly right. 

 

What concern myself, I could and still can easely live a happy live without knowing the answers. 

 

But we are all different of course. 

I think that in this difficult world, some peace of mind is already a remarkable achievement, yet looking tirelessly for answers is embedded in human nature.

Sometimes to stop thinking too much can bring unexpected benefits though, even answers to difficult questions.

[ThaiBunny]

18 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps i am wrong, but certain reactions from certain people when you talk about God or Spirituality, could mean that they've had some less than pleasant experiences with monks, priests or organised religion.

Personally i've been lucky, the priests i had the chance to meet in my youth, were all quite decent folks; actually the one i really liked, happened to fall in love with a girl and quit the Church.

You never toyed with the priesthood?

[ThaiBunny]

36 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Let's hear you explain in precise terms what reality is and how it really functions in all of it's aspects.  Speak to us of who we are, where we come from, where we go when we're all done here, what role we play in this creation.  What is energy?  Where does it come from?  Is it exhaustible?  Can it be destroyed?  Explain to us precisely how random combinations of genes evolved to form a literally countless numbers of different life forms.  Explain to us the math behind it.  How long it would take monkeys to write Shakespeare based on randomness and given the supposed age of the universe?  How about the big bang?  How all of this was created from nothingness.  Where and how did something come from nothingness?  What was the process?  How did it unfold?  What was the spark?  What initiated it?  What is inspiration?  Is it real or imagined?  Where does it emanate from?  What is human emotion?  Where does human emotion come from?  What creates emotion?  What is emotions function?  What is thought?  Where does thought come from?  What do thoughts do?  What effects do they have on your body?  On the world?  What is time?  How was it created?  Is time constant?  How does all of the above and more tie together, function seamlessly together?

I'm not sure how we've reached the position after several days of to and fro where you cannot know my answer to all of the above. There are no big answers to big questions. As Gautama said, the only outcome of pondering such things is "suffering" in the sense of being dissatisfied with life; it becomes a journey in a bullock cart where one of the wheels is uneven. Try Steve Hagan's Buddhism Plain & Simple (it's also an audiobook)

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

You never toyed with the priesthood?

Not really, i am too much of a savage to enjoy to be part of any group of association.

I remember a conversation with my brother though, when i was about 13, and for a while i wanted to go to Africa to help the locals somehow.

In my teens i had some real hate for the organised religion (Catholic), until i went to India, and an old man told me that Jesus was a great prophet, and incarnation of Vishnu, the God of preservation.

..Of course i have mixed feelings about organised religions, like any kind of society, it can be easily corrupted by the greed for power.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Hey, now!!!  I have to admit I do like you in a strange fashion, ThaiBunny,

There are perverts everywhere

I knew you would pick up on that phrase and have one of your usual clever comebacks.  LOL  I do appreciate the entertainment value you provide.  Would enjoy having a few beers with you sometime.

[ThaiBunny]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Not really, i am too much of a savage to enjoy to be part of any group of association.

I remember a conversation with my brother though, when i was about 13, and for a while i wanted to go to Africa to help the locals somehow.

In my teens i had some real hate for the organised religion (Catholic), until i went to India, and an old man told me that Jesus was a great prophet, and incarnation of Vishnu, the God of preservation.

..Of course i have mixed feelings about organised religions, like any kind of society, it can be easily corrupted by the greed for power.

Oh dear, completely missed the point. Hilarious

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, ThaiBunny said:

Oh dear, completely missed the point. Hilarious

Thanks, so what you mean by "toyed with the priesthood" ?

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, ThaiBunny said:

I'm not sure how we've reached the position after several days of to and fro where you cannot know my answer to all of the above. There are no big answers to big questions. As Gautama said, the only outcome of pondering such things is "suffering" in the sense of being dissatisfied with life; it becomes a journey in a bullock cart where one of the wheels is uneven. Try Steve Hagan's Buddhism Plain & Simple (it's also an audiobook)

Gautama was a class act.  As far as I'm concerned Gautama spoke from the same fount of knowledge as Seth.  The similarities are uncanny.  But if the fount from which they both drink is the same then no small wonder; it's to be expected.

 

"What we are today comes from our thoughts of yesterday, and our present thoughts build our life of tomorrow: our life is the creation of our mind."

 

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts. If a man speak or act with an evil thought, suffering follows him as the wheel follows the hoof of the beast that draws the wagon.... If a man speak or act with a good thought, happiness follows him like a shadow that never leaves him.”

