Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

I'm not sure this is a matter of semantics or you deliberately want to create confusion where there is none.
 

No. My mission is 'clarity and understanding'.

 

A flower would still display the same pattern if an animal would look at it. A spiral galaxy would still have that distinct shape without an observer. Of course, we look at that pattern, recognize it and give it a name...you need an observer to do that. Does that mean there are no rules, there's no organization in the material universe? I think not.

 

I'm still amazed at your incomprehension. I think it might be due to the religious doctrine which you've accepted and cannot leave, because of emotional experiences.
I'll try to go through this again, for the sake of rationality and common sense. Flowers definitely do not display the same pattern to all animals that look at them. Each animal, according to its biological nature, and its need for survival, will perceive a different pattern. 

 

Here's just one example. Certain flowers are claimed to mimic the shape and scent of a female bee in order to attract male bee pollinators. The language used in such reports often tends to imply that flowers have some sort of brain that motivates them to change shape, but what probably happens is that those flowers, mainly orchids, have naturally mutated over time, as every life-form does, and mutated in a way that just happens to resemble a female bee, which gives the orchid a survival advantage. Those orchids that haven't mutated in some advantageous way will tend to become extinct.

 

"A new study reveals the reason why orchids use sexual trickery to lure insect pollinators. The study, published in the January issue of The American Naturalist, finds that sexual deception in orchids leads to a more efficient pollinating system."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217183442.htm

 

The point here is that any pattern is an interpretation and each species of animal will have a different interpretation. It reasonable to assume that the object continues to exist without an observer, but the nature and experience and description of any pattern related to the object is inseparably connected to the observer.
 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Sunmaster said:

Yes, I did like you said and I've seen her quite clearly for a few seconds.

Thanks. Did she have a lovely, light brown skin colour, and no dots on her nose? 

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No. My mission is 'clarity and understanding'.

 

 

 

 

I'm still amazed at your incomprehension. I think it might be due to the religious doctrine which you've accepted and cannot leave, because of emotional experiences.
I'll try to go through this again, for the sake of rationality and common sense. Flowers definitely do not display the same pattern to all animals that look at them. Each animal, according to its biological nature, and its need for survival, will perceive a different pattern. 

 

Here's just one example. Certain flowers are claimed to mimic the shape and scent of a female bee in order to attract male bee pollinators. The language used in such reports often tends to imply that flowers have some sort of brain that motivates them to change shape, but what probably happens is that those flowers, mainly orchids, have naturally mutated over time, as every life-form does, and mutated in a way that just happens to resemble a female bee, which gives the orchid a survival advantage. Those orchids that haven't mutated in some advantageous way will tend to become extinct.

 

"A new study reveals the reason why orchids use sexual trickery to lure insect pollinators. The study, published in the January issue of The American Naturalist, finds that sexual deception in orchids leads to a more efficient pollinating system."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091217183442.htm

 

The point here is that any pattern is an interpretation and each species of animal will have a different interpretation. It reasonable to assume that the object continues to exist without an observer, but the nature and experience and description of any pattern related to the object is inseparably connected to the observer.
 

I don't have much time right now to go into details, but I want to raise a couple of quick points here.

 

Firstly, I find it amusing that because my interpretation of reality doesn't fit with yours, mine must be coming from "religious indoctrination", "emotional", "irrational" and without "common sense", while at the same time implying that your interpretation must be the opposite. Ok, whatever.

Secondly, you have been labeling me "religious" several times, and several times I told you I'm not. I don't follow any particular religion and that my spiritual beliefs are based on experience and not on intellectual somersaults reading books. I practice meditation/ yoga, which is rooted in Indian culture but not bound by it. It can be practiced by anyone, any religious or atheist person.

Quite frankly, I find your post disrespectful.

[VincentRJ]

5 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I don't have much time right now to go into details, but I want to raise a couple of quick points here.

 

Firstly, I find it amusing that because my interpretation of reality doesn't fit with yours, mine must be coming from "religious indoctrination", "emotional", "irrational" and without "common sense", while at the same time implying that your interpretation must be the opposite. Ok, whatever.

