Do you believe in God and why

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

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.

I'd say, very, very, very, very likely not. ????

 

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.

 

Can't you see the paradox or contradiction in the above statement? Real science needs evidence. It cannot, or should not, be based on a 'lack of evidence'.  Requesting proof there is no evidence of something like a universal creator or spirit would require the skills of an all-knowing being, or an all-knowing group of scientists who are aware of everything that exists in the entire, vast universe, estimated to be size that it takes light to travel in 14 billion years.

 

That's obviously impossible. The best we can do is speculate on issues following 'apparently real' observations of certain new phenomena, and try to confirm any proposed explanations for such observations through repeated experimentation and exploration.

 

A significant recent example would be the observation, through the Hubble Telescope in outer space, that distant galaxies appear to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which contravenes the previous hypothesis that the expansion was slowing down.

 

An explanation for such 'observed' accelerating expansion, is the existence of huge amounts of Dark Energy and Dark Matter with an anti-gravitational effect, representing around 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

A lot of resources are currently being used to try to confirm this hypothesis, but these resource wouldn't be used if there was no initial, observed evidence implying, through interpretation, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which contravenes existing theories.
 

[Tagged]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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.

 

????sorry, can not help, you gave me a good laugh, controversery at it´s best!

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Tagged

[mauGR1]

15 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'd say, very, very, very, very likely not. ????

 

 

 

 

Can't you see the paradox or contradiction in the above statement? Real science needs evidence. It cannot, or should not, be based on a 'lack of evidence'.  Requesting proof there is no evidence of something like a universal creator or spirit would require the skills of an all-knowing being, or an all-knowing group of scientists who are aware of everything that exists in the entire, vast universe, estimated to be size that it takes light to travel in 14 billion years.

 

That's obviously impossible. The best we can do is speculate on issues following 'apparently real' observations of certain new phenomena, and try to confirm any proposed explanations for such observations through repeated experimentation and exploration.

 

A significant recent example would be the observation, through the Hubble Telescope in outer space, that distant galaxies appear to be expanding at an accelerating rate, which contravenes the previous hypothesis that the expansion was slowing down.

 

An explanation for such 'observed' accelerating expansion, is the existence of huge amounts of Dark Energy and Dark Matter with an anti-gravitational effect, representing around 95% of all the matter and energy in the universe.

 

A lot of resources are currently being used to try to confirm this hypothesis, but these resource wouldn't be used if there was no initial, observed evidence implying, through interpretation, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, which contravenes existing theories.
 

Well, I am not sure what you mean for "real science" as I can see the evidence of intelligent design ( or God) in everything I see.

Unless you think that thought is created by matter, which is ludicrous imho.

I can compare your beloved "real science" to the blabbering of a new born in front of the miracle of the existence, with all the respect to the new born blabberings  ????

[Skeptic7]

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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.

 

Some scientists. Few. There are unscrupulous characters in every aspect of life. That is not a failing of science, but rather a human failure. Scientific consensus is still the most honest, accurate and accepted explanation of how things actually function...and all advances and improvements to our understanding, convenience, well-being and overall existence. 

 

All been explained here before.

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

Some scientists. Few. There are unscrupulous characters in every aspect of life. That is not a failing of science, but rather a human failure. Scientific consensus is still the most honest, accurate and accepted explanation of how things actually function...and all advances and improvements to our understanding, convenience, well-being and overall existence. 

 

All been explained here before.

Get a life, you won't get any more replies from me until you apologize for serial disapproving emojis under my posts, which is a vile practice, like throwing a stone and hide your hand. Discuss like a man if you are a man, end of the rant.

[Skeptic7]

5 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Get a life, you won't get any more replies from me until you apologize for serial disapproving emojis under my posts, which is a vile practice, like throwing a stone and hide your hand. Discuss like a man if you are a man, end of the rant.

grow up and practice what thou preaches. 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I am not sure what you mean for "real science" as I can see the evidence of intelligent design ( or God) in everything I see.

By 'real' science I mean the science that employs the well-established process of repeated experimentation in order to confirm a hypothetical explanation of observed phenomena.
In other words, the science that has resulted in all the wonderful modern creations of technology that provide prosperity and security in our modern societies, and has allowed mankind to step on the moon.