 

The essence of both of those quotes is identical to Seth's statements that our thoughts create our reality.  And as Seth is fond of saying, there is no other main rule.   That, my friend, is a very big answer to a very big question.  The value of it in your life is beyond measure.

 

Personally I don't believe that you actually believe when you say, "There are no big answers to big questions."  With no intention on my part to demean or belittle, the thought of avoidance comes to mind.

 

“Words do not express thoughts very well; every thing immediately becomes a little different, a little distorted, a little foolish. And yet it also pleases me and seems right that what is of value and wisdom of one man seems nonsense to another.”

 

No ill will towards you, ThaiBunny, but good luck to you.

 

Edit:  BTW, if you could dig up that Gautama quote I'd appreciate it.  I tried to search for it but to no avail.

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Tippaporn

[VincentRJ]

7 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Where we differ, is that the perception of the reality cannot be limited to the information coming from the 5 physical senses and filtered through our brains.

 

The brain is far more than a filter. It's absolutely essential for all aspects of the processing of all perceptions from the 5 senses. The brain is essential in order to provide meaning to all the sensations received through the 5 physical senses. The brain continues to provide meaning to our past experiences from the 5 senses, when the body is at rest during sleep, or during states of thoughtful contemplation.

 

The entire products of modern civilizations, including all the products of science and technology, are a result of the brain processing the experiences from the 5 senses.
As a result of such processing, and deep contemplation by unusually intelligent individuals, we now understand that what we see with our eyes involves just a very small part of the 'Electromagnetic Spectrum'. We call that very small portion 'light', which ranges from red to violet. The rest of the spectrum, consisting of a wide range of radio frequencies at one end, and X-rays and Gamma rays at the other end, are totally invisible. 

 

What we hear is also just a small portion of the total range of the sound spectrum. The limits of the human hearing range are from around 20 Hertz to 20,000 Hertz. However, in medicine we are now using 'ultrasound' frequencies which range from 2 million Hertz to 15 million Hertz, totally beyond human hearing. 

 

Now, if you wish to propose that there is a sixth sense with an invisible receptor that can detect an invisible 'spirit', for want of a better word, then such a proposition is currently no more than a 'hypothesis'.

 

One might find stories about 'Near Death Experiences' convincing if you already believe in the existence of mysterious and invisible spirits, but from a scientific perspective there is no verifiable evidence that such stories meet the standards required by the 'methodology of science'.

 

Part of the problem is that only about one person in a thousand, who has a serious operation that brings them close to death, claims to have experienced their spirit or soul departing their body and passing through walls and sometimes to a different storey in the building. In order to verify that such people actually saw things upstairs or in a different room, whilst they were floating around, outside of their body, one would have to prepare the surrounding area with 'hidden' objects, or objects in locked rooms that only the investigating scientists knew about.

 

so to automatically dismiss everything which can't be proven is wrong imho

 

There are lots of things which can't be proven, but they are not necessarily dismissed if there is some basis for the 'hypothesis' that they might exist. For example, the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is not dismissed even though its presence is still invisible and undetectable.
 

[Tippaporn]

On 2/21/2020 at 12:10 PM, 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.

 

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

No confusion on my end at all.  I meant exactly what I wrote: "I believe they have adopted a fatal flaw in that their pursuit of answers to any question must be based in pure objectivity."  Science has severely limited itself precisely because it disregards subjective reality.  Now, just because I make that blasphemous statement does not mean to imply that there is no place for strict objectivity.  I grant that.  But for science to aver that there is no place whatsoever for subject reality is, well, a fatal flaw.  Hello!!!  Subjective reality exists.  Ignore it at your own peril for the folly of doing so leads to many unintended consequences.  In many instances science does indeed operate as a cult.  Cultish religions exist in response to the cultish behavior of science.  I do not expect you to understand that comment and not because I believe you to be dim witted or obtuse.  I do not expect you to understand it because your beliefs prevent you from understanding it.

 

I'll state this again, since I can't be sure you've read the post in which I first stated it; the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Nothing appears in the physical universe, neither object or event, which does not first occur in the subjective universe.  Now, anyone who is deeply immersed in the world of science will automatically reject those statements.  This I understand.  To accept that as fact would turn science on it's head.

