Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Actually there's a lot to test and observe, there are a lot of things unknown.

You have to concede that science is limited to the physical world, and that's a bit of a hindrance if you want to investigate the supernatural.

To presume that life comes from "electrical impulses" sounds a bit parochial, don't you think ?

 

 

 

555 you've beaten me to it. ???? 

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

Nobody knows and you guys are just making stuff up.

 

By all means make up silly theories but don't expect to be not laughed at.

What you're really saying is, you have no idea, and you can't imagine anyone else having an idea either. 

That's on you mate. 

[UbonThani]

Just now, Sunmaster said:

What you're really saying is, you have no idea, and you can't imagine anyone else having an idea either. 

That's on you mate. 

Tell us your made up theory then.

[Sunmaster]

2 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

You have no answers, just made up theories.

You clearly have no answers and apparently no theories either. 

Or do you?

[Sunmaster]

Just now, UbonThani said:

Tell us your made up theory then.

You said you read all 452 pages of gibberish. You should know by now.

 

[Tippaporn]

8 hours ago, Elad said:

I've said before that one of the following must be true:

 

1) A universe with intelligent design

2) A universe without intelligent design

 

Only one can be true, both cannot be true and none of them cannot be true.

Religion/believers/spiritualists have zero evidence for No 1, and science has zero evidence for No 2. That said, how do you prove the non existence of something when there's nothing to test or observe. ???? 

If beliefs create reality, and the reality one creates is real, then there is truth to it.  A poor man is poor and his experience of poverty is quite true.  The same applies to a wealthy man.  Two very different realities and both are true.  Then there's rock bed reality.  Reality as it exists uninfluenced and unaffected by belief.  Perhaps you could call it ultimate truth.

 

Some things you can only prove to yourself.  I believe it's meant to be that way, or there's purpose in having this reality set up that way.  You have to come to enough understanding for yourself in order to see the illusion.  Once you understand the illusory nature of reality, or perhaps another way to say it would be to see the reality behind the reality, you can try to get others to see it but ultimately only they can get themselves to see it for themselves.  No one can live the life of another.

[OneMoreFarang]

9 hours ago, Elad said:

I've said before that one of the following must be true:

 

1) A universe with intelligent design

2) A universe without intelligent design

 

Only one can be true, both cannot be true and none of them cannot be true.

Religion/believers/spiritualists have zero evidence for No 1, and science has zero evidence for No 2. That said, how do you prove the non existence of something when there's nothing to test or observe. ???? 

It's obvious that 1) cannot be true. Because for a universe with intelligent design there must be "something" intelligent to do the design.

So where does this intelligent thing or creature come from? Did it exist forever outside the universe before it decided to design and built that universes?

QED

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Nobody knows and you guys are just making stuff up.

 

By all means make up silly theories but don't expect to be not laughed at.

Perhaps you fail to understand that by the same token a lot science is a bunch of made up stuff.  Conclusions drawn from a single source, the physical, while denying the subjective source.  They're drawing conclusions when they're missing so many pieces which would point to a clear and accurate picture.  Subjective reality exists.  Doesn't it seem ludicrous for science to exclude it entirely from their equations?  The answer is in fact quite obvious.

 

The answer is obviously not obvious to you, as evidenced by the content of your post, so you might want to explain your aversion to accepting the reality of subjective reality and what role it plays and the effects it produces upon the physical.

 

And by the same token we laugh heartily at the outright stupidity of science when they draw insane conclusions, such as the cognitive scientist in the TED video that sirineou posted.  Unbelievable misconceptions by the speaker yet given unquestioned credibility by merely labeling it "science."

 

Is it not interesting that one of the major rubs against religion is that their view cannot be questioned yet in many respects science does not allow that it be questioned?  Perhaps the most glaring example would be the current one regarding climate change.  Some scientists go so far as to promote the idea of imprisoning other scientists who refuse to accept their conclusions.  At that juncture science begins to exhibit cultish behaviour.  No different than religious or other cults.

 

All science and all scientist are not invalid.  I, for one, would never deny science's advances in many fields.  But science is not infallible.  They are open to criticism as well when they arrive at preposterous conclusions.  For all of those who investigate subjective reality expect infallibility as well.  Just as science get some thing right and others wrong so to do people working at the other end.  A healthy approach would be one which is blended.  All information must be taken into account rather then select information.

 

It's well understood, at least by me, that a fool never sees himself as a fool.  The insane always regard themselves as sane.  And yeah, that truism can be pointed in both directions.  One direction is assuredly correct and the other obviously wrong.

[UbonThani]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

by the same token a lot science is a bunch of made up stuff. 

No it's not. There are proven facts which is real science. Theories are just theories.

 

The climate cult for instance is based on theories. It's not real science.

[CharlieH]

A number of Trolling posts and responses removed.

 

Discuss/debate your opinions but do not mock or ridicule others beliefs. Such posts will be removed as Trolling and repeated actions may lead to posting suspension.