Secondly, you have been labeling me "religious" several times, and several times I told you I'm not. I don't follow any particular religion and that my spiritual beliefs are based on experience and not on intellectual somersaults reading books. I practice meditation/ yoga, which is rooted in Indian culture but not bound by it. It can be practiced by anyone, any religious or atheist person.

Quite frankly, I find your post disrespectful.

I apologize for appearing disrespectful. I'm simply trying to present an argument that seems to me to be rational and logical. All knowledge exists within the observer, whether the observer is a human or an insect. All data, all experiences, all observations, always and unavoidably go through an interpretation process in the brain before they can be discussed, acted upon, or even mentioned. There is no such thing as an unobserved observation. That's basic logic.

[jasper9999]

I think I believe in God. Because I had a weird feeling about him recently. I think there is a strong force in this world that is beyond our control as humans.???? what do you think?

[yodsak]

On 9/5/2020 at 10:15 PM, Sunmaster said:

They all follow the same pattern which has been around a lot longer than humans have. They were there for everyone to see, but it was not until a guy called Fibonacci came along, that the pattern was translated into mathematics. 

Fibonacci Foolishness.

A search of the internet, or your local library, will convince you that the Fibonacci series has attracted a lunatic fringe of Fibonacci fanatics who look for mysticism in numbers and in nature. 

 

Creationist Flim-Flam.

One can hardly escape the observation that the Fibonacci fanatics display an almost religious conviction that all of nature is somhow based on or guided by the numbers of the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean. They reinforce this belief by seeking examples that "fit" their conviction, and ignoring all that don't. 

 

Here's an example of a flim-flam artist at work. Fred Wilson, Extension Specialist in Science Education at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), wrote a paper titled "Shapes, Numbers, Patterns, and the Divine Proportion in God's Creation."  It's full of specious religious drivel, which we will spare you. 

 

“There are lots of ratios and proportions in the human body, but they are not all the golden ratio and they are not all precisely the golden ratio. It’s a very loosey-goosey, pseudo-science kind of thing that they are promoting''.

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, jasper9999 said:

I think I believe in God. Because I had a weird feeling about him recently. I think there is a strong force in this world that is beyond our control as humans.???? what do you think?

Well there's 9514 posts before yours that might give you a start on what "we" think. Very informative on all 3 sides of this coin. 

Edited September 6, 2020 by Skeptic7

[yodsak]

On 9/5/2020 at 10:15 PM, Sunmaster said:

Perhaps you've heard about "sacred geometry"? 
Sacred geometry ascribes symbolic and sacred meanings to certain geometric shapes and certain geometric proportions. It is associated with the belief that a god is the geometer of the world.

 

Sacred Geometry, today, is in the idea that the very fabric and origins of the universe are found in fairly simple shapes and patterns. So far as I have been able to deduce, this whole movement owes itself almost entirely to a man who calls himself Drunvalo Melchizedek.

 

In the 1970’s, Drunvalo got involved in a number of New Age philosophies. He was especially influenced by Edgar Cayce, an early 20th Century spiritualist who claimed to be able to channel the spirit of Thoth, the Egyptian god, and who made numerous claims about Atlantis. Drunvalo found a Hindu instructor to teach him meditation, and began to “channel” spirits and experience visions. Drunvalo says that “he came to know this stuff” because it was told to him by two giant chromatic angels and an old man claiming to be an ancient Egyptian god.

Sacred Geometry is neither sacred nor geometry. it is a collection of preposterous assertions about pretty shapes and patterns made by people with little or no understanding of what they are seeing. It stands upon the shoulders of liars and frauds, and persists only due to confirmation bias and ignorance. Sacred geometry is one of the worst examples of gullible people accepting pseudoscience in order to pretend that their irrational beliefs are actually rational.

 

[yodsak]

On 9/5/2020 at 10:15 PM, Sunmaster said:

Everything in the universe is in a constant state of vibration. The antroposophist Hans Jenny was a pioneer in Cymatics, which is a way to make sound/vibration visible. 