 

When you speak of the importance that the role of science plays in our future well-being I must point out that what is omitted from that statement is any detrimental role that science has played.  To quote Seth here (and if you missed the post where I explain who Seth is I'll be blunt because I'm sure your intellect would not accept, let's say even a proper description - he's a dead guy existing in a subjective reality).

 

"Science insists that it does not deal with values, but leaves those to philosophers.  In stating that the universe is an accidental creation, however, a meaningless chance conglomeration formed by an unfeeling cosmos, it states quite clearly its belief that the universe and man's existence has no value.  All that remains is what pleasure or accomplishment can somehow be wrested from man's individual biological processes.

"A recent article in a national magazine speaks "glowingly" about the latest direction of progress in the field of psychology, saying that man will realize that his moods, thoughts, and feelings are the result of the melody of chemicals that swirl in his brain.  That statement devalues man's subjective world.

"The scientists claim a great idealism.  They claim the way toward truth.  Their "truth" is to be found by studying the objective world, the world of objects, including animals and stars, galaxies and mice -- but by viewing these objects as if they are themselves without intrinsic value, as if their existences have no meaning.

"A given scientist may act quite differently in his family life and as a scientist.  He may love his family dog, for example, while at the same time think nothing of injecting other animals with diseased tissue in his professional capacity."

 

The fact that science is without value is astonishing and, to say the least, highly detrimental.  Being valueless and categorically amoral allows for unconstrained destructive tendencies to flourish.  A single, real world example would suffice.  Science has no qualms in developing weapons of mass destruction, weapons to wipe out tens or hundreds of thousands of human beings with the simple press of a button.  Now I'm sure you did not have this in mind when you spoke of the important role science plays in the future of our "well-being." 

 

I'll provide another, more recent example.  Tell me, is COVID-19 naturally occurring?  What do you think?  Did, perchance, science have anything to do with it's Frankenstein creation?  For if scientists did then we are now seeing precisely how science is looking after our "well-being."

 

One more example of the cultish lunacy which separates these highly "intelligent," intellectual giants from us ignorant folk with their primitive, backwards ideas of a meaningless subjective reality; values, self integrity, honour, principles.  Recent activity in Yellowstone has some scientists alarmed that the Yellowstone super volcano might be ready to blow (it's speculated that a vast area of Yellowstone is indeed one giant caldera).  There have been reports that some scientists, in their infinite "wisdom," believe that if enough holes were to be bored into the magma chamber (no small feat) it would relieve the pressure which is potentially increasing, thereby preventing a cataclysmic eruption which would literally wipe out most of the U.S.  Of course there's no certainty that this would work.  In fact, it may have the opposite effect of promoting an eruption.  But, risk be damned, some of them would be more than willing to give it a shot.  If wrong, well, too bad.  Be sure that the dumb, ignorant population would never be consulted if such a decision were to go forward.

 

"The idea is that the scientists' system of beliefs is bound to result in some destructive action: that is, the implied attitudes of today's scientists lead them to be less careful of life than they should be, and separate them from nature in a way that leads to some contempt on their parts of individual living things.

". . . . In the same way [he's comparing one obviously cultish behaviour to another not so obvious cultish behaviour] the scientific community speaks of grandiose ideals, of man's triumph over the planet and nature.  At the same time these ideals further divorce the scientists from daily practical experience with their fellow-man; and since they see animals as objects, they're bound to see human life in somewhat the same fashion.  The sacrifice of, say. thousands of lives in a nuclear accident almost becomes justified in their minds if it is a means toward the grandiose goal of learning how to 'triumph over nature.'"

 

Science, with it's present attitudes, will never achieve complete answers to life, nor will they even get close.  If not for many other obvious reasons certainly because they refuse to include subject reality in their pursuit of true answers.

 

Do not walk away with the impression that I am anti-science or some such thing.  Not in the least.  I'm merely pointing out sciences' many flaws.  Science, in my view, is attempting to become a new religion.  It already has many disciples, people who willingly believe every scientific utterance without question, blithely and mindlessly repeat their pronouncements to others as absolute holy truth, and blindly defend them in all cases - good or bad.  In this sense I'm rooting for their failure.

 

Sorry if this post was a bit brief.  So much more that can be said.

 

Edited February 22, 2020 by Tippaporn

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Science has severely limited itself precisely because it disregards subjective reality. 