 

Unless you think that thought is created by matter, which is ludicrous imho.

 

It's true that science cannot yet provide a confirmed explanation for the existence and processes of thought and consciousness, and it's very much a work in progress.

 

However, I get the impression that your view of the nature of matter is very limited. I think it's quite normal to think of matter as something which is inert and solid, because that's what we normally see. But the reality is quite different.

 

From the following scientific article addressing the issue:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6834646/

 

"All things in our universe are constantly in motion, in process. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at specific frequencies. So all things are actually processes. Resonance is a specific type of motion, characterized by synchronized oscillation between two states."

 

"An interesting phenomenon occurs when different vibrating processes come into proximity: they will often start vibrating together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious, and allow for richer and faster information and energy flows. Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness in both the human/mammalian context but also at a deeper ontological level."

 

Now, this article is a rather complex read and I would not recommend that Peter Denis read it, otherwise he might fart again in a bottle. ????
 

[mauGR1]

8 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

By 'real' science I mean the science that employs the well-established process of repeated experimentation in order to confirm a hypothetical explanation of observed phenomena.
In other words, the science that has resulted in all the wonderful modern creations of technology that provide prosperity and security in our modern societies, and has allowed mankind to step on the moon.

 

 

 

 

It's true that science cannot yet provide a confirmed explanation for the existence and processes of thought and consciousness, and it's very much a work in progress.

 

However, I get the impression that your view of the nature of matter is very limited. I think it's quite normal to think of matter as something which is inert and solid, because that's what we normally see. But the reality is quite different.

 

From the following scientific article addressing the issue:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6834646/

 

"All things in our universe are constantly in motion, in process. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at specific frequencies. So all things are actually processes. Resonance is a specific type of motion, characterized by synchronized oscillation between two states."

 

"An interesting phenomenon occurs when different vibrating processes come into proximity: they will often start vibrating together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious, and allow for richer and faster information and energy flows. Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness in both the human/mammalian context but also at a deeper ontological level."

 

Now, this article is a rather complex read and I would not recommend that Peter Denis read it, otherwise he might fart again in a bottle. ????
 

The first paragraph is highly debatable, but it's your right to see only the positives of science, as for the moon landings, well, LOL, that's all I can say.

Yes I'm aware of the fact that matter is not inert and solid as perceived, Indian scientists used to know that since many thousands of years, in fact the material world is just an illusion of the senses. 

I'll read the article later, now it's too early for such reads, it might be interesting, thanks for posting it.

 

[mauGR1]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness in both the human/mammalian context but also at a deeper ontological level."

Well, the article is just too technical for me to debate the details, but I think I can understand the substance in it.

So, in Indian ancient texts, whose knowledge  most likely predates the invention of the script, it's said that every single atom contains the image, and the consciousness of Vishnu, or the power of preservation, and Christians say that we have been created as the image of God.

I can see a pattern here, the same truth expressed in different ways.

In fact , science seems to explain concepts with logic, reason, research and a lot of tedious maths, but I am still wondering what's the real purpose of it, and even more crucially, what is the purpose of existence.

 

[Peter Denis]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

...

Now, this article is a rather complex read and I would not recommend that Peter Denis read it, otherwise he might fart again in a bottle. ????
...

Thanks for the compliment!

I am quite capable of reading/understanding complex articles, and will almost immediately detect logical fallacies in reasoning or unspoken presuppositions that lie at the basis of them and have no clear foundation or are pure deflection.

That ability allows me to quickly detect BS when I hear/see/read it.  Especially in 'difficult' stuff generated to create the false illusion of 'profoundness'.

So my BS-detector was going Tilt when reading some of your earlier responses, and hence I called you out on it.

I guess this response will trigger again some 'projection' accusations from your part.  So be it.

>> I will read the article, but have to admit that my expectations are not very high for the sole reason that a recommendation from your part is kind of a BS-alarm. ????

 

[Skeptic7]

2 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

as for the moon landings, well, LOL, that's all I can say.