For those new to the term, Cymatics is a pseudoscience invented by Hans Jenny based upon earlier (legitimate) discoveries by Ernst Chladni, and involves visual representation of vibrations - it has been applied to Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Chartres labyrinth, Rosslyn Chapel  and that old favourite, crop circles!

 

Cymatics is just as problematic as sacred geometry. It tries to ascribe esoteric meaning and value to pretty patterns without any semblance of an identifiable and falsifiable methodology. There are actual fields of physics which deal with vibration, oscillation, and wave mechanics, and those are most certainly fascinating and incredible, but cymatics is not included in their number.

[mauGR1]

15 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

There is no such thing as an unobserved observation. That's basic logic.

Strange logic, it seems a riddle to me.

Your eyes and ears cannot perceive "unobserved osservations", and there we agree, but it means just that, that your senses can't perceive them. On the other hand, your intelligence is able to express the concept of " unobserved observations".

That's just evidence that "unobserved observations" MAY exist.

And surely there is plenty of evidence that the physical senses of humans can only perceive reality just within a limited range, when compared to other living beings.

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, Skeptic7 said:

Well there's 9514 posts before yours that might give you a start on what "we" think. Very informative on all 3 sides of this coin. 

3 sides only? 

 

And still the number is 42 ????

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/5/2020 at 5:25 PM, mauGR1 said:

I'm not surprised of your shallow interpretation of my post. That's spiritual science, it's not "my way of thinking".

As I said, you can see it with your eyes, but you need apparently to put on a little effort. I'm quite sure that a couple of posters here, which I'm not naming, have enough developed "spiritual eyes" to understand very clearly the difference between individual soul and collective soul.

If you know some dog who is a music composer, or some horse who is building temples, I am ready to reconsider "my way of thinking".

I would add cows that admire nice sunsets to that. The difference between humans and animals is that we have free will and the ability to appreciate the abstract.

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Strange logic, it seems a riddle to me.

Your eyes and ears cannot perceive "unobserved osservations", and there we agree, but it means just that, that your senses can't perceive them. On the other hand, your intelligence is able to express the concept of " unobserved observations".

That's just evidence that "unobserved observations" MAY exist.

And surely there is plenty of evidence that the physical senses of humans can only perceive reality just within a limited range, when compared to other living beings.

Okay! I'll try to elaborate. It also helps to understand the context. Sunmaster has claimed that the patterns we observe in nature and our surroundings continue to exist in the external world even if they are not observed.

 

I agree that it is reasonable to assume that the material substances we associate with the patterns, continue to exist even if there's no-one there to observe the substances, unless of course the observer was experiencing an hallucination ???? . However, the patterns  we see are 'mental interpretations of our observations', and those observations are dependent upon the existence of an observer. An observation cannot exist without an observer. In other words, making it brief and succinct, there is no 'unobserved observation'. Does that make more sense?

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would add cows that admire nice sunsets to that. The difference between humans and animals is that we have free will and the ability to appreciate the abstract.

Not sure if I understand your comment about cows.

I have the utmost respect for cows, it's not by chance that they are sacred animals in some religion or belief, but admire a beautiful sunset, I believe, it's not about the concept of individual soul or group soul. The complexity of thought achievable by the average Joe is surely not comparable even to the most evolved animal on this planet imho.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

If you concentrate on those three dots, staring as them for at least 30 seconds, without blinking, then raise your eyes to the ceiling, and blink once, you should see a projection of a beautiful lady on the ceiling. The projection lasts just a few seconds before the details fade away, but the image is really beautiful from my perspective, whilst it lasts.

That sort of thing has been around for ages. It's just the way our brain processes what it sees. I like the pictures of patterns that if I change the way I look at it has a picture of something recognisable. It's also a way to find the correct colour to use for characters on a coloured background when using a computer.

Nothing special at all.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Okay! I'll try to elaborate. It also helps to understand the context. Sunmaster has claimed that the patterns we observe in nature and our surroundings continue to exist in the external world even if they are not observed.

