Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, as I've been saying for ages, our science isn't capable of detecting God or spirituality related things. It's a matter of faith at present.

It's always been a matter of faith, possibly as far back as 300,000 years. Attached is an image of a 30,000 year old 'Fertility Goddess'. ????

 

It's science that tells us it's approximately 30,000 years old. Without science we wouldn't have a clue. ????

[Tippaporn]

23 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Are you kidding?  ????  Of course there's more than I'm aware of.

 

One major product of scientific inquiry is the revelation of how little we know. As I've mentioned before, the current hypothesis suggest that our entire scientific/technological apparatuses have the potential to detect only 5% of the matter and energy in the universe, the rest being invisible Dark Matter & Energy. Furthermore, the actual percentage of that 5% that we actually have detected so far, in reasonable detail, is extremely minuscule.

 

There could be as many as 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, or as few as 100 billion. We don't know. There could be as many as 200 billion stars in our galaxy, the Milky Way. So far, we've detected only 4,187 planets revolving around a very tiny fraction of those estimated 200 billion stars in our galaxy. About 1 in 5 of those stars with planets that have been detected so far, have an 'earth-sized' planet in the habitable zone. It can be hypothesized that there are about 11 billion potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the Milky Way alone, but we don't know. The number of potentially habitable Earth-sized planets in the entire universe could be in the trillions.
 

Well, I asked the question of whether there was more than you were aware of specifically in reference to your contention that thought does not exist without a physical brain.

  

On 3/15/2020 at 7:45 AM, VincentRJ said:

Not true. Thought requires electrical impulses as an essential component, but without the brain, consisting of a network of around 86 billion neurons in humans, there is no thought.

 

<snip>

You had earlier made a similar statement suggesting that the existence of thought requires a physical mechanism to produce thought.

  

On 3/15/2020 at 6:44 AM, VincentRJ said:

<snip>

 

However, there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever of thoughts existing without a body.

Both of those statements I consider to be false.  As Seth stated in a portion of what I had quoted:   "Each thought and emotion spontaneously exists as a simple or complex electromagnetic unit — unperceived, incidentally, as yet by your scientists."

 

My questioning the extent of your awareness was prompted by Seth's quote above and again, relating specifically to what science claims to know about what thought is.

 

What seems to be a critical difference between our general viewpoints, and I would say between myself and at least a few of the other posters here, is the idea that is held by you and others that only the physical universe exists.  As Helfrich correctly pointed out:  "In the scientific story,  [...] There is only physical life, [...]"

 

The limited understanding that humans have refers not so much to the admitted vast portion of the physical universe that science has not yet perceived but to the denial of the subjective reality which exists, and like it or not, is the source of the physical universe to begin with.

 

The idea that subjective reality is what creates physical reality is a game changer of epic proportions, and even that is a huge understatement.

 

Edit:  I did want to comment on a statement in your reply:  "One major product of scientific inquiry is the revelation of how little we know."  I thought it a bit humourous to suggest that science is responsible for revealing how little we know.  I think any dunderhead is well aware and does not need science to inform him of the fact.  LOL

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today to go along with my post above.

 

What Is a Thought? What thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view.

 

"As quotidian as talk about thoughts may be, what thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view. They are certainly caused by brain function, but we do not yet have a solid idea regarding what it is about brain function that gives rise to them. Is it the particular kinds of neurons involved? The way a population of neurons fire? Do conscious thoughts require the activation of specific networks of brain regions or of tracts (the information highways that allow for brain regions to communicate with each other)? Do thoughts require activation of perceptual areas of the brain (a controversial notion)? At this stage of scientific understanding, we just don't know."