[Tippaporn]

26 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

No it's not. There are proven facts which is real science. Theories are just theories.

 

The climate cult for instance is based on theories. It's not real science.

How many scientific theories are taken as fact?  Climate change, for instance.  Sure has a lot of people believing in it as fact.  Sure has a lot of scientists claiming it's fact.  How about the Big Bang?  Theory, but generally accepted as fact.  Spoken about as fact.  How about scientific theories about the human mind?  Treated as theories or fact?

 

From the entirety of my post you picked out only that which you felt you could argue best.  You address so little of it.  Stay safe.

[sead]

No I dont. I feel as a person that I am humiliating myself and my intelligence, that I need someone to tell me the difference between right and wrong. I know it is wrong to kill someone or to kick someone already lying on the ground. Malesting a child is wrong. I am an idiot and dont deserve to live on this world, breathing the same air as the few but good people. I dont need Allah, Jesus or Buddha to tell me that and therefore I am an Atheist

[Tippaporn]

13 hours ago, sirineou said:

I watched this interesting Ted talk a couple of days ago. 

When you have some time please watch it. from your posts I am sure you already know most of what the presenter said. but it helps to put things in perspective, 

 And always question what you know. but IMO not to the point of the "Paralysis of analysis" .

PS:I am not directing this talk towards anyone, It applies to me just as much as anyone else. 

If you watch it please tell me what you think.

 

I watched it.  Watched it twice, in fact.  To be honest, I don't know where to begin as so much of what he said was absolute junk science in my view.  Some of the worst of the worst.

 

What did you find poignant, or perceptive, or true, sirineou?

[mauGR1]

It seems to me that the dear atheists here show signs of intellectual laziness, so to speak.

"Science says" is their only argument, if you don't conform you are wrong. Ok.

They sounds exactly like the fundamentalists of old, hiding their intellectual laziness behind some air of superiority.

The true scientist is open minded, s/he doesn't take anything for granted. The simple fact that the intelligent design cannot be disproved should make everyone very curious.

The big bang theory for example, it's more nonsensical than adoring the fire, the trees, or dancing barefoot on the full moon nights.

I am convinced most of the scientists themselves give a lot of credit to the intelligent design, but they cannot talk about that, because of a subtle convention (or orders from above).

If you turn off your tv, and observe the nature with open eyes and listen with open ears, the intelligent design appears stunningly obvious.

The modern science could not manage the perfect mechanism of a little solar system, let alone our planet, but all the stars and the planets come "by chance" from the big bang... Really ?

[Sunmaster]

15 hours ago, sirineou said:

I watched this interesting Ted talk a couple of days ago. 

When you have some time please watch it. from your posts I am sure you already know most of what the presenter said. but it helps to put things in perspective, 

 And always question what you know. but IMO not to the point of the "Paralysis of analysis" .

PS:I am not directing this talk towards anyone, It applies to me just as much as anyone else. 

If you watch it please tell me what you think.

 

Basically,  what he's saying is that what we know of the world is for the vast majority derived from collective knowledge (second hand knowledge) and that we therefore should be more humble in expressing our views.

Seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot here really.

Isn't it the naysayers favourite pastime to use their second hand science knowledge to outright dismiss other people's subjective (first hand) knowledge?

Atheists are doubly handicapped in fact....most of their knowledge regards the material world, and they borrow that from others to parade around with,....and they lack the subjective knowledge to argue against those who do. 

Edited March 1, 2020 by Sunmaster

[mauGR1]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot here really.

He's probably cursing God for that

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Basically,  what he's saying is that what we know of the world is for the vast majority derived from collective knowledge (second hand knowledge) and that we therefore should be more humble in expressing our views.

Seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot here really.

Isn't it the naysayers favourite pastime to use their second hand science knowledge to outright dismiss other people's subjective (first hand) knowledge?

Atheists are doubly handicapped in fact....most of their knowledge regards the material world, and they borrow that from others to parade around with,....and they lack the subjective knowledge to argue against those who do. 

" Seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot here really."

Not at all. The takeaway for me is that we need to question all our beliefs,  and the only way to do that is the scientific way. Replicable, Peer review and always,question what you know. 

 

[sirineou]

5 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I watched it.  Watched it twice, in fact.  To be honest, I don't know where to begin as so much of what he said was absolute junk science in my view.  Some of the worst of the worst.

 

What did you find poignant, or perceptive, or true, sirineou?

All of it!!! I don't disagree with one thing. Can you quote one thing you disagree with?

We can start there. 

[OneMoreFarang]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

The big bang theory for example, it's more nonsensical than adoring the fire, the trees, or dancing barefoot on the full moon nights.

Does that mean because you don't understand it is makes no sense?

Many very intelligent people thought about it and made experiments about the big bang. Do they all know exactly what happened? No. Do they claim they know exactly what happend? No. The theory explains as much as possible what probably happend, based on lots of research. And whenever new research does not support the current theories then scientists rethink it and make it better. So slowly the theories get nearer and nearer to what actually happend.

