Do you believe in God and why

[Sunmaster]

BTW...we quietly passed the 10.000 posts mark. Not bad, not bad at all...

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

You are one of the reincarnated ones....why don't you tell us? ????

 

On the meeting between Jesus and John the Baptist, there are serious clues that they recognised each other from a previous life. Jesus as Eliseus, John as Elias, both famous prophets, but don't expect any Christian priests to talk about it.

[VincentRJ]

6 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Although I read all of your post, I completely disagree with your first statement.

When I die, 2 plus 2 will still be 4.

If you also die, 2 plus 2 will still be 4.

Should the whole humankind, one day, be exterminated, guess what, 2 plus 2 will be 4.

The same with consciousness, it will exist even when our civilisation is out of the picture.

Not necessarily, unless the eternal soul, or the Vedic concept of reincarnation is a reality. When you die there is no mathematics, nor anything else, for you, because you no longer exist. For those who haven't yet died, then of course all the 'human constructed' laws still exist in the form of texts, photos and video, etc, which still have to be interpreted through each human mind.

 

2 plus 2 equals 4 is a prime example of the human capacity for abstract thought. The 2 and 4 in such a basic equation does not specify the thing or entity. It's completely abstract. If we say, 2 atoms plus 2 atoms equals 4 atoms, then for that to be true we have to clearly define what the atom is. Maybe 2 atoms plus 2 atoms equals one molecule. ????

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, transam said:

Noooooooooo, not me, when I pop off I will be joining the zillions of other creatures of the planet that have died or been eaten by the likes of you, unless you're a veggy....????

Yes, I do like to eat vaggies ????

[mauGR1]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

Not necessarily, unless the eternal soul, or the Vedic concept of reincarnation is a reality. When you die there is no mathematics, nor anything else, for you, because you no longer exist. For those who haven't yet died, then of course all the 'human constructed' laws still exist in the form of texts, photos and video, etc, which still have to be interpreted through each human mind.

 

2 plus 2 equals 4 is a prime example of the human capacity for abstract thought. The 2 and 4 in such a basic equation does not specify the thing or entity. It's completely abstract. If we say, 2 atoms plus 2 atoms equals 4 atoms, then for that to be true we have to clearly define what the atom is. Maybe 2 atoms plus 2 atoms equals one molecule. ????

Well, i knew that I couldn't convince you of  "consciousness" existing independently from human beings, so for the moment I will say that in my opinion it's a safe bet.

[VincentRJ]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, i knew that I couldn't convince you of  "consciousness" existing independently from human beings, so for the moment I will say that in my opinion it's a safe bet.

I'm only convinced by scientific evidence which meets the requirements of the methodology of science. Our world is so amazingly complex, as revealed by science as opposed to religion, that I always reserve some degree of skepticism about most issues, so I'm rarely completely convinced, but on some issue I am completely convinced. For example, I have no doubt that my bare hand will burn if I place it in a fire. ????

[Sunmaster]

Our "local" supercluster...puts our trivialities in perspective, doesn't it?

 

[mauGR1]

Incidentally, I had a "revelation" just the other day, which I'm willing to share, even if no one here is interested.

When Jesus said :

" Who lives in my name lives forever "

It means : " who lives for the truth, lives forever"

Because Jesus IS the truth.

Believe it or not.

Cheers mates.

[yodsak]

On 10/7/2020 at 10:39 AM, Sunmaster said:

My mistake. I was thinking about the Big Bang theory but wrote ToE.

 

Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.  

 

How about the Big Bang?  As close to 100% as it’s possible for anything to be in science. The most profound evidence is that everything in the Universe appears to be expanding at every point from what must have been originally a central point. And if you compress all the matter and energy in the Universe back to that single point of origin, logic implies that there must have been a single moment when this “expansion” began. And this explosive/expansive moment is referred to as the Big Bang. Also one in which both time and space also originated. The Big Bang, a day without yesterday.

 

The nature of the universe at that time requires a union of currently-disparate parts of physics, and nobody knows what that will look like. But there’s no chance that unified physics will overturn the basic observations of an expanding, billions-of-years old universe:  This is the consensus of effectively every single scientist in the field.

