Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Whether you got the meaning of the quote or not, has nothing to do with intelligence, being a PhD or a nitwit. 

Don't be silly. Whatever you understand about anything has everything to do with your intelligence, your upbringing in whatever culture, your education, and your genetic influences.

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Don't be silly. Whatever you understand about anything has everything to do with your intelligence, your upbringing in whatever culture, your education, and your genetic influences.

Not being silly at all.
A simple farmer who never went to school past first grade, can have a deeper understanding about life and himself than a PhD in neuroscience or astrophysics. I would go as far as saying that the more intellectual knowledge/baggage you have, the more layers you have to peel off before you can see your true self. 
We are not talking about intellectual knowledge here....the one you gather by reading books and attending university classes. At least, I'm not, and I don't think that was the subject at hand.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Don't be silly. Whatever you understand about anything has everything to do with your intelligence, your upbringing in whatever culture, your education, and your genetic influences.

Platitudes.

Well, you may think you have been successful in your deflections, but you didn't answer my last post.

Well, I can live without your answer, just letting you know that you can fool somebody, but not everybody ☺

[Tagged]

Just half way trough on this one, and strange enough it just popped up in my feed. It have some elements of what we have been discussing here lateley, so for those who is curious, enjoy

 

 

https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Wow, labelling a quote from Goethe as an 'imprecise statement'!

Goethe is obviously referring to the information processing part of what was 'heard' and without the necessary mental capacity to understand an abstract thought (whether it is spoken or read) it would be same as if the recipient never heard (or read) it.

You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. The hearing of anything, whether spoken words, the clap of thunder, a squealing pig, or the sound of music, has to first be interpreted by the auditory and neurological system as a sound. Further meaning is then attributed to the sound according to one's experiences, likes and dislikes, education, and so on.

 

That further interpretation will vary considerably among different individuals, but to make the statement that "without the necessary mental capacity to understand an abstract thought (whether it is spoken or read) it would be same as if the recipient never heard (or read) it", is plain ridiculous, unless you are referring to severely, mentally disabled people.

 

A fundamental characteristic of the human species is a capacity for abstract thought, which all other animals, including apes, appear to lack. If I've never been to Thailand and am not familiar with the Thai language, I will not understand the specific meaning of a speech delivered in Thai, including all the abstract thoughts that might be expressed in the speech, but I will still have a level of understanding that what I am hearing is a foreign language. I might also think, because of the Thai tonal system, 'what a nice language this is', or I might think the opposite.

 

If you talk about a law of physics to a 7 year old he will 'hear' what you say, but will of course not 'understand' what it actually means and how it relates to all the rest he already knows.

 

It depends on the quality of the teacher and the IQ of the 7 year old. A good teacher will attempt to find a way of sparking an interest in the 7 year old by demonstrating complex principles of physics using simple analogies which can be understood by a 7 year old. Once that interest has been sparked, a greater understanding of the physics will more likely be achieved later on as the kid grows up.

 

An example which I experienced myself as a young kid relates to the Theory of Relativity whereby the speed and direction of any moving object is always relative to the speed and direction of another object which is the reference point, except for light, apparently. If you change the reference point, you change the speed. Travelling to school by train as a young kid, I sometimes experienced when two trains were stopped at a station, that the train I was on had started moving, when looking out of the window at the other train. Then after a few seconds, realized that it was the other train that was moving in the opposite direction, and my train was still stationary.

 

Understanding of anything is on a spectrum ranging from a very tiny and minuscule understanding to a relatively moderate degree of understanding.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Platitudes.

Well, you may think you have been successful in your deflections, but you didn't answer my last post.

Well, I can live without your answer, just letting you know that you can fool somebody, but not everybody ☺

Tomorrow. It's bed time. ????

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Tomorrow. It's bed time. ????

Good morning ????, and thanks in advance.

It's just about your assertion that an absolute truth cannot exist.

I'm curious to know how you can prove it, or if that's too difficult, how did you come to that conclusion ?

[Tagged]

9 hours ago, Tagged said:

Just half way trough on this one, and strange enough it just popped up in my feed. It have some elements of what we have been discussing here lateley, so for those who is curious, enjoy

 

 

https://youtu.be/lyu7v7nWzfo

Here is it more about Anil Seth Ted talk in my link. I promiss it is worth it to spend time on it, due to our latest talk here in this Thread, and I think Vincent also would like it as well. 