 

I agree that it is reasonable to assume that the material substances we associate with the patterns, continue to exist even if there's no-one there to observe the substances, unless of course the observer was experiencing an hallucination ???? . However, the patterns  we see are 'mental interpretations of our observations', and those observations are dependent upon the existence of an observer. An observation cannot exist without an observer. In other words, making it brief and succinct, there is no 'unobserved observation'. Does that make more sense?

Not at all, you are just repeating an unfounded theory.

I stand by my point, that to say that "unobserved observations" don't exist would be a very unsafe bet.

Of course, I will concede that I cannot give you a material proof that "unobserved observations" exist.

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, yodsak said:

 

Sacred Geometry, today, is in the idea that the very fabric and origins of the universe are found in fairly simple shapes and patterns. So far as I have been able to deduce, this whole movement owes itself almost entirely to a man who calls himself Drunvalo Melchizedek.

 

In the 1970’s, Drunvalo got involved in a number of New Age philosophies. He was especially influenced by Edgar Cayce, an early 20th Century spiritualist who claimed to be able to channel the spirit of Thoth, the Egyptian god, and who made numerous claims about Atlantis. Drunvalo found a Hindu instructor to teach him meditation, and began to “channel” spirits and experience visions. Drunvalo says that “he came to know this stuff” because it was told to him by two giant chromatic angels and an old man claiming to be an ancient Egyptian god.

Sacred Geometry is neither sacred nor geometry. it is a collection of preposterous assertions about pretty shapes and patterns made by people with little or no understanding of what they are seeing. It stands upon the shoulders of liars and frauds, and persists only due to confirmation bias and ignorance. Sacred geometry is one of the worst examples of gullible people accepting pseudoscience in order to pretend that their irrational beliefs are actually rational.

 

I appreciate that you took 5 minutes out of your busy life to do a quick internet search, find a dissenting voice and copy/paste it here. But to be honest, it seems to be driven more by a desire to be the contrarian rather than the result of serious research. 

On the internet you can find the strangest things, even those who believe the earth is flat. I hope you're not one of them too.

 

Maybe, instead of just copying and pasting, you can elaborate your points in your own words. It would certainly read more authentic and honest.

[Tagged]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I would add cows that admire nice sunsets to that. The difference between humans and animals is that we have free will and the ability to appreciate the abstract.

An animal that have all his need fullfilled, will start exploring other things, like playing, enjoying sun, and so on. What I find shallow, not only refering to you, but the word have been used to many times now, is that we extract animals qualities we do not know if they have or not. Many animals live complex life without making classical music on a piano. 

 

Complexity and free will is not just an human concept. I still stand by my statement, people do not have free will, but we think we have, because we can choose between red or blue, but is it truly free will what we choose, or is it predictable? I think that is an important question to ask about free will in this world where we are bombed daily with tousands of different impression that leads us to make our choiches. 

[VincentRJ]

22 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That sort of thing has been around for ages. It's just the way our brain processes what it sees. I like the pictures of patterns that if I change the way I look at it has a picture of something recognisable. It's also a way to find the correct colour to use for characters on a coloured background when using a computer.

Nothing special at all.

Wow! "It's just the way our brain processes what it sees. Nothing special at all." How dismissive! ????

 

How the brain processes images is an important issue that I find interesting.
The reason I posted that image of a negative was to get feed-back from people who might never have been involved in processing images, as well as providing an example of a type of 'projection', in response to Sunmaster's arguments.

 

I'm still wondering if the beautiful results I see on the ceiling are due to my having spent quite a bit of time in the past scanning and re-scanning, and processing and re-processing negative film. In other words, my mind has been tuned to getting the best results I can.

[VincentRJ]

26 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Not at all, you are just repeating an unfounded theory.

I stand by my point, that to say that "unobserved observations" don't exist would be a very unsafe bet.

Of course, I will concede that I cannot give you a material proof that "unobserved observations" exist.

Perhaps it might help if you give me your definition of an observation. My understanding is that an observation requires an observer. No observer = no observation.