 

Notice the last statement where the author admits that science simply does not understand what activates thoughts within the brain.  Given this admission of cluelessness the article still states with certainty that thoughts are the mere result of brain function.  It would be accurate to conclude that the brain processes thoughts but to claim as fact that thoughts are cause by brain function?  These are the types of erroneous conclusions that result when the scientific process completely ignores not only subjective reality but life itself.  In the view of science our bodies and minds are reduced to nothing more than mechanical Frankensteins over which we, our consciousness, plays no role and has no influence.  I did read the article but I'll refrain from commenting other than to say sheer idiocy from my perspective.

 

Here's an article entitled:  A Primer on Consciousness and the Brain

 

The article opens with a quote:

 

"Energy had been building within the millions of neurons since they’d first formed six months previously. The nerve cells were sizzling with electrical energy steadily galvanizing toward a voltaic threshold. The arborization of the nerve cells’ dendrites and the supporting microglia cells had been increasing at an exponential rate, with hundreds of thousands of new synaptic connections arising every hour. It was like a nuclear reactor on the brink of hypercriticality.

 

At last it happened! The threshold was reached and surpassed. Microbolts of electric charges spread like wildfire through the complicated plexus of synaptic connections, energizing the whole mass. Intracellular vesicles poured forth their neurotransmitters and neuromodulators, increasing the level of excitation to another critical point. Out of this complex microscopic cellular activity emerged one of the mysteries of the universe: consciousness!"

 

—Robin Cook, Mutation, 1989.

 

I'd bet a dollar to a donut Robin Cook plagiarized his quote directly from the medical journals of Baron Victor Frankenstein.  "At last it happened!"  I can envision Colin Clive, in black and white, arms in the air, shouting this out with a mad gleam in his eyes, while lighting crackles on a Halloween night.  Humour aside, what this quote is relating is science factually stating that form creates consciousness (mysteriously, of course).  My gawd, they're barking up the wrong tree. They're searching for answers in a direction 180° from where the answers lie in actual reality.  Consciousness creates form . . . not the other way around.  Yes, it contradicts science's conclusions absolutely.  It's O.K.  It's happened before.

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by Tippaporn

[StreetCowboy]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Here's an interesting article from Psychology Today to go along with my post above.

 

What Is a Thought? What thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view.

 

"As quotidian as talk about thoughts may be, what thoughts are remains mysterious from a neuroscientific point of view. They are certainly caused by brain function, but we do not yet have a solid idea regarding what it is about brain function that gives rise to them. Is it the particular kinds of neurons involved? The way a population of neurons fire? Do conscious thoughts require the activation of specific networks of brain regions or of tracts (the information highways that allow for brain regions to communicate with each other)? Do thoughts require activation of perceptual areas of the brain (a controversial notion)? At this stage of scientific understanding, we just don't know."

 

Notice the last statement where the author admits that science simply does not understand what activates thoughts within the brain.  Given this admission of cluelessness the article still states with certainty that thoughts are the mere result of brain function.  It would be accurate to conclude that the brain processes thoughts but to claim as fact that thoughts are cause by brain function?  These are the types of erroneous conclusions that result when the scientific process completely ignores not only subjective reality but life itself.  In the view of science our bodies and minds are reduced to nothing more than mechanical Frankensteins over which we, our consciousness, plays no role and has no influence.  I did read the article but I'll refrain from commenting other than to say sheer idiocy from my perspective.

 

Here's an article entitled:  A Primer on Consciousness and the Brain

 

The article opens with a quote:

 

"Energy had been building within the millions of neurons since they’d first formed six months previously. The nerve cells were sizzling with electrical energy steadily galvanizing toward a voltaic threshold. The arborization of the nerve cells’ dendrites and the supporting microglia cells had been increasing at an exponential rate, with hundreds of thousands of new synaptic connections arising every hour. It was like a nuclear reactor on the brink of hypercriticality.

 

At last it happened! The threshold was reached and surpassed. Microbolts of electric charges spread like wildfire through the complicated plexus of synaptic connections, energizing the whole mass. Intracellular vesicles poured forth their neurotransmitters and neuromodulators, increasing the level of excitation to another critical point. Out of this complex microscopic cellular activity emerged one of the mysteries of the universe: consciousness!"