 

"

Let’s Begin…

When you wake up and open your eyes, a world (or at least your bedroom) suddenly appears. This is the mystery of consciousness: how do the billions of brain cells inside your head generate the experience of "being you?" Join neuroscientist Anil Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence."

 

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/your-brain-hallucinates-your-conscious-reality-anil-seth

[Sunmaster]

2 hours ago, Tagged said:

Here is it more about Anil Seth Ted talk in my link. I promiss it is worth it to spend time on it, due to our latest talk here in this Thread, and I think Vincent also would like it as well. 

 

"

Let’s Begin…

When you wake up and open your eyes, a world (or at least your bedroom) suddenly appears. This is the mystery of consciousness: how do the billions of brain cells inside your head generate the experience of "being you?" Join neuroscientist Anil Seth for a delightfully disorienting talk that may leave you questioning the very nature of your existence."

 

https://ed.ted.com/lessons/your-brain-hallucinates-your-conscious-reality-anil-seth

Seems interesting. Will have a look as soon as I have some time.

Like your new profile picture btw. ???? 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Good morning ????, and thanks in advance.

It's just about your assertion that an absolute truth cannot exist.

I'm curious to know how you can prove it, or if that's too difficult, how did you come to that conclusion ?

Good morning. I can't spend too much time on this today because I have some photos that I took recently at a funeral that I've promised to process and print. 

 

However, I'll try to go through my stages of reasoning again. I'll list the essential points which I believe are true so you can address each point if you think it is not true.

 

(1) Reality for all creatures, human or otherwise, consists of an unbroken linkage between the observed and the observer.

 

(2) When that linkage between the 'observed and the observer' is broken, there's no observation.

 

(3) All observations, including all types of perception, whether hearing, smelling touching, feeling, and so on, are interpretations, which is why different species will have different interpretations, and different individuals within whatever species, will have at least 'slightly different' interpretations among themselves, and sometimes significantly different interpretations.

 

(4) The term 'absolute reality' is an abstract concept in the human mind, so perhaps the problem here is due to differences in the interpretations and definitions of the words we use. A key word here is 'absolute'.

 

What's your definition of absolute? Here are a couple of relevant definitions from dictionaries, which you might or might not agree with.
"viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative".

"The definition of absolute is something that is always true and accepted as fact, with no arguments against it or conditions necessary for it to be true."

 

In my view, the above dictionary definitions are flawed from a rational and logical perspective, for reasons I've tried to explained.

 

(5) The other key word is 'reality'. A relevant dictionary definition is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

 

Who does not have at least some degree of idealism and speculation in their views?  The existence of 'absolute reality', in my view, would require an absolutely unbiased and all-knowing individual to observe it, without the slightest degree of speculation involved.

 

Are you such a person? ????
 

[Peter Denis]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

16 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Wow, labelling a quote from Goethe as an 'imprecise statement'!

Goethe is obviously referring to the information processing part of what was 'heard' and without the necessary mental capacity to understand an abstract thought (whether it is spoken or read) it would be same as if the recipient never heard (or read) it.

 

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You've fallen into the 'either/or' trap. The hearing of anything, whether spoken words, the clap of thunder, a squealing pig, or the sound of music, has to first be interpreted by the auditory and neurological system as a sound. Further meaning is then attributed to the sound according to one's experiences, likes and dislikes, education, and so on.

 

That further interpretation will vary considerably among different individuals, but to make the statement that "without the necessary mental capacity to understand an abstract thought (whether it is spoken or read) it would be same as if the recipient never heard (or read) it", is plain ridiculous, unless you are referring to severely, mentally disabled people.

 

A fundamental characteristic of the human species is a capacity for abstract thought, which all other animals, including apes, appear to lack. If I've never been to Thailand and am not familiar with the Thai language, I will not understand the specific meaning of a speech delivered in Thai, including all the abstract thoughts that might be expressed in the speech, but I will still have a level of understanding that what I am hearing is a foreign language. I might also think, because of the Thai tonal system, 'what a nice language this is', or I might think the opposite.

Sorry, but that response is just pedantic nonsense to deflect from a simple and clear statement, in order to appear 'profound'. 

Some will be fooled by your use of intellectual jargon, but try putting that response you posted in simple words and you will see that it's nothing more than a fart in a bottle.

[Tagged]

46 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Like your new profile picture btw. ???? 

It is kind of me, and the essens of life ???? 