Absolutely not true. We've had the disciplines of Psychology and Neuroscience for a long time, which address these issues of subjective reality. The theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were very relevant many years ago. Have you not read them? Progress in these issues is progressing continually. Science is never settled.

 

I'll state this again, since I can't be sure you've read the post in which I first stated it; the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Nothing appears in the physical universe, neither object or event, which does not first occur in the subjective universe.  Now, anyone who is deeply immersed in the world of science will automatically reject those statements.  This I understand.  To accept that as fact would turn science on it's head.

 

Nonsense! Science is the result of a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. 'No objectivity' equates to 'no science'. It is science that unravels the mysteries of why a leaf appears green. It's not because the leaf actually is green. That would be imposing our own subjectivity upon the leaf. It's because the leaf reflects a certain frequency of light which the 'normal' human brain interprets as green, and an abnormal human brain interprets as some other colour. Such abnormality is described as 'colour blindness'.

 

Do not walk away with the impression that I am anti-science or some such thing.  Not in the least.  I'm merely pointing out sciences' many flaws.  Science, in my view, is attempting to become a new religion.  It already has many disciples, people who willingly believe every scientific utterance without question, blithely and mindlessly repeat their pronouncements to others as absolute holy truth, and blindly defend them in all cases - good or bad.  In this sense I'm rooting for their failure.

 

No. You're not pointing out the many flaws of science. You are pointing out the many flaws in many peoples' understanding of science, and the many flaws in certain scientists who are prepared to sacrifice the fundamental principles of science in order to promote a political agenda which they feel emotional about. Climate Change alarmism about CO2 emissions is just one glaring example.

[Sunmaster]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

The entire products of modern civilizations, including all the products of science and technology, are a result of the brain processing the experiences from the 5 senses.

I don't think modern civilization is only a product of our 5 senses. Intuition is a very important piece in the creative process, and I think being creative is important in scientific inquiry just as much as in art.

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't think modern civilization is only a product of our 5 senses. Intuition is a very important piece in the creative process, and I think being creative is important in scientific inquiry just as much as in art.

Intuition and the creative processes are a result of the brain processing, thinking about and pondering over, either directly or indirectly, what has been received through the 5 senses. I'm not aware of any person who was born blind and deaf, and who is also insensitive to smell, taste and touch, who is able to even survive, never mind expressing any creativity and intuition. Are you?

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, piewarmer said:

if god is the universe that is all around us then yes (mother nature)

Religion on the other hand is just fantasy

I think that was established several thousand posts ago.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Absolutely not true. We've had the disciplines of Psychology and Neuroscience for a long time, which address these issues of subjective reality. The theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were very relevant many years ago. Have you not read them? Progress in these issues is progressing continually. Science is never settled.

 

 

 

 

Nonsense! Science is the result of a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. 'No objectivity' equates to 'no science'. It is science that unravels the mysteries of why a leaf appears green. It's not because the leaf actually is green. That would be imposing our own subjectivity upon the leaf. It's because the leaf reflects a certain frequency of light which the 'normal' human brain interprets as green, and an abnormal human brain interprets as some other colour. Such abnormality is described as 'colour blindness'.

 

 

 

 

No. You're not pointing out the many flaws of science. You are pointing out the many flaws in many peoples' understanding of science, and the many flaws in certain scientists who are prepared to sacrifice the fundamental principles of science in order to promote a political agenda which they feel emotional about. Climate Change alarmism about CO2 emissions is just one glaring example.

In 500 years ( if humans are still around ), scientists will regard today's science in the same way we regard science of 1000 years ago.

We know nothing, Jon Snow ( but some think we do ).

[luckyluke]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

We know nothing

 

I know enough to have a serene, happy life.

 

Is that wrong? 

 

I started to understand things when I was 12, I know more now than 60 years ago. 

 

Pretty sure it will continue this way, and people will know and understand more than they do now. 

 

Something different :

 

I admire well-spoken and well-written people.

 

But I am not impressed by them.

 

Neither will they more convinced me than someone who express his opinion in simple words.

 

I am not state here that all well-spoken/written people want to impress/show off. 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In 500 years ( if humans are still around ), scientists will regard today's science in the same way we regard science of 1000 years ago.

We know nothing, Jon Snow ( but some think we do ).

What nonsense! It's impossible to know nothing because there's nothing there to know. We can only know something. ????

 

If one wishes to interpret 'know nothing' as 'not know anything', then that's also nonsensical.