Is that perfect? No. But it's the best possible way to do this.

 

Now compare that to intelligent design: At some point there was this intelligent thing somewhere existing in the nothing. And then that intelligent thing decided to design and create the universe. Really? And who designed and created that intelligent thing? I guess your answer is: It's parents. Yeah, sure.

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

" Seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot here really."

Not at all. The takeaway for me is that we need to question all our beliefs,  and the only way to do that is the scientific way. Replicable, Peer review and always,question what you know. 

 

I almost gave you a like but for 1 word "scientific. 

It's not the only way. 

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I almost gave you a like but for 1 word "scientific. 

It's not the only way. 

 what other way is there?

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Now compare that to intelligent design: At some point there was this intelligent thing somewhere existing in the nothing. And then that intelligent thing decided to design and create the universe. Really? And who designed and created that intelligent thing? I guess your answer is: It's parents. Yeah, sure.

Ok, i will explain it again for you.

You are born, thus you are going to die (sorry for that) the same for me and all the other beings that are born, or have a beginning.

The intelligent design is eternal and infinite, is not born thus never dies. Some call it God, some call it Absolute, it doesn't matter. Yet, as humans, our perception and understanding is limited by space and time.

That said, i don't care what you believe and what you don't, it's a fact that the big bang theory cannot be proved.

[Sunmaster]

"The takeaway for me is that we need to question all our beliefs,  and one way to do that is the scientific way. Another highly effective way is to follow a meditative practice.

Both ways are replicable and are verified through peer review. Whatever way you chose for yourself, always question what you know."

 

There, I fixed it for you.

 

The difference in our approach is that your version allows only for 1 side of the coin, while denying the experiences of millions of people. 

My version includes both, which I find not just more rational and logical, but simply common sense.

In fact, I wrote 2 ways, but in reality there many more.

Edited March 1, 2020 by Sunmaster

[OneMoreFarang]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Ok, i will explain it again for you.

You are born, thus you are going to die (sorry for that) the same for me and all the other beings that are born, or have a beginning.

The intelligent design is eternal and infinite, is not born thus never dies. Some call it God, some call it Absolute, it doesn't matter. Yet, as humans, our perception and understanding is limited by space and time.

That said, i don't care what you believe and what you don't, it's a fact that the big bang theory cannot be proved.

But there is a lot more evidence for the big bang than for your eternal and infinite intelligent something.

Did you ever look at that evidence and compare it to your not existing evidence for that intelligent thing?

 

I guess another argument is: If your intelligent something is so smart and powerful that it can design and create a whole universe, why did it design humans as imperfect as us? Why did that intelligent thing design and create murderers and rapists? Why did it design all those bad politicians who make our life miserable? Any real intelligent thing would do a far better job.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But there is a lot more evidence for the big bang than for your eternal and infinite intelligent something.

I disagree with that, even the laws of physics are evidence of intelligent design, while the big bang is just a theory.

 

4 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I guess another argument is: If your intelligent something is so smart and powerful that it can design and create a whole universe, why did it design humans as imperfect as us?

It is what it is, can humans do better than that?

 

5 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Any real intelligent thing would do a far better job.

You'll probably never be satisfied for long, but it's in our nature.

[Sunmaster]

8 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

But there is a lot more evidence for the big bang than for your eternal and infinite intelligent something.

Did you ever look at that evidence and compare it to your not existing evidence for that intelligent thing?

 

I guess another argument is: If your intelligent something is so smart and powerful that it can design and create a whole universe, why did it design humans as imperfect as us? Why did that intelligent thing design and create murderers and rapists? Why did it design all those bad politicians who make our life miserable? Any real intelligent thing would do a far better job.

What do you know about the evidence for intelligent design? What sources have you studied to come to that conclusion? 

 

As for all your other questions.. they have been discussed several times in this thread. 

[OneMoreFarang]

7 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

What do you know about the evidence for intelligent design? What sources have you studied to come to that conclusion? 

There is an expression for that: It's a no-brainer.

[sirineou]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There is an expression for that: It's a no-brainer.

double Entendre

[Sunmaster]

32 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There is an expression for that: It's a no-brainer.

That's exactly it. Trying to debate something one obviously knows nothing about, is a dead giveaway that no brain is at work. Well done, you got it. 
I suggest watching Sirineau's video. Perhaps you'll find something you can relate to.

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

That's exactly it. Trying to debate something one obviously knows nothing about, is a dead giveaway that no brain is at work. Well done, you got it. 
I suggest watching Sirineau's video. Perhaps you'll find something you can relate to.

Let me try to explain it to you.

I have a couple of geckos in my apartment. They walk along the walls and are harmless. I never invited them. They are here permanently but they don't pay any rent. Is that fair? Now maybe you ask why I didn't discuss that with them. I didn't try to do that because it does not make any sense. It's a no-brainer. Maybe that helps you to understand the concept.