[Sunmaster]

I had this thought this morning...

Most of us live here in Thailand or have lived here for some time. We know the culture, the traditions, the food etc pretty well. Compared to someone in Europe who's never been here, we could even be considered some sort of experts perhaps. 
Now, let's say there's such a guy in Europe, let's call him Richard D., who has never set foot in Thailand. He has read many books about it though, learning about Thai food in particular. He learned about the different dishes, knows them by their Thai names and their history, and he read about the right balance of sweet, salty, sour and spicy. In his circle of friends he is also viewed as a sort of expert on Thai cuisine. The reality is that he has never sat on a nice riverbank restaurant, enjoyed the view, tasted the real Thai dishes, (not the watered down imitations of his local Thai restaurant in Europe), but still...people who also have never been to Thailand, listen to him and value his clever opinion.
Now, in describing the true Thai food experience, who would you rather believe/trust? Richard D. or one of us expats who eats Thai food every day?
Would we be considered too sure about our opinions, even called haughty, arrogant and conceited if we were to point out that Richard D. doesn't really know what he's talking about? 
For sure, someone (who maybe doesn't know that European Thai food is different from real Thai food) would inevitably crawl out of the woodwork and point out that our opinion should be considered as equal to Richard's opinion. Would it be equal though?
Which opinion would be more authentic, which one would carry more authority? Should we expats keep quiet and let Richard disseminate false or incomplete information about something we know to know better? 

Full disclosure: this post is not really about Thai food. ???? 

[Tagged]

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I had this thought this morning...

Now, in describing the true Thai food experience, who would you rather believe/trust? Richard D. or one of us expats who eats Thai food every day?

Full disclosure: this post is not really about Thai food. ???? 

I would only trust one persons experience, and that is myself. I can get inspiration of others experiences, but I need my own to have any clue how it is or how it feels, taste, smell feels. 

 

NB:Nothing to do with this post

 

I have had a long life before this in extreme sports, and my experience is, when an accident happening, you have 10 witnesses, and you will have 7 total different experiences, and 3 more or less alike what yourselves saw. Quite amazing seen from same point of view. Even if we have video, what we see can be very very different, until one person lead us trought what happend picture for picture, most of us can tend to agree what really happend. 

 

And with that experience my previous post with the Ted talk, make that quite interesting for me. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Tagged

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I had this thought this morning...

Most of us live here in Thailand or have lived here for some time. We know the culture, the traditions, the food etc pretty well. Compared to someone in Europe who's never been here, we could even be considered some sort of experts perhaps. 
Now, let's say there's such a guy in Europe, let's call him Richard D., who has never set foot in Thailand. He has read many books about it though, learning about Thai food in particular. He learned about the different dishes, knows them by their Thai names and their history, and he read about the right balance of sweet, salty, sour and spicy. In his circle of friends he is also viewed as a sort of expert on Thai cuisine. The reality is that he has never sat on a nice riverbank restaurant, enjoyed the view, tasted the real Thai dishes, (not the watered down imitations of his local Thai restaurant in Europe), but still...people who also have never been to Thailand, listen to him and value his clever opinion.
Now, in describing the true Thai food experience, who would you rather believe/trust? Richard D. or one of us expats who eats Thai food every day?
Would we be considered too sure about our opinions, even called haughty, arrogant and conceited if we were to point out that Richard D. doesn't really know what he's talking about? 
For sure, someone (who maybe doesn't know that European Thai food is different from real Thai food) would inevitably crawl out of the woodwork and point out that our opinion should be considered as equal to Richard's opinion. Would it be equal though?
Which opinion would be more authentic, which one would carry more authority? Should we expats keep quiet and let Richard disseminate false or incomplete information about something we know to know better? 

Full disclosure: this post is not really about Thai food. ???? 

Thanks for this post!

'Food' for thought for those arguing that every opinion is equal... ????

 

You can of course take the analogy even further, because there can and will also be differences in opinion about what constitutes 'real' Thai Food between those that have actually been eating authentic Thai cuisine for years.  Because Thai Food is not homogeneous and will come in different flavors depending on where you are in the country.  But that experience doesn't make one Thai cuisine more genuine than another one.  And of course those that have tasted different Thai cuisines will tend to be in more mutual agreement than with the Richard D.'s of this world...

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

 

Sorry, but that response is just pedantic nonsense to deflect from a simple and clear statement, in order to appear 'profound'. 