 

All living creatures need to know something in order to survive and reproduce. A fish needs to know how to swim and recognize food, and ants need to know how to build their 'Ant Hills' or nests.

 

The etymology of 'know' means to 'recognize and identify'. However, if you interpret 'know' as meaning 'a complete understanding of something in all its details, complexities, history, and connections, then I agree that we don't have a truly complete knowledge of any single 'thing'.

 

If that's what you meant, you should have stated so.

[UbonThani]

Facts and science are two different things. Facts are beyond doubt and corruption. Science has been corrupt since the 1800s as greedy people push their agendas.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Intuition and the creative processes are a result of the brain processing, thinking about and pondering over, either directly or indirectly, what has been received through the 5 senses. I'm not aware of any person who was born blind and deaf, and who is also insensitive to smell, taste and touch, who is able to even survive, never mind expressing any creativity and intuition. Are you?

If survival was all that matters, we would be just animals with a bigger brain than average.

Monkeys and dogs were the same 2000 years ago, and will not change in 2000 years.

You can't really explain the complexity of consciousness, ideologies, creativity etc of the humans just with the 5 physical senses and a brain.

So where consciousness, intuition, creativity come from ?

Why don't monkeys get sophisticated technology, why cats don't invent musical instruments, why dogs don't organise football tournaments, after all they have 5 senses and a brain, they just have to copy from humans after all..

[Sunmaster]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Intuition and the creative processes are a result of the brain processing, thinking about and pondering over, either directly or indirectly, what has been received through the 5 senses. I'm not aware of any person who was born blind and deaf, and who is also insensitive to smell, taste and touch, who is able to even survive, never mind expressing any creativity and intuition. Are you?

I beg to differ.
According to my experiences and understanding, and according to the Vedic tradition (which came way before any organized religious tradition), the information flow is not bound only to the 5 senses. On the contrary, yogic teachings state that it is by shutting down the 5 senses that one can access higher states of consciousness, and thus open a new (and I would say, far greater) source of information.
Like @Tippaporn mentioned, any scientific theory that attempts to decipher the big picture, can't just ignore and dismiss this part of human knowledge simply because it doesn't conform to its narrow framework. If the information gathered from sources other than the 5 physical senses doesn't fit, then a wider framework has to be used. 

[CMNightRider]

The Bible was written over a span of 1500 years, by 40 writers. Unlike other religious writings, the Bible reads as a factual news account of real events, places, people, and dialogue. Historians and archaeologists have repeatedly confirmed its authenticity.

Using the writers' own writing styles and personalities, God shows us who he is and what it's like to know him.

 

There is one central message consistently carried by all 40 writers of the Bible: God, who created us all, desires a relationship with us. He calls us to know him and trust him.

 

The Bible not only inspires us, it explains life and God to us. It does not answer all the questions we might have, but enough of them. It shows us how to live with purpose and compassion. How to relate to others. It encourages us to rely on God for strength, direction, and enjoy his love for us. The Bible also tells us how we can have eternal life.

 

[Tippaporn]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Science has severely limited itself precisely because it disregards subjective reality.

Absolutely not true. We've had the disciplines of Psychology and Neuroscience for a long time, which address these issues of subjective reality. The theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were very relevant many years ago. Have you not read them? Progress in these issues is progressing continually. Science is never settled.

 

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll state this again, since I can't be sure you've read the post in which I first stated it; the source of objective reality is subjective reality.  Nothing appears in the physical universe, neither object or event, which does not first occur in the subjective universe.  Now, anyone who is deeply immersed in the world of science will automatically reject those statements.  This I understand.  To accept that as fact would turn science on it's head.

 

Nonsense! Science is the result of a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. 'No objectivity' equates to 'no science'. It is science that unravels the mysteries of why a leaf appears green. It's not because the leaf actually is green. That would be imposing our own subjectivity upon the leaf. It's because the leaf reflects a certain frequency of light which the 'normal' human brain interprets as green, and an abnormal human brain interprets as some other colour. Such abnormality is described as 'colour blindness'.

 

11 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Do not walk away with the impression that I am anti-science or some such thing.  Not in the least.  I'm merely pointing out sciences' many flaws.  Science, in my view, is attempting to become a new religion.  It already has many disciples, people who willingly believe every scientific utterance without question, blithely and mindlessly repeat their pronouncements to others as absolute holy truth, and blindly defend them in all cases - good or bad.  In this sense I'm rooting for their failure.