 

—Robin Cook, Mutation, 1989.

 

I'd bet a dollar to a donut Robin Cook plagiarized his quote directly from the medical journals of Baron Victor Frankenstein.  "At last it happened!"  I can envision Colin Clive, in black and white, arms in the air, shouting this out with a mad gleam in his eyes, while lighting crackles on a Halloween night.  Humour aside, what this quote is relating is science factually stating that form creates consciousness (mysteriously, of course).  My gawd, they're barking up the wrong tree. They're searching for answers in a direction 180° from where the answers lie in actual reality.  Consciousness creates form . . . not the other way around.  Yes, it contradicts science's conclusions absolutely.  It's O.K.  It's happened before.

 

So can there be consciousness without form?

Can there be thoughts without a brain?

If not the activity of the brain, then can we postulate other elements of the brain that might give rise to thoughts?

[thaibeachlovers]

40 minutes ago, StreetCowboy said:

So can there be consciousness without form?

Can there be thoughts without a brain?

If not the activity of the brain, then can we postulate other elements of the brain that might give rise to thoughts?

IMO the body is just a biological machine to carry "us" around, and "us" has no form. Logically then, as Tippaporn's post pointed out, the brain PROCESSES thought, and operates the body, but is not the ORIGIN of thought.

That's my theory and it's as good as any given science is incapable of disproving it.

 

Far as I'm concerned, "us" is part of God and is implanted in our brain at birth, and after our body stops working "us" goes back to rejoin God.

That's why I have no problem with abortion. Far as I'm concerned, a foetus is no more than a biological machine without "us" in it, so if it's aborted no soul is affected. IMO it is not a person till birth and the soul enters the body. I've looked after loads of babies after being born, and have no problem believing that.

 

Edited March 17, 2020 by thaibeachlovers

[StreetCowboy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the body is just a biological machine to carry "us" around, and "us" has no form. Logically then, as Tippaporn's post pointed out, the brain PROCESSES thought, and operates the body, but is not the ORIGIN of thought.

That's my theory and it's as good as any given science is incapable of disproving it.

 

Far as I'm concerned, "us" is part of God and is implanted in our brain at birth, and after our body stops working "us" goes back to rejoin God.

Do other animals with brains have thoughts?  Are their thoughts implanted by God?  I don't know what is the limit of what is considered a brain.  Do only conscious thoughts count as thoughts, or do the nconscious brain activities that keep us breathing etc. count as thoughts?

 

To what extent are you just ascribing to God something that we do not yet understand the nature of, like lightning and earthquakes in days of yore?

 

 

[White Christmas13]

Ask God if he created that new virus as well

[Elad]

On 3/16/2020 at 1:48 PM, mauGR1 said:

In theory, the solar system is an atom, and every atom is a solar system,

You can't use Newtonian mechanics to describe the motion of particles within atoms though, this is due to the wave-like properties of particles.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, Elad said:

You can't use Newtonian mechanics to describe the motion of particles within atoms though, this is due to the wave-like properties of particles.

I promise i won't go there.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

Do other animals with brains have thoughts?  Are their thoughts implanted by God?  I don't know what is the limit of what is considered a brain.  Do only conscious thoughts count as thoughts, or do the nconscious brain activities that keep us breathing etc. count as thoughts?

 

To what extent are you just ascribing to God something that we do not yet understand the nature of, like lightning and earthquakes in days of yore?

 

 

IMO ALL life is from God, but humans have bigger brain than beasts.

Some animals have thoughts as can communicate with other animals. Does an amoeba have thoughts- how would I know?

 

I ascribe everything in the universe to God, from the largest sun to the smallest atomic component.

[thaibeachlovers]

13 hours ago, White Christmas13 said:

Ask God if he created that new virus as well

I doubt God decided to create a specific virus, but God created the means by which a virus could be created.