Some will be fooled by your use of intellectual jargon, but try putting that response you posted in simple words and you will see that it's nothing more than a fart in a bottle.

Crikey! My entire post was in simple words. I'm amazed that you can't understand them. ????
Of course, there is a psychological explanation for this reaction of yours. It's called 'projection'. That is, you do understand what I've written, but you don't like it, and it makes you feel uncomfortable, so you project your discomfort by describing my concepts as a 'fart in a bottle'. ????

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

Thanks for this post!

'Food' for thought for those arguing that every opinion is equal... ????

 

You can of course take the analogy even further, because there can and will also be differences in opinion about what constitutes 'real' Thai Food between those that have actually been eating authentic Thai cuisine for years.  Because Thai Food is not homogeneous and will come in different flavors depending on where you are in the country.  But that experience doesn't make one Thai cuisine more genuine than another one.  And of course those that have tasted different Thai cuisines will tend to be in more mutual agreement than with the Richard D.'s of this world...

Absolutely.

And how are you, as Thai expats going to react to Richard and his friends, if they don't accept your 'real life' insight and start to be resentful to the fact that someone out there may indeed have more in-depth knowledge about Thai culture, the language, Somtam and Tom Yum Kung than they have? 
To be fair, it's not all so black and white. Our views as expats are not really contradicting Richard's opinions, but perhaps they do offer a deeper dimension to what it is like to live and eat in Thailand.

Ok, now I'm hungry... ???? 

[mauGR1]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Good morning. I can't spend too much time on this today because I have some photos that I took recently at a funeral that I've promised to process and print. 

 

However, I'll try to go through my stages of reasoning again. I'll list the essential points which I believe are true so you can address each point if you think it is not true.

 

(1) Reality for all creatures, human or otherwise, consists of an unbroken linkage between the observed and the observer.

 

(2) When that linkage between the 'observed and the observer' is broken, there's no observation.

 

(3) All observations, including all types of perception, whether hearing, smelling touching, feeling, and so on, are interpretations, which is why different species will have different interpretations, and different individuals within whatever species, will have at least 'slightly different' interpretations among themselves, and sometimes significantly different interpretations.

 

(4) The term 'absolute reality' is an abstract concept in the human mind, so perhaps the problem here is due to differences in the interpretations and definitions of the words we use. A key word here is 'absolute'.

 

What's your definition of absolute? Here are a couple of relevant definitions from dictionaries, which you might or might not agree with.
"viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things; not relative or comparative".

"The definition of absolute is something that is always true and accepted as fact, with no arguments against it or conditions necessary for it to be true."

 

In my view, the above dictionary definitions are flawed from a rational and logical perspective, for reasons I've tried to explained.

 

(5) The other key word is 'reality'. A relevant dictionary definition is "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."

 

Who does not have at least some degree of idealism and speculation in their views?  The existence of 'absolute reality', in my view, would require an absolutely unbiased and all-knowing individual to observe it, without the slightest degree of speculation involved.

 

Are weyou such a person? ????
 

Well, when I said that our language and words we use to describe non-material concepts are not really efficient, I've been ridiculed by the usual suspects, anyway I agree on this point. 

So, possibly there had been not a single human in history who had been all-knowing, totally unbiased, to know the ultimate, or absolute truth.

Yet this is not evidence of the non-existence of a supreme super-human all knowing being, or at least a sort of all-permeating super- consciousness,, and as you taught me, real science needs evidence.

My safe bet is that, one day, natural science will admit it's limitations, recognise that the physical senses are not the only doors of perception, and not the only way to ascertain what reality is, and eventually merge with spiritual science.

[Peter Denis]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

  4 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Sorry, but that response is just pedantic nonsense to deflect from a simple and clear statement, in order to appear 'profound'. 

Some will be fooled by your use of intellectual jargon, but try putting that response you posted in simple words and you will see that it's nothing more than a fart in a bottle.

 

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Crikey! My entire post was in simple words. I'm amazed that you can't understand them. ????
Of course, there is a psychological explanation for this reaction of yours. It's called 'projection'. That is, you do understand what I've written, but you don't like it, and it makes you feel uncomfortable, so you project your discomfort by describing my concepts as a 'fart in a bottle'. ????

I understand what you've written, and you are very correct that I don't like it because I consider it pedantic nonsense.  And I used a scatalogical reference to make it absolutely clear what I think about that hor-air response you posted.