 

No. You're not pointing out the many flaws of science. You are pointing out the many flaws in many peoples' understanding of science, and the many flaws in certain scientists who are prepared to sacrifice the fundamental principles of science in order to promote a political agenda which they feel emotional about. Climate Change alarmism about CO2 emissions is just one glaring example.

I should start with a bit of appreciation.  I wasn't quite sure you would respond.  We all know, because we've all observed and experienced it ourselves, that oftentimes difficult questions put to posters get completely ignored.  So thanks for replying.  I may as well add that it's not unusual for lengthy posts to receive cherry picked replies.  Some points may be easier to contest while others not so.  And to be fair, there are points which I could not expect you to reply to since, not having any exposure to the information I present, you are without any reference points.  And to be doubly fair, some posters do not wish to spend the required time.  I certainly can't blame them for that.

 

"Absolutely not true. We've had the disciplines of Psychology and Neuroscience for a long time, which address these issues of subjective reality. The theories of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung were very relevant many years ago."

 

Laugh out loud, and very, very heartedly, that you attempt to argue science's inclusion of subjective reality by invoking Freud and Jung.  I laugh heartedly because it's akin to shooting yourself in the foot.  It would be difficult to choose two other such representative pillars of science. (obvious <sarc> )

 

From an article entitled, "What are the most interesting ideas of Sigmund Freud?"

 

"The third and most significant region is the unconscious. Here lie the processes that are the real cause of most behaviour. Like an iceberg, the most important part of the mind is the part you cannot see.

"The unconscious mind acts as a repository, a ‘cauldron’ of primitive wishes and impulse kept at bay and mediated by the preconscious area."

 

Let's ignore for a moment the faults of his conclusions.  It speaks very glowingly of subjective reality, does it not?  Is Freud's conclusion still alive and vitally active in the current world of science?  That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

 

Carl Jung was an early supporter of Freud.  Granted they had their differences but regarding their interpretations of what the subconscious represents they are each just as faulty.  I give them credit insofar as they did make some strides.  Freud does deserve credit for his discovery of the subconscious mind.  Unfortunately, despite their share of valid contributions many of their ideas were indeed quite harmful.

 

"Have you not heard of them?"

 

LOL.  Who hasn't?  Why, even a dead guy is familiar with him.  (You know, rather than refer to him as Seth I should instead continue to simply refer to him as "a dead guy."  It would serve well to continually give the intellect of some a good shuddering shake.)  So here's some of the "dead guy's" select analysis of Freud and Jung:

 

"There are a few points of a general nature that I would like to make. Ruburt [Jane] has been reading Jung, though not consistently. The libido does not originate in the subconscious of the present personality. It begins instead in the energy of the entity and inner self, and is directed by means of the inner senses — outward, so to speak, through the deeper layers of the individual subconscious mind, then through the outer or personal areas.

"Your Freud and Jung have probed into the outer, personal subconscious. Jung saw glimpses of other depths, but that is all. There are rather unfortunate distortions occurring in Jung’s writings, as well as in Freud’s, since they did not understand the primary, cooperative nature of the libido. We will involve ourselves in a much more thorough study along these lines, as we come to another body of subject material.

"I was concerned somewhat with Ruburt’s [Jane's] reading of Jung, simply because while he seems to offer more than Freud, in some aspects he has attempted much, and his distortions are fairly important, in that seeming to delve further and offering many significant results, he nevertheless causes insidious conclusions. All the more hampering because of his scope.

"Freud courageously probed into the individual topmost layers of the subconscious, and found them deeper than even he suspected. These levels are indeed filled with what may be termed life-giving and death-tempting differentiated and undifferentiated impulses acquired in the present life of an individual. But when these have been passed there are many discoveries still to be made.

"When these have been passed then the diligent, consistent, intuitive and flexible seeker after knowledge will find horizons of which Freud never dreamed. Freud merely touched the outer boundaries. Jung, with his eyes clouded by the turmoil set up by Freud, glimpsed some further regions, but poorly.

"What Freud did for the personal layers of the subconscious we and others like us [dead folk] must do for the furthest reaches."