If anything created the virus, IMO it's Gaia trying to rid the planet of destructive humans that are trashing a once lovely habitat.

[Monomial]

On 2/20/2020 at 8:14 PM, Tippaporn said:

I find it fascinating that only science is granted the luxury and leeway where theories can be considered on par with fact. 

 

 

Because scientific theories are both falsifiable and testable. And unless you are going to dispute Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, theories that have been tested and confirmed thousands of times over, we have a very, very good understanding of black holes up to the event horizon, and how that information is handled.   You need to listen to a few lectures by Dr. Leonard Susskind if you want to understand why we are so confident in what we state.

 

Have you provided any kind of test that can disprove your hypothesis?  No, and note I said "your hypothesis" and not theory.  Theories are rigourously proven hypothesis that have withstood falsifiability tests. They are as close to fact as you can get in this life. They are not hypothesis.

 

Real science is trusted because it provides falsifiable tests that can be conducted to prove it must be correct. You could use a little more scientific rigor in your ruminations.

 

I will state again, there is absolutely no basis for your conjecture that information flows in 2 directions. In fact, the most likely case, based on genuine observation of real world phenomenon, is that it does not. You have made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

 

I have no problem if you want to say, "this is my belief", but don't try and frame it as a logical argument. It isn't.  It is simply your religion. Nobody will challenge you for a religious conviction. I will challenge you howver, if you try and say it is more than that.  There is no basis for your belief, other than this is what you wish to believe.

 

I will put my trust in logic and science, which provide falsifiable tests to prove if they are wrong.

 

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Because scientific theories are both falsifiable and testable. And unless you are going to dispute Einstein and Quantum Mechanics, theories that have been tested and confirmed thousands of times over, we have a very, very good understanding of black holes up to the event horizon, and how that information is handled.   You need to listen to a few lectures by Dr. Leonard Susskind if you want to understand why we are so confident in what we state.

 

Have you provided any kind of test that can disprove your hypothesis?  No, and note I said "your hypothesis" and not theory.  Theories are rigourously proven hypothesis that have withstood falsifiability tests. They are as close to fact as you can get in this life. They are not hypothesis.

 

Real science is trusted because it provides falsifiable tests that can be conducted to prove it must be correct. You could use a little more scientific rigor in your ruminations.

 

I will state again, there is absolutely no basis for your conjecture that information flows in 2 directions. In fact, the most likely case, based on genuine observation of real world phenomenon, is that it does not. You have made an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

 

I have no problem if you want to say, "this is my belief", but don't try and frame it as a logical argument. It isn't.  It is simply your religion. Nobody will challenge you for a religious conviction. I will challenge you howver, if you try and say it is more than that.  There is no basis for your belief, other than this is what you wish to believe.

 

I will put my trust in logic and science, which provide falsifiable tests to prove if they are wrong.

 

Nice response and I appreciate it.  Unfortunately you'll have to wait for mine.  I'm busy over the next few days but I will give you a reply.  I see that you're on the thread now so I wanted to quickly let you know lest you think I'm blowing you off if you don't see a reply over the next few days.

[CharlieH]

Trolling posts removed.

 

Once again, discuss/debate your views & opinions, but do not mock others beliefs and/or religion that will be regarded as Trolling and will be dealt with harshly.

[ThaiBunny]

I'm particularly enjoying the COVID-19 stories about the religious gatherings that have been epicentres of the virus spreading - South Korea, Singapore and now Malaysia. Is God mocking us?

[VincentRJ]

On 3/17/2020 at 9:54 PM, Tippaporn said:

Well, I asked the question of whether there was more than you were aware of specifically in reference to your contention that thought does not exist without a physical brain.

  

Such discussion can be interminably long, which is why I'm reluctant to address all the points you make. However, I'll address just a few of your points, in order to keep my brain active in my old age. ????