Hey, I got to be harsh and call a Turd a Turd when I see one, but I do not bear any grudges, so this brutally honest dialogue won't influence my appreciation (or dismissal) of any later posts you might make to contribute to the discussion. 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

Hey, I got to be harsh and call a Turd a Turd when I see one, but I do not bear any grudges, so this brutally honest dialogue won't influence my appreciation (or dismissal) of any later posts you might make to contribute to the discussion. 

 

No you didn't. You called your own discomfort a Turd, and that's fine by me. It's not my discomfort. It's you who has to deal with it. However, because I'm so compassionate, I hope you can manage it and achieve some peace. ????

[fredwiggy]

This topic is a lot longer than any other. This topic was "Do you believe in God and why". Everyone has their opinions and some of them have been right on and some have been utter nonsense. I believe in God and have stated why I do. Others have stated why they do also. Some have stated why they don't believe. Some have reasons that are meaningless and some have put up quite good arguments why they don't. I'm sure most that don't believe have been hurt some way in childhood by someone that believes that has used abuse, disappointing them by their actions which were forceful, turning their children away for that reason. Some have seen relatives or friends die from reasons besides old age and have blamed God, when God didn't do anything besides create a world that has turned out imperfect, mainly because of our sins. Some disbelieve because God hasn't answered their prayers in the way they'd like. I myself have been guilty of that many times, wanting justice for those that have wronged me immediately. Karma comes but I thought God could do it faster. maybe he has answered our prayers but in a way we don't see now. Some don't want to follow God's commandments, thinking they can do whatever they want because we all have free will. God's laws make sense, even if we don't believe in him. Some think they haven't seen any miracles happen, and think they are all lies told down through the ages, and don't see the every day miracles we overlook. The world in which we live is full of things God made that we take for granted all the time. Things that couldn't have just "happened" but were made by a creator. This topic has gone into arguments that have little to do with the OP's original thoughts. People using words that some may not understand to make themselves look superior. Words they would never use in everyday conversation but use here for that reason, thinking their replies will somehow convince their arguments are more valid. God himself, as yes I do believe in him, doesn't care how smart you are, how much money you either make or say you make, how much power you may have or who you have walked over in your life to get where you are. All God cares is if you believe in him or not. You can have an IQ of 200 or an IQ of 70, and neither will help you to get to heaven. Riches will not help either, but may hinder because some put that above all things, including God. All my post is asking is to stick to the topic, and not tear anyone down because their beliefs aren't the same as your own. Everyone as soon as they die will find out the reality of it all, and some will suffer because of their beliefs. Some of course will debate against that, thinking when we die there is nothing, so no one has to worry anyway. Some live their lives as non believers, yet live according to rules of society and don't intentionally hurt anyone else, and think that's okay. Some believe and live their lives hurting others, thinking they can repent just before they die. These are narcissists. People that have been taught since childhood that they are unlovable, and project that hurt and eventual anger on others that are good to them because they can't hurt their own parents. I believe in God, even though I want answers and help from him now. I like to see others replies for both sides. If I could help one person to change their minds and to believe, that would make me happy, but I'll never try and force my beliefs on others.

[Tagged]

21 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

This topic is a lot longer than any other. This topic was "Do you believe in God and why". Everyone has their opinions and some of them have been right on and some have been utter nonsense. I believe in God and have stated why I do. Others have stated why they do also. Some have stated why they don't believe. 

Did it ever occured to you, that Some people who have been reading bible, Who followed the children church school as a kid, learned about religion on school, and made up their mind by them selfes without any abuse or big dissasters happening to them? For me it is pure logic, and there is parts of the bible I can not accept at all. 

 

 

[VincentRJ]

36 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

All God cares is if you believe in him or not.

I'll address just this one point you made in your long post. Why would a creator of the human species only care about whether or not what he has created believes in 'Him'?

 

Does such an attitude not suggest complete egotism? Can you imagine a group of advanced scientists, perhaps sometime in the future, after creating a new form of life in the laboratory, declaring, "All we care about is whether this new form of life believes in us." ????

[fredwiggy]

Just now, Tagged said:

Did it ever occured to you, that Some people who have been reading bible, Who followed the children church school as a kid, learned about religion on school, and made up their mind by them selfes without any abuse or big dissasters happening to them? For me it is pure logic, and there is parts of the bible I can not accept at all. 