 

Among the more deleterious effects (and I'll throw in another great contributor of scientific achievement (ahem), Darwin, as well):

 

"If men were considered equal, however, the ideas of Darwin and Freud came along to alter the meaning of equality, for men were not equal in honor and integrity and creativity—or heroism: —they were equal in dishonor (louder), selfishness, greed, and equally endowed with a killer instinct that now was seen to be a natural characteristic from man’s biological past."

 

"When you read the news or hear it, however, because of cultural beliefs you are programmed to behave in a certain fashion, in a fashion that validates, seemingly, the concepts of Freud and Darwin, and the most unfortunate aspects of Christian pessimism."
 

"Progress in these issues is progressing continually."

 

That statement might be interpreted as "good" or it may equally be perceived as "scary."  LOL  If it implies a furtherance in this direction then I would say "scary:"

 

"A recent article in a national magazine speaks "glowingly" about the latest direction of progress in the field of psychology, saying that man will realize that his moods, thoughts, and feelings are the result of the melody of chemicals that swirl in his brain.  That statement devalues man's subjective world."

 

Not sure if you understand the implications of that statement.  I'd be more than willing to expound.

 

"Science is never settled."

 

That's a very nice admission to make.  Then you might also want to explain the severe resistance to exploring other premises, no matter how odd they may at first appear.  Or the out-of-hand denunciation and refutation of alternate propositions simply because they immediately appear to run counter to accepted belief (or accepted fact, if you will).  (A forewarning - an example coming up shortly.)  I classify those types of admissions as "putting one's foot into one's mouth" since they are prone to be requoted in the future at the expense of the one who stated it.

 

I personally find it highly ironic that some science minded people (I am a science minded person, believe it or not) who loudly proclaim they are genuinely in search of the "truth" are so quick to denounce and refute alternate theories especially when they seem to contradict accepted ideas.  Unless science is in a position of "all-knowing" then it makes no sense.  Perhaps the only sense it makes is out of a desire to preserve the status quo.  Dare to look out into the world for evidence.  For all of science's accomplishments one might presume that the world is a much better place.  More convenient, certainly.  More productive, certainly (but it may be asked "more productive to what end?") Greater societal unity (the roots of social problems now understood and generally eradicated)?  Greater peace (no longer developing ever greater means of mass destruction)? Greater health (hospitals are no longer overflowing)?  Greater spirituality?  Oh, sh!it, best cross that one out!

 

If I may ask, what might be your measure of scientific accomplishment as it relates to the above?

 

"Nonsense!"

 

Did I not give a forewarning?

 

"Science is the result of a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity."

 

Now, I have never made the claim that the objective universe doesn't exist or isn't real.  You couldn't make a more foolish claim.  Such a claim would be more preposterous than making the claim that the subjective universe isn't real (or has little, if any, true validity).

 

"No objectivity' equates to 'no science'."

 

The discovery that the source of the objective world is the subjective world would not by any means be synonymous with the pronouncement of the death of science.  Science would still be vital, constructive, and beneficial.  But, oh so many accepted premises would necessarily need to be tossed out.  As mauGR1 is fond of saying , you don't need to toss out the baby with the bathwater.

 

"It is science that unravels the mysteries of why a leaf appears green. It's not because the leaf actually is green. That would be imposing our own subjectivity upon the leaf. It's because the leaf reflects a certain frequency of light which the 'normal' human brain interprets as green, and an abnormal human brain interprets as some other colour. Such abnormality is described as 'colour blindness.'"

 

You are correct.  Science is very capable of uncovering the hidden workings of the physical world.  I, myself, am a direct beneficiary of science's discoveries as they assist me in my professional work.  Through their discoveries science has developed a very mechanistic overall view of the world.  That mechanistic view, though, utterly fails if science were to use their current methodology towards unraveling the mystery of the reality which exists behind the leaf.  Despite the vast repository of scientific knowledge science cannot explain why the leaf exists in the first place, nor can they explain the force which gives the leaf it's life (and death) and the force which sustains it.  To be fair, I have no idea if such questions remotely interest you.  You would have to acknowledge one way or the other.

 

Science's toolbox, as it exists, is deficient in arriving at answers for such questions.  It would be true to say that their current toolbox of devices and probes of every sort which they use to prod and scrutinize the physical world would be completely useless in exploring dimensions which are not at all physical.  Physical instruments would not and could not apply.  For that type of exploration the proper tool to use would be your consciousness.  Rather than using it to look outward one needs to turn it's focus inward.  But inward towards what, you might ask.