[VincentRJ]

37 minutes ago, Tagged said:

 

Complexity and free will is not just an human concept. I still stand by my statement, people do not have free will, but we think we have, because we can choose between red or blue, but is it truly free will what we choose, or is it predictable? I think that is an important question to ask about free will in this world where we are bombed daily with thousands of different impression that leads us to make our choices. 

I think you make a valid point. In practice, people are influenced by many factors that they are unaware of, and might often assume they are making a free choice because they are unaware of influences buried in their subconscious, which are affecting that choice.

 

However, most situation are not 'either/or'. Perhaps it would be better to say, there is no completely free will, but rather there is a spectrum of 'freedom of will', ranging from hardly any at all, to a high degree of free will, depending on a person's background, culture, education, economic circumstances, and so on.

[Peter Denis]

24 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Perhaps it might help if you give me your definition of an observation. My understanding is that an observation requires an observer. No observer = no observation.

Hi Grasshopper, Zen-Master MauGR1 did give you a beautiful Koan 'What does an unobserved observation look like?'.

Come back when you have solved it (the sudden enlightenment that comes with it, is the actual reward).

[Sunmaster]

I forgot to add...for those who like to communicate in CTRL-C/CTRL-P...please add a link to your sources. 

It is a nice and helpful forum etiquette.

Cheers

[Tagged]

37 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you make a valid point. In practice, people are influenced by many factors that they are unaware of, and might often assume they are making a free choice because they are unaware of influences buried in their subconscious, which are affecting that choice.

 

However, most situation are not 'either/or'. Perhaps it would be better to say, there is no completely free will, but rather there is a spectrum of 'freedom of will', ranging from hardly any at all, to a high degree of free will, depending on a person's background, culture, education, economic circumstances, and so on.

if there is one person I do not like, and have personal reasons for not liking, I can make a decission based on my own Free will not to go to a party. However if I have a family, and it is an family party, do I have free will then to choose not to go? Simple example and simple question ???? 

 

The more important, do we execute free will in those kind of situations if there is family involved? 

 

 

However I aggree with you, we have a spectrum of free will, but as asked above, do we really know what we want? Thats the question

Edited September 7, 2020 by Tagged

[VincentRJ]

34 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Hi Grasshopper, Zen-Master MauGR1 did give you a beautiful Koan 'What does an unobserved observation look like?'.

Come back when you have solved it (the sudden enlightenment that comes with it, is the actual reward).

it looks like the letters in the phrase 'unobserved observation'. ????

[VincentRJ]

15 minutes ago, Tagged said:

if there is one person I do not like, and have personal reasons for not liking, I can make a decission based on my own Free will not to go to a party. However if I have a family, and it is an family party, do I have free will then to choose not to go? Simple example and simple question ???? 

 

The more important, do we execute free will in those kind of situations if there is family involved? 

 

And maybe an more important question, do we really know what we want? 

It depends on the circumstances and the individual's background. I can imagine examples where a person could justify, after consideration, not attending the family party. One example could be an immediate and unforeseen need for medical treatment or a medical examination. Another example might be a very important business meeting which cannot be rescheduled, and not attending could reduce one's income which is necessary to support one's family. So one makes a choice, after thought and consideration of the consequences.

 

If one's wife is a control freak and a bully, the choice might depend upon her. ????

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

  1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Complexity and free will is not just an human concept. I still stand by my statement, people do not have free will, but we think we have, because we can choose between red or blue, but is it truly free will what we choose, or is it predictable? I think that is an important question to ask about free will in this world where we are bombed daily with thousands of different impression that leads us to make our choices. 

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you make a valid point. In practice, people are influenced by many factors that they are unaware of, and might often assume they are making a free choice because they are unaware of influences buried in their subconscious, which are affecting that choice.

 

However, most situation are not 'either/or'. Perhaps it would be better to say, there is no completely free will, but rather there is a spectrum of 'freedom of will', ranging from hardly any at all, to a high degree of free will, depending on a person's background, culture, education, economic circumstances, and so on.

I agree that there is no completely free will but rather there is a spectrum of 'freedom of will'.