 

 

I'm not a teenager, and I have an open mind, so everything that could have happened, has "occurred" to me. You don't have to read the Bible to be a believer. There are parts in the Bible that both don't make sense and that have been proven wrong. It was written by man, and man makes mistakes. I stated the reasons people stray from God, and some aren't about abuse but plain disbelief, because they haven't seen "proof" God exists, and believe more in science, which is man's opinions and facts brought about by research. Science has never proven, nor will it prove, that the universe just "happened" by chance.

[fredwiggy]

Just now, VincentRJ said:

I'll address just this one point you made in your long post. Why would a creator of the human species only care about whether or not what he has created believes in 'Him'?

 

Does such an attitude not suggest complete egotism? Can you imagine a group of advanced scientists, perhaps sometime in the future, after creating a new form of life in the laboratory, declaring, "All we care about is whether this new form of life believes in us." ????

Because only God can create life, and scientists never will. Because God has created us in his own image, he cares that we believe in him or not, giving us, as not being mindless sheep, free will to decide either way. He doesn't just want us to believe, but follow his rules. He made us, so having a set of rules doesn't seem unjustified. I should have stated that as well earlier.

Edited September 9, 2020 by fredwiggy

[Sunmaster]

I will not get in the middle of this. I promise. ????

[Tagged]

19 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm not a teenager, and I have an open mind, so everything that could have happened, has "occurred" to me. You don't have to read the Bible to be a believer. There are parts in the Bible that both don't make sense and that have been proven wrong. It was written by man, and man makes mistakes. I stated the reasons people stray from God, and some aren't about abuse but plain disbelief, because they haven't seen "proof" God exists, and believe more in science, which is man's opinions and facts brought about by research. Science has never proven, nor will it prove, that the universe just "happened" by chance.

To me it doesnt mean anything to me if you call it god, mother earth or energy, power, but it does mean something to me when people claim to know the truth on behalf of others. What other people should do or not do. 

 

I see man made religion as a a tool rather tan gods religion. 

 

And the most important, I do not belive in after life. Im recycled and eternal life is only for those who have kids, who again reproduce. Eternal life comes to an end when the reproduction stops. 

[mauGR1]

19 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm not a teenager, and I have an open mind, so everything that could have happened, has "occurred" to me. You don't have to read the Bible to be a believer. There are parts in the Bible that both don't make sense and that have been proven wrong. It was written by man, and man makes mistakes. I stated the reasons people stray from God, and some aren't about abuse but plain disbelief, because they haven't seen "proof" God exists, and believe more in science, which is man's opinions and facts brought about by research. Science has never proven, nor will it prove, that the universe just "happened" by chance.

I find your post mostly enjoyable and agreeable, but I dissent on a few points, of course.

First, science, intended as a pure effort to discover the truth, is a divine gift to humans.

Second, why this neat separation between "believers" and "non-believers", the world is not black and white.

To simplify my point, some of the so called "believers" could be the most selfish people on the planet, conversely there must be lots of self professed "non-believers" who are great folks.

On another note, I'm glad that you say that the Bible has been written (and translated/interpreted) by humans, thus quite obscure or even inaccurate in some parts.

I believe that if one believes in what is good and true, even without knowing anything about religions, is following the laws of the universe, which are God laws.

 

[Skeptic7]

3 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, when I said that our language and words we use to describe non-material concepts are not really efficient, I've been ridiculed by the usual suspects, anyway I agree on this point. 

So, possibly there had been not a single human in history who had been all-knowing, totally unbiased, to know the ultimate, or absolute truth.

Yet this is not evidence of the non-existence of a supreme super-human all knowing being, or at least a sort of all-permeating super- consciousness,, and as you taught me, real science needs evidence.

My safe bet is that, one day, natural science will admit it's limitations, recognise that the physical senses are not the only doors of perception, and not the only way to ascertain what reality is, and eventually merge with spiritual science.

I'll take that bet...and give you odds! ???? 

 

BTW science already admits it's "limitations" by it's very methodology. It doesn't claims "fact" or "law". It's always open to newer and better evidence...blah blah blah. This has all been spelled out before. It's the best current explanation for how the universe works. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Skeptic7

[mauGR1]

28 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

It's the best current explanation for how the universe works. 

Well, that big bang theory sounds childish to say the least, so there's for sure some more work to do.

Then, silly theories are mostly harmless, my displeasure is much bigger at how science and scientists are used by the usual suspects to push evil agendas.