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere before, science is just at the threshold of discovering the existence of multiple universes.  The "one world" currently accepted viewpoint may fast become a historical one.  Discarded along with so many other already discarded scientific notions.  But, interestingly to me, despite science's advances in that regard they are still stuck with the concept that all of existence, even parallel universes, is physical.  Perhaps we are moving past the concepts of "one world" and "one God."  I not only have hope for it, I have expectation as well.

 

"No. You're not pointing out the many flaws of science. You are pointing out the many flaws in many peoples' understanding of science, and the many flaws in certain scientists who are prepared to sacrifice the fundamental principles of science in order to promote a political agenda which they feel emotional about. Climate Change alarmism about CO2 emissions is just one glaring example."

 

Thankfully the above will require my shortest response.

 

First, let me congratulate you on your excellent perceptiveness regarding the dreaded, ominous and human life ending Climate Change.  It is proof positive that you possess reason and logic in sufficient quantity to not fall for psuedo science.  Had you been a climate change arlarmist then, to be honest, I most likely wouldn't bother discussing much with you at all as I would regard you as utterly hopeless in coming to an understanding or an acceptance of even the most obvious, in-your-face truths.

 

I'll admit that my use of the words, "flaws of science", could have been more precise and clear and were used in error.  I'll amend it to say that many of science's attitudes are flawed.  Flawed in the sense that they fail to take much into account that should be taken into account.  Perhaps the most obvious is, as the dead guy pointed out:

 

"Science insists that it does not deal with values, but leaves those to philosophers.  In stating that the universe is an accidental creation, however, a meaningless chance conglomeration formed by an unfeeling cosmos, it states quite clearly its belief that the universe and man's existence has no value.  All that remains is what pleasure or accomplishment can somehow be wrested from man's individual biological processes."

 

Is that statement profound and true in your view?  Are you able to see where such an attitude could have deleterious consequences?

 

By no means am I pointing out the flaws in people's understanding of science, nor the flaws of certain scientists.  If that is your interpretation then I will correct it here and now.  Keeping the dead guy's quote in mind, which I posted directly above, I provided three examples of the consequences of the amoral attitude which science adopts.  Existence has no meaning and no value.  It tempts and leads scientists to toy with things that, while they can, they probably shouldn't.  You might be familiar with the old adage, "just because you can doesn't mean you should."

 

Which attitudes do you think might allow scientists to create weapons of mass destruction?  As the dead guy once said, science should be a loving science.

 

Again, my apologies for leaving so much unsaid.

[Tippaporn]

I'd like to add this:  Science's amoral stance, as the dead guy pointed out, "states quite clearly its belief that the universe and man's existence has no value."  For all of religion's failings it at least gave mankind a sense of purpose and meaning.  The attitude science promotes serves to rob people entirely of meaning and purpose.  The adoption of that attitude on a mass scale cannot end well.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I beg to differ.
According to my experiences and understanding, and according to the Vedic tradition (which came way before any organized religious tradition), the information flow is not bound only to the 5 senses. On the contrary, yogic teachings state that it is by shutting down the 5 senses that one can access higher states of consciousness, and thus open a new (and I would say, far greater) source of information.

Are you saying that there exists information that is completely unrelated to anything that can be perceived or detected by any of the 5 senses? Are you claiming that there is a 'state of awareness' that does not involve even a memory of something that can either be seen, or heard, or smelt, or tasted, or felt?

 

Feelings, which are one of the 5 senses, do not have to relate to external objects at the moment the feeling occurs. They can be initiated within the body due to a particular activity in the biological processes. Just as one can experience a headache or a stomach ache, one can also experience joy when thinking about a 'loved one', even if the 'loved one' is not there at the present moment to see and touch.

 

A person cannot have a dream that he is a butterfly unless he has previously seen a butterfly, or seen at least a picture of a butterfly.

 

I understand that people who attempt to 'still' the mind through meditation practices can have unusual experiences, sometimes unpleasant if they have certain medical conditions, and sometimes very pleasant and calm, resulting in a greater clarity of mind.

 

The state of Nirvana is sometimes described as the ultimate 'joy'. However, 'joy' is still a feeling and related to at least one of the 5 senses.

 

You might like to 'believe' that there is a 'higher consciousness' unrelated to the 5 senses, because that makes you 'feel' good. But 'feeling' is one of the 5 senses. Okay? ????