 

There is no subject, topic or issue which is fully understood in all its detail by anyone. There is always more to be understood or 'become aware of'. For example, it used to be thought that the 'atom' was the most fundamental particle, which could not be broken down further. We now know that there are many subatomic particles that have been detected, but perhaps surprisingly, many more 'hypothesized' particles that are predicted to exist but haven't yet been detected.

 

The following Wiki article provides a list of such hypothetical subatomic particles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Hypothetical_particles

 

You had earlier made a similar statement suggesting that the existence of thought requires a physical mechanism to produce thought.

Both of those statements I consider to be false.  As Seth stated in a portion of what I had quoted:   "Each thought and emotion 'spontaneously' exists as a simple or complex electromagnetic unit — unperceived, incidentally, as yet by your scientists."

 

I think you need to consider the meaning of 'spontaneous' in this context. Science required precise definitions of all key words. Would this be your definition: "Developing or occurring without apparent external or internal influence, force, cause, or treatment"?

 

There are lots of events, actions, and thoughts which might appear to be spontaneous because we are simply not aware of the cause, or in most cases not aware of the chain, and/or chains, of multiple causes which are very complex.

 

For the sake of simplicity, and in order to generate a comforting sense of certainty, we tend to focus on a single cause, whilst ignoring the more complex contributory causes. Climate Change Alarmism, which claims human emissions of CO2 are the main driver of the current warming, is a perfect example.

 

Consider the example of a person who has a phobia about snakes. Whilst taking a walk in the park or forest, he/she encounters a snake coiled up at the side of the path. She immediately responds by jumping to one side, tripping over a boulder, and landing on her shoulder, causing sever damage to her arm.
Would you say this is an example of spontaneous action without cause? I think not. 

 

Would you say the initial cause of the accident was the snake? I think not. The person's phobia about snakes preceded this particular observation of a snake, and the causes of the Phobia preceded the Phobia, and are very complex. Without the phobia there would have been no accident. Without the causes of the Phobia, there would have been no accident. Without the boulder sticking up out of the ground, there would have been no accident, or a less severe, or different type of accident.

 

Even the Buddha, 2,500 years ago, became aware that everything is subject to 'cause and effect'.

 

What seems to be a critical difference between our general viewpoints, and I would say between myself and at least a few of the other posters here, is the idea that is held by you and others that only the physical universe exists.

 

What do you mean by 'physical'? Most people would consider all objects that can be seen and/or felt, to be 'physical'. What about parts of the Electromagnetic Spectrum that can pass through solid walls, as though they were magical spirits, such as radio waves and X-rays, and so on? Is a Photon a physical object? It has no mass, according to science. What about the force of gravity? Is that physical? It's dependent on the existence of physical objects, but is the force of gravity itself actually physical?

 

Please make your response less than 250 pages. ????

[Sunmaster]

It's never too late to start the journey. ????

[owl sees all]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

It's never too late to start the journey. ????

What's for lunch.

He looks so funny.

I don't want to go to hell.

[CMNightRider]

Romans 10:9-10:10 ⁹ That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

¹⁰ For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It's as simple as that.  Many of you posters are going to spend eternity wishing you had read the Bible.  

[Sunmaster]

Personally, I don't put much trust in people who constantly have to cite their favourite book or author to make a point.

"The bible says this"..."That guys says that"...ok, but what do YOU say?

Do you practice what you preach? Is the Divine merely an intellectual construct you like to hang on to,  or is it alive and lived,  in and through you?

If someone would take away you beloved books, could you still find God? How does God's love feel for you? Can you confide in God like you would in your best friend? What is it like to give up control and simply be guided?

Who are you really, once you take away that house of cards that is your belief system? It may be based on science, religion or even spiritual books....or a mix of the above....but if that knowledge is not translated into a practical tool for self transformation, then all that knowledge is worth squat.

If you can become a better person through science, great, go for it! If you can grow by following a religion, fantastic! If you can transcend your selfish ego and awake to something bigger through spirituality, excellent. 

In the end, that's what truly matters....to expand the ability to love beyond your current limitations.