 

 

[yodsak]

The smoking gun is the cosmic microwave background (CMB). When that was discovered, in the early 1960s, the debate was over in scientific circles. Since then, it has been measured with ever better precision; likewise, the cosmic redshift (which was what first got people thinking about the big bang) has been measured with ever better precision. All results are consistent with a hot, dense early universe. None are consistent with any proposed alternative theory.

 

What is speculated is an explosion of some sort from who knows where.  A cosmic gap, which of course the theist fills with their god.  ''An old-fashioned and doomed theological approach, but one that is nevertheless very much alive in the minds of many’’.

[yodsak]

In the theory of the Big Bang there is no talk of gods, and no bibles are used. Cosmologists aren't looking for higher powers, intelligent designers, extraterrestrials, or anything else that could be found in the science fiction section, because they’re not dealing with science fiction.

 

 Did a god create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur 13.8 billion years ago?

 ‘’I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but i think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator. It is not necessary to invoke god to light the blue touch paper and set the universe alight’’ 

 — Stephen Hawking.   

[Sunmaster]

@yodsak

 

If you really must copy and paste every one of your comments, at least have the courtesy to add the links where you copy them from.

Cheers

[PGSan]

3 hours ago, yodsak said:

Among scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 98% say they believe humans evolved over time.  

That percentage seems very low for such an organisation  And what scientific beliefs do the other 2% entertain?

[PGSan]

3 hours ago, yodsak said:

logic implies that there must have been a single moment when this “expansion” began.

No, this cannot be done by such logic. Because ‘a single moment when’ is logically a statement about ‘time’, not about ‘space-time’; and ‘time’ does not really exist, and certainly does not behave according to your logic at small distances (in space-time) away from the singularity.  Note also that this  singularity is not in space-time and no one knows anything about points very close to it; but the current logic of physics suggests that there will always be a non-zero distance below which we will know nothing.

[PGSan]

I definitely believe in ‘why’, but maybe I should be asking:  Why do I believe in ‘why’?

Wonderful stuff, logic!

[Sunmaster]

1 hour ago, PGSan said:

I definitely believe in ‘why’, but maybe I should be asking:  Why do I believe in ‘why’?

Wonderful stuff, logic!

I'm facing more and more the question "Who is asking these questions?", "Who is using this body to move around in 3D?", "Who is behind the little 'I'?"
And I feel the answer to those questions will turn around everything that I think I know...if I ever get to it.

But then again "WHO is seeking that answer?" ???? 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

But then again "WHO is seeking that answer?" ???? 

According to the Bhagavad Gita, 1 on 100, and in this 1%, the 1% finds the answer.

I have no way to verify if those numbers are exact, but experience is telling me that they must be not too far from the truth.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/7/2020 at 12:09 AM, VincentRJ said:

Obviously I never read such magazines. However, if you want to be useful, please try to explain what's happening, and I'd like some link to such magazines and any scientific article which addresses the phenomenon and explains what's happening in the brain.

I can't give a scientific explanation but try google.

It's just a simple trick that someone discovered.

 

However, when I was young I discovered that if I pressed on my eyes I could see wonderful things. I learned much later it was from pressure on the retina- if I did it now I'd probably detach my retinas.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, PGSan said:

I definitely believe in ‘why’, but maybe I should be asking:  Why do I believe in ‘why’?

Wonderful stuff, logic!

God is beyond logic. The creator of life the universe and everything is not confined to primitive human definitions.

[thaibeachlovers]

20 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Our "local" supercluster...puts our trivialities in perspective, doesn't it?

 

It constantly amazes me that some on here keep trying to define the creator of all that in human terms.

[mauGR1]

45 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

It constantly amazes me that some on here keep trying to define the creator of all that in human terms.

Even more amazing when they try to belittle us believers blathering something about the tooth fairy and the spaghetti monster ????

[thaibeachlovers]

21 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

Our "local" supercluster...puts our trivialities in perspective, doesn't it?