And there it is. Well established science denier and now self-admitted conspiracy theorist. 641 pages of this all becomes much clearer. WOW! ????

[mauGR1]

56 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

will almost immediately detect logical fallacies in reasoning 

Personally, I am of the opinion that there's a huge fallacy at the basis of every materialist's opinion, or theory.

It's the anthropocentric vision, or the unfounded belief that the human being is the most perfect form of life in the universe.

Thanks God, this is not true.

[Peter Denis]

39 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

And there it is. Well established science denier and now self-admitted conspiracy theorist. 641 pages of this all becomes much clearer. WOW! ????

Nowhere did @mauGR1 state that he denied the moon-landing took place.

VincentRJ brought that up as a 'giant' achievement of science.

And although technically admirable that it was done, I would also give it a LOL compared with other human achievements in domains like art and architecture (e.g. the medieval cathedrals).

 

[luckyluke]

On 9/8/2020 at 7:40 PM, mauGR1 said:

just letting you know that you can fool somebody, but not everybody ☺

Like this sentence,

so applicable here in this topic.

[luckyluke]

17 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

but I'll never try and force my beliefs on others.

I read that as you are a deep convert of your specific belief,

but also can accept that others have other believing's, or than none,

and that their belief can be as strong as yours.

 

 

I may of course be wrong in my assumptions.

[luckyluke]

16 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Because only God can create life, and scientists never will

A personal opinion/conviction,

but unverifiable, as we don't know the future.

[crobe]

It seems that God does irony

A prominent Ukrainian church leader who previously said the Covid-19 pandemic was "God's punishment" for same-sex marriage has tested positive for the virus.

Patriarch Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church--Kiev Patriarchate, is reportedly stable and undergoing treatment. The church announced in a Facebook post on September 4 that Filaret had tested positive for Covid-19.

[luckyluke]

14 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

which is ludicrous imho.

Many here consider everything outside of their own belief as ludicrous.

I prefer to state that everything is possible, and that we will all find out, soon or later.

Or than maybe not.

[luckyluke]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

  .. 'difficult' stuff generated to create the false illusion of 'profoundness'.

A fact regularly encountered in this topic.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Many here consider everything outside of their own belief as ludicrous.

I prefer to state that everything is possible, and that we will all find out, soon or later.

Or than maybe not.

Yes, true what you say.

I tend to exaggerate with words, not to win arguments like somebody seem to think, but just to add some pepper to the discussion.

To say that everything is possible is absolutely reasonable imho.

[Tagged]

1 hour ago, luckyluke said:

Many here consider everything outside of their own belief as ludicrous.

I prefer to state that everything is possible, and that we will all find out, soon or later.

Or than maybe not.

Well spoken! 10 points and absolute true

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/8/2020 at 1:40 PM, Tagged said:

When we do not know, do you aggree we create a vacum by creating belief system that claims to know the truth. We are pissing in our pants when its cold. Feels good and warm for a second, but then, you realize it was stupid. 

Sounds like believing in love. Feels good and warm for a bit, but when it stops, one feels stupid and disappointed for thinking love was real.

Love is the ultimate proof that God can exist. Love is an abstract and can't be proven, but not a single person doubts it exists.

To deny that God can exist is the same as denying love can exist.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, crobe said:

It seems that God does irony

A prominent Ukrainian church leader who previously said the Covid-19 pandemic was "God's punishment" for same-sex marriage has tested positive for the virus.

Patriarch Filaret, head of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church--Kiev Patriarchate, is reportedly stable and undergoing treatment. The church announced in a Facebook post on September 4 that Filaret had tested positive for Covid-19.

Testing positive is irrelevant. No worse than a cold or flu. It's only if he gets really sick or dies that it becomes significant.

However, corona may be Gaia's revenge on humanity for destroying the lovely planet we were loaned to live on.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

By 'real' science I mean the science that employs the well-established process of repeated experimentation in order to confirm a hypothetical explanation of observed phenomena.
In other words, the science that has resulted in all the wonderful modern creations of technology that provide prosperity and security in our modern societies, and has allowed mankind to step on the moon.

 

 

 

 

It's true that science cannot yet provide a confirmed explanation for the existence and processes of thought and consciousness, and it's very much a work in progress.