But I'd like to add that almost all of us that agree with the above, think that it are the 'others', i.e. the uneducated (or the not spiritually enclined) that have little or no free will.  But surely this cannot be applicable for US with our civilized background, culture, education, etc.

But actually we don't have 'more' free will than the uneducated, and it's just an illusion that our actions and choices are in majority the result of the choices we made under our free will.

Free will is very very rare. 

In reality 99,9% (not all) of humanity is vast 'asleep' while living our lives, and only occasionally some of those 99,9% (once again not all) have flashes of being awake.  And even more rare are the ones that are fully awake, and have real 'free will' because that does not come by itself but requires much effort to work on oneself.

You will only really KNOW that there is just the illusion of 'free will', when you have experienced such 'moments of truth'.  And yes, while discussing this topic we are vast asleep...

Edited September 7, 2020 by Peter Denis

[Tagged]

5 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

 

I agree that there is no completely free will but rather there is a spectrum of 'freedom of will'.

But I'd like to add that almost all of us that agree with the above, think that it are the 'others', i.e. the uneducated (or the not spiritually enclined) that have little or no free will.  But surely this cannot be applicable for US with our civilized background, culture, education, etc.

But actually we don't have 'more' free will than the uneducated, and it's just an illusion that our actions and choices are in majority the result of the choices we made under our free will.

Free will is very very rare. 

In reality 99,9% (not all) of humanity is vast 'asleep' while living our lives, and only occasionally some of those 99,9% (once again not all) have flashes of being of awake.  And even more rare are the ones that are awake, and have real 'free will' because that does not come by itself but requires much effort to work on oneself.

You will only really KNOW that there is just the illusion of 'free will', when you have experienced such 'moments of truth'.  And yes, while discussing this topic we are vast asleep...

Hard to find the right emotion to this post, but I like it. 10 points

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Tagged said:

Hard to find the right emotion to this post, but I like it. 10 points

Interesting that you like it.

What Peter said is exactly what spirituality is all about, without using "offensive" words like consciousness, meditation, energy and such.

 

Is it the wording that makes you feel more comfortable with the concept of 'awakening' (aka enlightenment)?

 

[Tagged]

33 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Interesting that you like it.

What Peter said is exactly what spirituality is all about, without using "offensive" words like consciousness, meditation, energy and such.

 

Is it the wording that makes you feel more comfortable with the concept of 'awakening' (aka enlightenment)?

 

I do not need to aggree in everything, or understand everything, but it was well stated opinion and written. And it backs up quite good about my opinion on free will, and also we are dayssleepers of course, I am also daysleeping, and waste time on this planet, but that is part of the process. 

 

I have understanding of humans layers, and what is hidden underneath, but what is the truly truth when it comes to awakening? I had periods in life with great energy and spirit, as feelings, smell, extatic, sensational brave, and did many things other people did not dare, or thought was possible. I had such great confidence in myself while making the plans, and execute them. And I felt out of this world energy. However, I know it is how my brain working, and I can manipulate myself in the that state when I want, if I push the right buttons. Not just like in comand, but I will get there finely if I strive for it. 

 

I believe it is called light mani in medicine terms, but it feels like being Awaken! 

 

I can only speak for myself and what I have observed, but many of my friends and people I have met on my way, who had simular experiences, strive in the daily life to fit in, to feel safe in relationships with other people, complicated feeling spectrum, and Willing to go the long hard way to discover the truth. 

 

Many of those have been willing to take risks far beyond what is normal, both for physical health as mental health, and also willing to take stimulants to reach their destination of being enlighted. 

 

Of course I have been offered medicine to controll my mania, but I choosed instead to not feed my hunger for the extatic lifestyle. Slowed down, managed to observe myself and take of triggers that learned or knew would take me out of this sleeping state. 

 

So food, sleeping habits or pattern, stimulants, and so have been replaced Or changed with other things Or new solutions. The only thing I kept is my passion for training, to keep focus on something. 

 

I have learned some about my brain, how I can manipulate it for the worse and also better. My confidence is good, my eating is good, my health is good, my love life is good, what else can I ask for? Harmony is everything we seek, or not? 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Tagged