 

Thank you for that picture. I've saved it and hope to use it every time someone tries to define the creator in human terms. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

[luckyluke]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Even more amazing when they try to belittle us believers blathering something about the tooth fairy and the spaghetti monster ????

I can accept that there is a possibility of an existence of a creator, even that we may be a product of an extra terrestrial civilization.

But a tooth fairy and a spaghetti monster seems ridicule to me.

I don't know why I am thinking this way.

I suppose everyone has his own standards of what he is prepare to consider what is possible and what is really not.

Anyone an explanation ?

 

[mauGR1]

4 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I can accept that there is a possibility of an existence of a creator, even that we may be a product of an extra terrestrial civilization.

But a tooth fairy and a spaghetti monster seems ridicule to me.

I don't know why I am thinking this way.

I suppose everyone has his own standards of what he is prepare to consider what is possible and what is really not.

Anyone an explanation ?

 

After seeing "impossible" things with my own eyes, I have no doubt that everything is possible.

It's also possible for 2 persons, or 2 parties, to be exactly in the right, and yet get into a fight.

Such is life.

[luckyluke]

10 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

After seeing "impossible" things with my own eyes, I have no doubt that everything is possible.

Sorry to be annoying, but to clearly understand you,

does "everything" include for example the existence of Santa Claus, The Loch Ness Monster, BigFoot...

If it is the case, you have indeed a very wide view of what is possible.

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

10 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Sorry to be annoying, but to clearly understand you,

does "everything" include for example the existence of Santa Claus, The Loch Ness Monster, BigFoot...

If it is the case, you have indeed a very wide view of what is possible.

 

 

 

Not annoying at all.

It's a fair question, which is not easy to answer in few words, but I try.

As i said many times, I think that thoughts are real, as real as the chair I'm sitting on, but just on a different state of existence.

Yet, for a thought to appear as matter, in the material world, it has to meet certain conditions.

[luckyluke]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

Not annoying at all.

It's a fair question, which is not easy to answer in few words, but I try.

As i said many times, I think that thoughts are real, as real as the chair I'm sitting on, but just on a different state of existence.

Yet, for a thought to appear as matter, in the material world, it has to meet certain conditions.

 I am sorry this is too complicate for me.

I was expecting something simple as :

I believe that many things are possible, but I exclude the existence of Santa Claus, Big Foot...

I believe everything is possible including the existence of the Loch Ness Monster...

 

 

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 I am sorry this is too complicate for me.

I was expecting something simple as :

I believe that many things are possible, but I exclude the existence of Santa Claus, Big Foot...

I believe everything is possible including the existence of the Loch Ness Monster...

 

 

Well, I didn't expect a confused emoji, after answering your question as politely and as clearly as I can.

And it's not the first time.

Although it's certainly allowed by forum rules, I consider this as the worst trolling, and an insult.

But I take the full blame, it's my mistake to expect fairness and good manners from certain people.

I will ignore further replies from you for today ☺

[transam]

2 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Well, I didn't expect a confused emoji, after answering your question as politely and as clearly as I can.

And it's not the first time.

Although it's certainly allowed by forum rules, I consider this as the worst trolling, and an insult.

But I take the full blame, it's my mistake to expect fairness and good manners from certain people.

I will ignore further replies from you for today ☺

Surely posting a "confused" emijon sends a message without using words, folk call it trolling, but I use it to actually show I am confused.

 

On this thread, I find most of it confusing, but then I am just a bloke that thinks you are born to die, the same as any other of earths creatures.....????

 

I don't think those dinosaurs, whose millions of year old bones keep being found,  thought any different to me, though you may think I am a reincarnated one....????

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Surely posting a "confused" emijon sends a message without using words, folk call it trolling, but I use it to actually show I am confused.

 

On this thread, I find most of it confusing, but then I am just a bloke that thinks you are born to die, the same as any other of earths creatures.....????

 

I don't think those dinosaurs, whose millions of year old bones keep being found,  thought any different to me, though you may think I am a reincarnated one....????

Well, I enjoy a fair discussion, if you say my opinion confuses you, I can try to explain better, that's it. That's what civilised people do imho.

If you serially throw confused emojis at my posts, you won't get much respect from me.

Just saying.