 

How can you truly love someone if you can't love yourself first? You can't.

How do you learn to love yourself? 

That's a question everyone has to answer on his own.

 

Wishing all of you and your loved ones much strength in these troublesome times. 

[mauGR1]

6 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

What is it like to give up control and simply be guided?

That's a wonderful question.

I'd say that it's a gradual process of understanding, one should ask himself this question every day.

[CMNightRider]

 (John 3:16???? “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

 

Why would anyone reject such a wonderful offer? Why would anyone want to keep heading for eternal destruction? 

 

People reject Christ because they love their sin and they hate having it exposed by God’s light.

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, CMNightRider said:

 (John 3:16???? “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

 

Why would anyone reject such a wonderful offer? Why would anyone want to keep heading for eternal destruction? 

 

People reject Christ because they love their sin and they hate having it exposed by God’s light.

Yes, but didn't Jesus also say : "who is without sin throw the 1st stone"...

[CMNightRider]

Whatever reason people reject Jesus Christ, their rejection has disastrous eternal consequences. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), and those who reject Him, for whatever reason, face an eternity in the “outer darkness” of hell where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30).
 

It's mind boggling how many people who have posted on this subject, reject God and the fact Jesus Christ died for our sins.  

 

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, CMNightRider said:

Whatever reason people reject Jesus Christ, their rejection has disastrous eternal consequences. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” than the name of Jesus (Acts 4:12), and those who reject Him, for whatever reason, face an eternity in the “outer darkness” of hell where there will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 25:30). It's mind boggling how many people who have posted on this subject, reject God and the fact Jesus Christ died for our sins.  

Some might suggest that with the COVID-19 virus we are dying for God's sin against humanity

[Skeptic7]

6 hours ago, CMNightRider said:

 (John 3:16???? “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

 

Why would anyone reject such a wonderful offer? Why would anyone want to keep heading for eternal destruction? 

 

People reject Christ because they love their sin and they hate having it exposed by God’s light.

You claiming "rejection" is totally incorrect. We don't reject...actually we don't even consider. You may as well ask why we reject fairiy or leprechauns! There is no rejection...simply dismissal.

 

But to answer your "loaded" question...

 

Because it's ridiculous, that's why. 

Because it's ancient superstition with no basis in fact, nor reality. Because we've outgrown, outsmarted and reasoned away the need of silly stories and superstition. The vast majority here whether atheist or believer or spiritual...whatever...simply do not accept your fundamentalist views. This has been made abundantly clear for nearly a year. 

 

Why do you continue to reject that? 

 

[talahtnut]

5000 years ago the ancient Sumarians believed the

universe came into being through a series of cosmic

births. According to astrophisics, the Sumars were

just about right.

Heaps of gods followed, all associated with natural

phenomena, at this time the Sumars also developed

the first edition of the 10 commandments, later used

in the bible, and even later in English Common Law.

There is no super God other than the process of

the laws of nature.  Ask a Buddhist monk.

To think our lives have any divine meaning is pure arrogance.

 

[Sunmaster]

7 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

To think our lives have any divine meaning is pure arrogance.

 

Yet, to make such a sweeping statement (without any logical arguments to back it up) is super humble, right? 

PS: Sorry, was that thing about the Sumerians the reason you came to that conclusion?

Edited March 25, 2020 by Sunmaster

[geronimo]

Happened to be flying past and I saw that Ivor's thread is still alive and well ...... amazing .... words fail me ....... there is talk of a special award ...... ULTY   (Unbelievably Long Thread of the Year) and I hear Rimmer himself will present the OP with a pair of green neon tights!!!!

Edited March 26, 2020 by geronimo

[CMNightRider]

"I honestly feel sorry for everybody who chooses to mock God because there will be severe penalties for that person and God will make that person eat those words. All over the web you see people writing blasphemous things about Christ and when the time comes they’re going to wish they had a time machine."