 

However, I get the impression that your view of the nature of matter is very limited. I think it's quite normal to think of matter as something which is inert and solid, because that's what we normally see. But the reality is quite different.

 

From the following scientific article addressing the issue:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6834646/

 

"All things in our universe are constantly in motion, in process. Even objects that appear to be stationary are in fact vibrating, oscillating, resonating, at specific frequencies. So all things are actually processes. Resonance is a specific type of motion, characterized by synchronized oscillation between two states."

 

"An interesting phenomenon occurs when different vibrating processes come into proximity: they will often start vibrating together at the same frequency. They “sync up,” sometimes in ways that can seem mysterious, and allow for richer and faster information and energy flows. Examining this phenomenon leads to potentially deep insights about the nature of consciousness in both the human/mammalian context but also at a deeper ontological level."

 

Now, this article is a rather complex read and I would not recommend that Peter Denis read it, otherwise he might fart again in a bottle. ????
 

It always amuses me when someone chooses to believe that mankind's primitive "science" can prove or disprove the existence of God. On the evolutionary scale between bacteria floating in the ocean after the world cooled to man achieving nirvana we are probably not even nibbling at the edge of knowledge. Science does not know everything, and nothing is ever definitively proven.

Believing that science is capable of proving anything about God is as much an act of faith as believing in the creator.

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sounds like believing in love. Feels good and warm for a bit, but when it stops, one feels stupid and disappointed for thinking love was real.

Love is the ultimate proof that God can exist. Love is an abstract and can't be proven, but not a single person doubts it exists.

To deny that God can exist is the same as denying love can exist.

Actually, we could argue for days on the many meanings of the word "love", but when I hear someone saying that " God is love" I'm invariably in complete agreement.

[Skeptic7]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Testing positive is irrelevant. No worse than a cold or flu. It's only if he gets really sick or dies that it becomes significant.

However, corona may be Gaia's revenge on humanity for destroying the lovely planet we were loaned to live on.

"It" must not be very vengeful/angry/powerful then, because it's scarcely made scratch in the 7.8 billion inhabitants violating "her". Surely if such a thing existed and wanted revenge, it could do much better than this lame-o effort. 

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Personally, I am of the opinion that there's a huge fallacy at the basis of every materialist's opinion, or theory.

It's the anthropocentric vision, or the unfounded belief that the human being is the most perfect form of life in the universe.

Thanks God, this is not true.

Well said. This virus has brought out all sorts of beliefs, but the most extraordinary are from those that complain that God does not stop the virus, as if. They overlook all the other diseases that people die from, and all the wars etc. If they think God should stop the virus(es) what about death itself? Should we all live forever?

It's always the same- people that claim God does not exist complain that God ( that doesn't exist ) should stop them getting sick. 55555555555555555

Even more amusing ( if that were possible ) is the idea that humanity is so important to the world, the solar system, the galaxy and the universe that we must survive forever.

In the vast cosmos we are but insignificance personified. in cosmic terms we evolved and will end in a mere blink. Pity we didn't behave better while we were here and look after the planet.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Skeptic7 said:

"It" must not be very vengeful/angry/powerful then, because it's scarcely made scratch in the 7.8 billion inhabitants violating "her". Surely if such a thing existed and wanted revenge, it could do much better than this lame-o effort. 

This probably just the practice run. The real deal is yet to come.

[Skeptic7]

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It always amuses me when someone chooses to believe that mankind's primitive "science" can prove or disprove the existence of God. On the evolutionary scale between bacteria floating in the ocean after the world cooled to man achieving nirvana we are probably not even nibbling at the edge of knowledge. Science does not know everything, and nothing is ever definitively proven.

Believing that science is capable of proving anything about God is as much an act of faith as believing in the creator.

Yet you latch on to this absolutely unknowable, uncaring, divinely hidden phenomenon, by your own admission! Mind boggling. ????

[Skeptic7]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This probably just the practice run. The real deal is yet to come.

Were Bubonic Plague and Spanish Flu and Hong Kong Flu practice runs too? Why does the "Divine" need practice?